rest in his splendid bosom with Isaac, by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Spirit be glory, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
NOTICE CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING HOMILY
Savile offers this judgment regarding this homily: "The concise style and thorny argumentation do not savor of the free flow of Chrysostom’s eloquence. However, it is certainly a learned work, and it smacks of antiquity." Dupin thinks it belongs to Severian, bishop of Gabala: if there is anything that could suggest this, it is the frequent skirmishes against the Anomoeans and Arians. But since those disputes raged both at Antioch and at Constantinople, it was as possible for another as for Severian to undertake these arguments. A
ON THE SAYING OF ABRAHAM, "PUT THY HAND UNDER MY THIGH" (Gen. 24.2), AND ON VARIOUS MARTYRS.
1. I marveled with you, O lovers of Christ, at the new mysteries of evangelical grace being preached through the Old Testament; I was enlightened with you in my mind, as I contemplated the apostolic character shining forth in the prophetic utterances. I acknowledge the gain, that I might receive the reward. I saw stupendous mysteries of the Old Testament being preached: Abraham swearing by his thigh, and proposing the thigh, but testifying to the Creator of heaven and earth by his word. For he says, "Put thy hand under my thigh, and swear unto me by the Lord, the God of heaven and the earth." For a question arises. For if it is spoken of on account of the seed that was to bloom from the loins of Jacob, according to that which says, "A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins," how then shall the oath be found against the Savior? B Since Isaac had already been born, and the seed had gone forth, and when the oath was made, there was no hope of the seed being in the thigh of Abraham. For Abraham had within himself the saving seed, of which Paul says: "To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made." And considering the letter and interpreting it, he says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many; but as of one: 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ" (Gal. 3.16). It is proven, therefore, that Christ is the seed of Abraham according to the flesh; and reasonably the oath was made by the seed. But the question is, how did he swear by the thigh, as if the saving blossom had already gone forth? But since that member had once been an instrument, and the divine seed had once dwelt there, he swears as if by a temple. C But he who swears by the temple, swears by Him who dwelt therein. Who bears witness to this word? The Savior Himself says to the Pharisees: "Woe unto you, Pharisees, fools and blind, that you say, 'Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.' And what immediately? Fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? Therefore I say unto you: he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by Him that dwelleth therein" (Matt. 23.16, 17, 21). For just as a royal house, once it has received a king, even if the king should depart to a second or third place, the place is once for all consecrated by having received a king; so too the members of the patriarch, by having once become instruments of the coming dispensation, were a temple of the promised blessing. And the oath is not unjust, but the testimony is true. He swears, therefore, by the seed, and explains what the seed is: "For put thy hand," he says, "under my thigh, and swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and of the earth." Therefore our Savior is the God of heaven and of the earth. D For this reason also in the prophet Zechariah, when various visions were sent and appeared to the holy man, this one thing became a part of a vision: "And I lifted up my eyes," he says, "and looked; and behold a candlestick all of gold, and seven lamps upon the top of it, and seven pipes to the lamps, and seven lamps, and two olive branches, one on the right side of the candlestick, and one on the left." And I said to the angel that spoke to me: "Lord, what are these?" (Zech. 4.2-4). Since it was a vision, showing one thing and producing another for interpretation, and the things appearing were not meaningful of themselves, but indicative of other things, the Prophet asks: "Lord, what are these?" If he were asking about the appearance, he was asking badly. Do you not know what a candlestick is, and what an olive tree is? But the Prophet seeks not the things appearing, but the things contemplated. "What are these?" And the angel [says], "Knowest thou not what these are? No, my Lord." He ingenuously confesses his ignorance, and is instructed by the Truth. He is also a brother to the eunuch who heard from Philip: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" And he, ingenuously: "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8.30, 31). "Knowest thou not what these are?" And he says, "No, my Lord." "Who are these two olive branches, which are on the right and on the left of the lampstand?" "These," he says, interpreting the olive trees; he interprets also the candlestick along with the olive trees, what it is. Attend carefully. The candlestick stood, the branches stood by the candlestick; but the angel, interpreting, does not show the olive trees standing by the candlestick, but by God, so that the candlestick is a type of God, or rather of our Savior, and of His incarnate dispensation. "Knowest thou not what these are? No, my Lord." He says: "These are the two sons of fatness, which stand by the Lord of the whole earth," not by the candlestick, according to the appearance, but by the Lord of the whole earth. He introduces a seven-branched candlestick on account of the Lord's incarnate dispensation. For the flesh of the Master was a true candlestick, which showed the illuminations of the holy Spirit with sevenfold grace. For "there shall come forth," says Isaiah, "a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise out of it; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him" (Isa. 11.1, 2). Which? That which is manifold in its operations, and great in its nature. "The Spirit of God shall rest." Here he interprets the substance, the Spirit himself
A, and the seven graces of the Holy Spirit, which rest in the Lord’s body, he expresses by the figure of the seven lamps. "The reason for the Holy Spirit." Whence he adds: "These are the seven eyes of the Lord, which look upon all the earth" (Zach. 4.10). Do you see how the truth declares itself, and has no need of human reasoning? But they themselves "stand by the Lord of all the earth." Zacharias calls the Lord the Savior of all the earth according to the fleshly dispensation. Peter, the head of the apostles, disputing with Cornelius, says: "We know the thing which came to pass in Judæa, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10.37-38). And again the same: "The thing which came to pass throughout all Judæa, and the Word, which God sent, announcing peace to the children of Israel: this is the Lord of all" (Ibid. vv. 37, 36). The prophet calls Him the Lord of the earth, the evangelist, Peter, calls Him the Lord of all: "This is the Lord of all, of all things which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, visible and invisible; This is the Lord of all." Whence John also speaks in harmony, saying: "He who comes from above, is above all" (John 3.31). B It is worth while, however, to weigh diligently, and to solve the objection of the heretics: since they, following the apostolic dictum poorly, and not understanding it piously, and interpreting it perversely—the heretics, I say, think that He received as a reward for the cross that He was above all, and that because He suffered and endured the cross, for that reason He was superexalted by God. They pursue the word of the Apostle, they have followed the dictum, but do not explore the intent. But the matter is thus: "He humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God hath highly exalted him" (Phil. 2.8); for the torment, indeed, giving Him the exaltation as a reward for the punishment. You speak thus plainly, heretic: "And gave him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth" (Ibid. vv. 9, 10). Do you see, he says, that He was exalted after the cross? Do you see, he says, that He received a reward after the passion, namely, exaltation? If, therefore, He was exalted after the cross, as you say, why did John the Baptist before the passion, before the cross, say: "He who comes from above, is above all" (John 3.31)? For this reason Jesus, speaking to the Jews, was saying: "Amen, amen I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8.58). For He is always, and was, and will be; and will have no end. C But it is necessary, brethren, to render what is owed, and not to deny promises out of an occasion for digressions. Let the glory of Christ be preached, and the loftiness of the Father: let the Holy Spirit be preached, the Only-Begotten be exalted, the Father be glorified. Let no one think that the dignity is overturned if we mention the Spirit first, then the Son, afterward the Father: or first the Son, then the Father. This dignity, indeed, has no order, not as being unordered, but as surpassing order. For as God has no figure, not because He is formless, but because He cannot be expressed by figure; and as God has no form, not as being shapeless, but as incorporeal: so the divine nature has no order, not because it is unordered, but because it surpasses order. I call the Father first, not first in order, but in mode of understanding, because He is the begetter of the Only-Begotten, because He is the root of the holy fruit, because He is the eternal light, the offspring of eternal light. Therefore, my brother, if anyone in our age were to dare today in the Church, in the orthodox people, in a people imbued with true knowledge, to place the Son before the Father, would he not be ill-spoken of among the orthodox? Therefore if anyone dared to say in the Church, "May Christ bless you and His Father," would he be thought to pervert the order, because he did not place the root before the fruit? Therefore if anyone said, "The Son will save us and the Father," would he be thought to introduce confusion, or to overstep the order? Truly these things seem so to iniquitous judges of things: but with truth as judge, and with the apostolic sentence prevailing, it makes no difference if the Son be mentioned before the Father and the Spirit. Hear Paul, the great herald, writing to the Thessalonians with these words: "But may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, sanctify D you" (1 Thess. 5.23). First the Son, and the soul filled with holy light. For in that divine nature there is no order: but whatever you place first, it is understood to be of equal honor; what is second, is not therefore less; what is third, is not affected by insult: Paul brings forth the names indiscriminately, because he knows the nature is indivisible, and the kingdom inseparable. Let us indeed interrogate Paul, whence he received occasions for speaking so of God, or for glorifying Him thus, or for placing the Son before the Father, not in order or power, but by word only. Why did he mention the Son first, then the Father? Let Paul himself speak in his own defense, and for the instruction of the Church: "I speak nothing of myself, Christ dictates these dogmas through me: Do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?" (2 Cor. 13.3). Christ speaks through me, do not accuse the voice of the Lord, do not rebuke it. But can you perhaps not understand Christ speaking through me? Hear Him speaking simply of Himself. For if the names of the holy Trinity were subject to order, and if what is brought forward first, were first in virtue, and the second indeed second in order, and the third in an inferior place, the Savior, who is Truth itself, would not have mixed the order of truth. And where did the Savior mention Himself first, and then the Father? "If anyone," He says, "hath kept my commandment, I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him" (John 14.23). Since the Father excels in order, as the heretics say, and they wish the Son to be as a certain royal prefect with the Father, let us ask this of them, whether any prefect would dare to say of a king, "I and the king decree." They are, understand. Or has the created nature set itself before the uncreated? The created nature, as you say, has dared to say, numbering itself with incomparable excellence: "We will come, and we will make our abode with him"? For by that, "I and the Father," He showed the difference of names; but by that, "We will come, and we will make an abode," He demonstrated the equality of operation. Thus also in another place, when the apostle Philip was saying, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us" (John 14.8), the Savior answers: "For so long a time am I with you, and have you not known me, Philip?" (Ibid. vv. 9, 10). The answer is contrary to the question. Did I interrogate concerning you? I said, "Show us the Father"; he indeed says, "For so long a time am I with you, and have you not known me?" If He is dissimilar, how is He known through the dissimilar? how is the greater discerned through the small? how is he who supereminently excels in dignity discerned through another? how is the Creator through a minister? "For so long a time am I with you." He did not say, "The Father is with you," but, "I am." For Me being, the Father is. "For so long a time am I with you, and have you not known me?" Beautiful is that, "Have you not known me?" He says, "Show," but the Savior says, "Have you not known me?" so that He might teach that God is comprehended not by sight, but by knowledge. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father?" Again, "I," and afterward "the Father": "I in the Father, and the Father in me." How therefore do you say, "Show us the Father"? as if He were saying, "Why as if another did you hope to see Him?" "I in the Father, and the Father in me." And the Son is known through the Father, and the Father through the Son. How do you say, "Show us," as if you were seeking to see a Father other than me? "I in the Father, and the Father in me"; not as if nature were confused, nor as if vial were placed in vial. "I in the Father, and the Father in me." He does not speak of the conjunction of bodies, but the contemplation of the senses of the mind. "I in the Father; for the Father is not known without the Son." "And the Father in me; for the Son does not appear without the Father": just as the mind is considered in the word, and the word in the mind. Whence can they know your mind, unless through your word? Your word declares your mind; and your mind in turn is the interpreter of your word. It may be that one perceives the word, and does not understand the sentiment, nor perceive the sense, unless the word explains it. For that reason the evangelist says, "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1.1), so that He might show the impassibility of the birth. What the word is toward the mind, that is the Only-Begotten God the Word
toward the Father; and the marvelous thing is (for I shall repeat some of those things previously said), the argument was formerly with us that we must learn things above us from things among us. Our word is within the mind that begat it. Is it visible with a visible thing? It is invisible with an invisible thing, intelligible with an intelligible thing, incorporeal with an incorporeal thing. And when the word is about to proceed, it moves to the mouth, and there it is clothed with a voice, not because a different nature provides the voice for it, but because the word itself weaves the expression for itself. And being invisible in its nature while it is with the father—I mean, with the mind—it is clothed with the voice and proceeds, and becomes clear to all, being before this hidden. Then, having proceeded, it fills all things, and does not stand apart from the mind that begat it. For who among men, when he has spoken a word and taught others, empties himself of the word? If I utter something, and it proceeds to the ears of others, have I left my mind empty? Has the word not proceeded outward and remained within? Has it not filled thousands of ears, and yet not departed from its begetter? If, therefore, A the human word is sent forth by its begetter, and proceeds outward, and does not abandon the begetter, did the Word of God, since He appeared in the world for our sakes, leave the paternal bosom empty? By no means. And what is more, thousands hear one and the same Word of God, and while going into so many, He is not divided, but is whole with each of us who hear, and whole with all. And if the Father begat by way of flowing and cutting, and was divided and separated, as they say, let the Savior say to them: "Search the Scriptures" (John 5.39). Search, do not corrupt. Search, not by reading simply, but by tracking down the depths of the thoughts. God gave the Scriptures, but He did not strip away the theories; rather, He left them to your course, that He might test your gratitude and see your zeal, that He might see if you serve the Scriptures or do violence to them. For as God set forth the nature of things but hid the arts—and all things were indeed proposed by God, but art was brought forth from human intelligence—so also with the Scriptures. But to clarify, God gave stones, God gave the nature of stones, not a finished building; He gave grain, not bread; He gave the grape, not wine; He gave the nature of wool, not a garment; He gave land producing gold, but not gold. Why? Because while making man in the image of God, He shares the creation; He Himself creates, and by that man’s art He regulates the creation. Since He makes man in His image, He shares with him the nobility of the things that have come to be. He Himself works as a creator and as God, having brought all things from non-being into being; He Himself introduces the nature that was not; but He permits the image to adorn the things that have been made. Consider who was the man that first fashioned a plow, how he conceived of cutting wood, of inserting iron in the middle, of binding it with harmony, of devising a yoke, of straightening a beam, of gathering oxen together. The wood was there, the iron was there, but the art was not present. Who told you, O man, that a plow is fashioned in this way? Who suggested to you to soften the untamable nature of iron with fire? Who showed you how to work a small needle out of such thickness? Who devised in your mind to construct the framework of doors out of stones? From where did you learn the design of roofs, tell me, O man? "A great deal," he says, "as if you are inexperienced, you are astonished." You see the image of God and you ask to learn? For this reason, brother, in every place human nature, imitating its own Master, adorns nature with art. But as long as it is measured by a standard, it is beautiful; but when it oversteps the measures, it is insulted by lack of measure. For instance, he devised how he would subject the ox and the horse and the camel, and all the animals given for service; but from greed he devised to mix things against nature. He mixed a donkey with a horse, though God did not want this, but from the beginning had said, "Let the earth bring forth quadrupeds and creeping things according to their kind" (Gen. 1.24). Greed mixed things against nature. God, punishing the lack of measure, made the offspring B sterile. Hence, a mule does not beget, because it is not from those things that were made then, those that heard, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1.28). Nevertheless, even before He makes it, He allows the image what it wants, so that He may show its power and punish its lack of measure.
4. Again, the lack of measure of desire undertook to make the form of a man, imitating, he says, God working; and he makes an image of the body, and does violence to nature by art; and since he heard that God made man from the earth, and modeled him, art, being at a loss to imitate its own Master according to the truth, provides for the impossible by its reasonings, and gathers roots, and mixes colors, and imitates an eye that sees and one that does not, opened, an ear spread out but not hearing, nostrils stretched out in a straight line but not able to draw breath, a mouth modeled but deprived of voice, feet beautifully regulated, but not possessing aptitude for running—in order to show what He permitted to the image, so that the energy of God might be shown. But He did not permit it to grasp everything, so that it might not enter into arrogance and despair of itself and its own salvation. Nevertheless, He permitted painters to make things from the earth, so that He might put to shame those who deny that God modeled man from the earth. But art imitated the creator. It saw a body cut through by iron; for instance, a part of the flesh was cut away by iron; the hollowed-out part needs to be filled, the eaten-away flesh needs to be built up; the artist is not one who models flesh. What then? The art of the image, imitating the nature of the Master, ran to the earth, from which the body is, prepares medicines, makes plasters, and one cleanses, and one builds. And see the marvelous thing. God sits as a father and an instructor, seeing the works of His own C image. And as a father asks his son, "What does this thought want?" not so that he may learn, but so that he may test; so the fountain of good things, always instructing its own image, brings questions to it. He brought to Adam the irrational animals, the birds, to see what he would call them, not so that He who foresees all might learn, but so that He might test the image, if it was apt for understanding. Architecture entered, carpentry came, navigation, metalwork, the understanding of stars, not the curious kind, but that which sees the position, that which is useful to those sailing, that which observes the risings of the stars, and knows the time for a smooth voyage, not inventing birth-charts and mythologizing fate, but that which follows the voice of the Master—"Let there be lights in the heavens, and let them be for signs and for days and for seasons" (Gen. 1.14). The image came forth and tracks down nature; it seeks herbs, it finds them; it seeks roots, it catches hold of them; the craftsman of all things is found, and the inventor of all things. But so that it might not think that it found this of itself, and not by the power of Him who put the power D into nature, He shows by one word that God is the teacher of our nature for all these things. The blessed Solomon came forth saying: "For He Himself gave me the true knowledge of the things that exist, to know the structure of the world and the energy of the elements, the beginnings and ends and middle of times, the cycles of the year, and the positions of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts, the differences of plants and the powers of roots, as many things as are hidden and manifest, I learned," says I, the man (Sap. 7.17-21). How did the image learn? For the craftsman of all things taught me wisdom. He taught you the measures, He who is beyond measure. For see how human art poured out into many unmeasured things, and it was an image of God. It conceived how the organ of the voice is rendered, and observing nature, it imitates nature by art. It devises the nature of the organ, of this multi-reeded organ, the one woven from many reeds. And see what it does, how art made itself precise toward nature. It devised bellows, not bringing forth the spirit from themselves, but being expanded and borrowing foreign spirit. Then from the two bellows into a spirit-receptacle, passing the spirit into all the reeds, and it devised that the spirit flow, and that there be no voice, until the finger shapes the tone. And from where comes this, O man? From where did you construct the organ, and the receptacle of spirit? Why does the flowing spirit not produce a sound
when the pipes are opened? It is much, he says, that you are amazed, because you are unskilled. A little before I was saying: I am an image, I have looked upon my own nature, and I have imitated myself. How have you imitated yourself? I saw also in myself that breath which I received borrow: for often the thorax, expanded and compressed, receives a breath of air. I see two arteries sending forth breath, through the mouth as if through a channel. I see the breath proceed, and the word not brought forth, unless the tongue shapes the sound. I have seen myself, I say, and I have emulated [me], from myself I discovered the art of the Lord, as David says: Thy knowledge is become wonderful from me (Ps. CXXXVIII, 6). I saw myself, and praised the Artificer: I imitated my Lord: I expressed nature through art. For the organ is not base, unless it is made an instrument of base songs: just as divine [things] were once sent forth; they were not profane, unless such things were discovered afterwards for pleasure; yet if they had been sacred, as from the beginning, they would not be profane. Wherefore David [says], Praise him in the psalter and harp, in strings and organ, in well-sounding cymbals, in cymbals of jubilation, in timbrel and choir (Ps. CL, 3, 4). Would that, therefore, that invention had not turned to pleasure and lasciviousness, nor to the worship of idols! But if he had offered to God the fruit of those things which man had devised, the skill of the art would not have been reproached, if it had been put to the knowledge of the Lord. The harp would not have been reproached, if God had been preached through the harp. Therefore the blessed David, when he had fashioned the harp, and did not sing base hymns through the harp, but modulated sacred songs, it came to pass that his harp, consecrated to God, put demons to flight. For when a demon was agitating, beating, and casting down Saul the king, when, he says, the blessed David played the harp, Saul was at ease, and was relieved (1 Reg. XVI, 23). Do you see that every art, if it be harmonized to the pleasure of God, has nothing of evil, nay [that] all things would have proceeded for us according to desire?
C Coming to imitation, have I advanced? That we may use the Lord’s voice against the heretics (against the Anomoeans). Which [voice]? Hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth (Luc. XII, 56): you have discovered arts, you have brought forth many inventions, and you insult the Lord and Maker of all? You, through your art, have imitated the Lord, and have been announced as like to Him according to the image and likeness, and do you declare me, the Creator, unlike to the Begetter? I delivered you who were subject to sin, and do you call me, the Lord of all, into subjection? Yes, he says, it is written, that the Son shall be subjected (I Cor. XV, 28). That indeed has been said, but not our words, but preached by God. Now, truly, that I may follow that saying, I grant to those who have heard, that they may understand that very thing. That I may follow that saying, therefore, will He be subjected in that future creation, in the resurrection? But then you will be equal to the angels. For the Savior says, In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God (Matth. XXII, 30). You are to be raised from your order to a higher one, and will the Son come from lordship into subjection? Have you not heard Paul saying: For the creature was made subject to vanity, because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God (Rom. VIII, 20, 21)? The creature, heaven, earth, and all the rest. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly. To what vanity? Human. Why does he call it vanity? Because it degenerated from that image into the likeness of brutes. For Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccle. I, 2). And David: But yet all is vanity, every man living (Ps. XXXVIII, 6). To this vanity, therefore, to corruptible man, the creature was subjected. How subjected? The sun rises for the unworthy, fountains flow for the ungrateful, the earth brings forth its fruits for the wicked. The creature, therefore, was subjected to vanity not willingly. For if it were by its own will, it would not be willingly subjected to the unworthy; but it is subjected on account of Him who subjected it. To what end? In hope (Rom. VIII, 20). D What hope? Because, as Paul testifies, it shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. Is the creature then brought into servitude? Search the Scriptures (Joan. V, 39), that you may not slander; search that you may not inquire too curiously; search believing, not contradicting. From where did you learn to say this, Was He who was, begotten, or [was] He who was not? From where did you learn to say, To beget and to create with God is the same thing? Did Peter teach you these things? Did Paul suggest them? But the Savior, you will say, delivered this to us. Read the Scripture, and revere the law. Furthermore, he is not even consistent in his own sayings. For when he inquires, When He was, was He begotten, or when He was not? he lies. For he examines that which he does not confess. First confess, that He was begotten, and then ask, Was it He who was, or He who was not? You deny the thing, and explore the words? Why do you move a question about Him whom you do not confess to be begotten? Was He who was, begotten, or He who was not? First state that He was begotten, and then inquire. You deny the nature, and explore the words? To create and to beget are they the same? From where the Son? let some one of them say. Unless the order of the two is first made clear, and the mind is in harmony, I cannot say that to discern and to see are one thing: for I said [they are] one. But if I should say, to hear and to see are one, then I seem to say things that are disparate, as far as sight [is concerned], but in agreement, as far as hearing [is concerned]: because with God it is the same thing. From where do you know that to create and to beget is the same? For if He begat and created, you rightly say it is the same. But if, according to you, He never begat, but created, how can to beget and to create be the same? Futile words, vain words, the truth of things stands. Why do they cavil about that begetting and creating? God, they say, is simple, and not like us, who beget through one part, and create through another; for example, we beget with genital members, we create with the hand. But not so God: for He is simple and devoid of figure: but in the manner in which He begets, in that He creates. When you discourse about invisible things, inflated by that inopportune and vain philosophy, let one of the things which fall under our view persuade you: truly, in quite the same way, it would not be a fine thing if things that were made had the same power. Take my hand which falls under our view, that an argument may be drawn from visible to invisible things. This hand, since it is one in itself, and performs different [actions], cannot exhibit those things which are perfected under one kind of thinking. For example, by the same hand I make and I destroy; therefore, because it is the same hand that makes and destroys, are both the same thing? Yet they are not the same thing. Since those men say that we beget in one way, and work in another, I will also say, I create with the same way, with the same hand I destroy, and I strike, and I cure. Will it therefore be the same thing to strike and to cure? With the same hand I push a man standing, and I raise one who has fallen, with the same hand I place a pebble, with the same I resolve [it]. Will, therefore, to place a pebble and to resolve be the same? Does not this exceed all madness? Are not these fables and trifles? Does not the spirit of Paul groan? Does not Peter feel indignation, when with so many words they rave against divine doctrine? You have repudiated Christ, and have embraced the teaching of others. Have you not heard Christ saying, He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words (Marc. VIII, 38)? Many often confess Christ, whom, however, the doctrine of Him shames. The heretic confesses Christ, but he moves a discourse about the Father and the Son, and he is ashamed of the saying, and says: Did He beget, who is without passion? Therefore by efflux, therefore by operation. They catch at words, and do not accurately examine the power: for vanity has undermined all things. But what I have often said, these are the principles of the heretics, these are the manifest fountains. The Church has this heretical doctrine, they say. Tell me, who has supposed Him to be begotten. Who is the author of this, which you think to be heresy? From the beginning the apostles preached; after the apostles the Nicene synod confirmed it. But that it might be manifest that this was the faith of the whole world, out of so many assembled, only seven dissented, who also were cast out. The whole world consented, because it was from the apostolic [tradition].
As many as Abraham campaigned against the aliens, so many did Christ campaign against the heresies; as many as Abraham campaigned against the aliens, or rather as many as he campaigned with himself, so many did Christ arm with Himself against the heresies. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were at Nicaea; and there were three hundred and eighteen house-born servants of Abraham. Why did he say "house-born"? For he also had [servants] bought with silver; but he demonstrated the genuineness of his household. And now Christ did not arm just everyone, B but those house-born, who preach Him who is from Him who is, the Living from the Living, the Light from the Light. Why do you say light and light? What is the difference between life and life? What is the distinction? And what is marvelous, the Father is called light, but the Son with an addition. John says: *God is light* (1 John 1:5); but concerning the Son: *He was the true light* (John 1:9). The Father is called light absolutely. For since heretics do not quickly campaign against the divinity of the Father—even if everything dared against Christ refers the insult to the Father C—the Scripture constructs what is confessed with simple speech, while it fortifies what is in doubt with the truth. The Father is light, and not with any addition; for it is enough that, being preached, He is known. The Son is light. In order that no one might say that the one is intellectual light, but the other spurious, it says "true light." Again, so that no one might say: just as the sun is light, and the moon is light, but the one is a great light, the other a small light; so the Father is light, but great; so the Son is light, but small—so that he may not say these things, D Isaiah anticipates: *Land of Zabulon, and land of Nephthalim, way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people sitting in darkness, saw a great light* (Is. 9:1-2). If God is light, and great light, God is great. If God is light, as it is written by John that *God is light*; if God is the great light, God is great. For great is He who begat, and great is He who was begotten; great is the root, great the fruit; great the light, great the radiance. I do not know small and great, but I know one great God, the Trinity. *Great is God; God is great*. The eternal, says Isaiah; and Paul: *Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ* (Tit. 2:13). Great is God, great is the Lord, as David says: *Great is our Lord, and great is His power* (Ps. 146:5). But since strength and power are the same (for Christ is the power of God), *Great is our Lord*; as if to say: Great is the Father, and great is His power. *Great is our Lord, and great is His power*. Great power is the Son, since the Holy Spirit is also great power, as the Savior says to the apostles: *Sit in Jerusalem, until you are clothed with power from on high* (Luke 24:49). But see how they sophistically treat the power. It is, he says, the power, as having the promise of wealth. For the Spirit, he says, is not called God, but an earnest of God; and how? Listen: The earnest is a part of the gift, not the whole gift, but a part of the whole. For it is written, he says, concerning the apostles: *Sealed in the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance* (Eph. 1:13-14). See, he says, that it is a gift of God, and not God. Therefore, a gift and an earnest is a part of the whole. If, then, you see God also called a part, and not the whole, and a gift, and not the whole—for what does it say? *The earnest of the inheritance*. Who is the earnest? Who is the inheritance? Who is the earnest of the inheritance? Or is the inheritance a gift of the one who gave the inheritance, not the one inherited himself? Therefore it says: *The earnest of our inheritance is the Spirit*. If calling the Spirit an earnest scandalizes your soul, what will you do if you see God also called an inheritance? Listen carefully, how He is not only inherited, but also is Himself called the inheritance. Hear David saying: *The Lord is the portion of my inheritance* (Ps. 15:5). God is the portion of the inheritance; the Spirit is the earnest of the inheritance. If being called a portion of an inheritance makes the Son or the Father lesser, it also lessens the dignity of the Spirit to be called an earnest of an inheritance. David says elsewhere: *The Lord is my portion in the land of the living* (Ps. 141:6). My portion, of whom? If he is one, he is not the whole. If you are a hunter of words, and not an examiner of meanings, nothing prevents you from blaspheming even God the Father, whom you think you worship. *The Lord is the portion of my inheritance*, and, *My portion in the land of the living*. Why then is the self-existent power called a portion and an inheritance? Because we receive God by our own choice, and each one—one chooses error, another accepts God—and the chosen God becomes the portion of the faithful. What do I mean? It is written for the Levites: *There shall be no portion for you in the land; for the Lord is their portion* (Num. 18:20). If God being called a portion does not scandalize you, why does the Holy Spirit being called an earnest scandalize you?
7. Let us surround every confusion of unbelief, and let us accept the unconfused faith. How long will you burden your heart, heretic, like Pharaoh? How long will you not weigh the divine words? You have a balanced mind within yourself; weigh the words of the Savior; understand the things concerning the flesh, understand the things concerning the divinity; understand the things concerning the dignity, understand the things concerning the dispensation, so that it may not be said concerning you what is spoken in the prophet concerning the Chanaan: Chanaan, in his hand is a balance of injustice; he loved to oppress (Osee 12:7). And David: *Yet vain are the sons of men; the sons of heretics [are] in a balance to do injustice* (Ps. 61:10). Do you hold a balance, and do you destroy justice? Look at the balance of the Savior: *I and the Father are one* (John 10:30). Where is the inequality? Look at the scales of the divine word: *He who has seen me, has seen my Father* (John 14:9). Where is the one who brings it down, where the one who brings it up? Look at the Father setting free, and the Son setting free, as He Himself says: *If the Son does not set you free, you are slaves* (John 8:36); and Paul saying: *The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free* (Rom 8:2). If the Father sets free, if the Son sets free, if the Spirit sets free, where is the slave? But may it be that we all, having escaped the yoke of sin and the yoke of heresy, have faith unshaken. But let not the heretics be ignorant of what is said. For I have heard many saying: "Why does he not discourse to us on morals? Why not concerning manners and decorum?" They do not say this desiring it, but fleeing the refutation. Do you want true correction? You have heard many times of the great teaching; you have heard concerning morals; I have corrected your morality; you have heard concerning manners; I have set your manner in order. But what was said by the Lord: *John came, neither eating nor drinking; they say: He has a demon; the Son of man came eating and drinking; they say: A man gluttonous and a wine-bibber* (Matt. 11:18-19). Nothing pleases wickedness. If you speak concerning morality, it says: "I ask you concerning faith"; if you speak concerning the faith, it says: "I wanted to hear concerning manners." For this reason, the Savior, slapping the childishness of wickedness, was saying: *We have piped to you, and you have not danced; we have mourned, and you have not lamented* (Matt. 11:17). We have piped: with a holy word, with a radiant word, you heard the restoration of morals; We have mourned: with a painful word, sorrowful, mourning your unbelief; and you have not heard, nor, having heard the things concerning you, have you danced, nor, having heard the things against heresies, have you mourned. The Baptist came; they say: He has a demon; and the Baptist is not angry, but keeps to his work. For you see him also suffering the same things as the Savior. Concerning the Savior the Jews were saying: *He has a demon, and is mad; why do you listen to him?* (John 10:20). Is not that Christian blessed, who falls under the same insult as the Master? Paul preaches the truth, and Festus says to him: *You are mad, Paul; much learning is turning you to madness* (Acts 26:24). For madness appears to those who are not established in soberness. But he says: *I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of soberness and truth* (ibid. 25). Do you see the divine boldness, considered madness, but brighter than soberness? John the Baptist hears that he has a demon, as the ancient prophets heard that they were demon-possessed. Elisha the prophet once sent his own disciple, a prophet, and says to him: Go and you will find Jehu the commander; take him aside, and say to him: Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I have anointed you king; and pour the horn of oil upon him, and anoint him king. The prophet sends a student prophet; he takes the commander—for then Jehu was not king, but an officer of the one reigning—he says to him: Come here, and having taken him aside, he says the steps, and anoints him with the horn; and as he anointed him, he fled, he withdrew. The fellow-officers of Jehu say to him: Why did this one come to you, the madman? meaning, the demonized.