Oration 31

disputation, ^A have developed a disgust for all disputations. Yet let the Spirit act, and let the discourse proceed, and let the glory of God be celebrated. Verily, we shall refrain from accurately examining and distinguishing in how many ways either "Spirit" or "Holy" is understood and spoken of in Holy Scripture, and from bringing forth appropriate testimony for each line of speculation, and from explaining how that which is connected from both—namely, the Holy Spirit—is accepted in its own peculiar way; and we shall leave the performance of this task to others who have discoursed upon these matters both for themselves and for us, just as we have done for them. ^B We, however, shall turn our discourse to the matters that follow.

III. And as for those who are distressed and contend bitterly for the letter, as if we were introducing some strange and foreign god, let them know that they are fearing where there is no fear, and let them clearly understand that this friendship for the letter is for them a cloak of impiety, as will be shown a little later when we have refuted their objections to the best of our ability. But we rely with such confidence upon the divinity of the Spirit, ^C whom we worship, that we shall begin the starting point of our theology from Him, applying the same terms to the Trinity, even if this should perhaps appear to some to be somewhat too bold. *The light was true, which lightens every man coming into the world*, the Father. *The light was true*, which *lightens every man coming into the world*, the Son. *The light was true*, which *lightens every man coming into the world*, the other Paraclete. It was, and it was, and it was; but it was one. Light, and light, and light; but one light, one God. This is what David also envisioned beforehand, ^D saying: *In Thy light we shall see light*. And now we have both seen and do proclaim: from the Light the Father, we perceive the Light the Son, in the Light the Spirit—a concise and simple confession of the divine Trinity. Let him who rejects it reject it, and let him who is lawless act lawlessly; we, what we have understood, we proclaim. We shall ascend a high mountain and cry aloud, if we are heard with difficulty from below. We shall exalt the Spirit, not fearing [...]

^A. If, however, we should be afraid, then we must keep quiet and not preach.

IV. If there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not. If there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were also. If you cast down the One, I am bold enough to say: do not place even the Two in the higher position. For what is the utility of an imperfect deity? Or rather, what deity is there, if it is not perfect? But how can it be perfect, if anything is lacking for its completion? And something is lacking if it lacks sanctity. But how can it possess this if it does not have the Spirit? For if there is some other sanctity besides Him, let someone say what that is understood to be; or if it is the same, what can be brought forward as the reason why it was not there from the beginning? As if, forsooth, it were a benefit to God that something should have existed imperfectly and without the Spirit. If it did not exist from the beginning, it is of my class and order, even if it precedes me by a little; for we are separated from God by an interval of time. If it is ranked with me, how does it make me a god? Or how does it unite me to the Divinity? ^B

V. But I think it worthwhile for me to repeat the discussion about Him somewhat from a higher level, for we have already discoursed about the Trinity before. The Sadducees did not believe that the Holy Spirit existed at all; just as they did not believe in angels, nor in the resurrection; I do not know how they could have spurned so many and such great testimonies about Him in the Old Testament. Those among the pagans who were more philosophical and who came closer to us, conceived of Him, in my judgment, through some image, even if they disagreed on the name, calling Him the Mind of the Universe, or the External Mind, and other such titles. But those of our own wise men ^C have, in part, considered Him a certain force and faculty, in part a creature, in part God, and in part they have not had a certain and established opinion as to which name He should be called by, led, they say, by the reason that Scripture had not demonstrated either of these clearly and openly. And for this reason, they neither worship nor dishonor Him, being somehow in a middle state regarding Him, or rather, even most miserably. And of those who have supposed Him to be God, some are pious to the extent of their understanding, while others dare to be pious even with their lips. I have heard others, who were wiser ^D, measuring the divinity, and while they concede that the three things we conceive of are, as we say, present, they have separated them from one another so much that one, they say, makes the Godhead indefinite in both essence and power; another, indeed, in power but not in essence; and another circumscribed in both; imitating in another way those who call Him Creator, and co-worker, and minister, and who believe that the order and grace in the names is a sequence of the things themselves.

[VI] VI. We, however, will not exchange words with those who do not even believe that the Spirit exists, nor with the babblers among the Greeks. For may we never be anointed with the oil of sinners in our speech 23. But with the others we will dispute after this manner: The Holy Spirit must be placed entirely either among those things which subsist by themselves, or among those which are considered to exist in another; of which the former, those skilled in these matters call substance, and the latter, accident. If, then, it is an accident, it would be a certain power and faculty of God. For what else would it be, or of whom? For this is somewhat more consistent, and is devoid of composition. But if it is a force and faculty, it will undoubtedly act, and then it will not act; and at the same time, as it has been an act, it will cease. For such is the nature of an act. How, then, does it act, and say these things, and distinguish 24, and grieve 25, and become provoked, and all such things as are clearly of that which is moved, and not of the motion itself? But if it is a substance, and not an accident, it will be considered either a creature or God. For some intermediate something between these, which would participate in neither, or which is composed and combined from both, not even those who concocted the "goat-stags" could conceive. If it is a creature, how do we believe in Him, or how are we perfected in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe in something, and to believe about something. For the former belongs to divinity, the latter to every thing. But if He is God, then He is not a creature, nor a production, nor a fellow-servant, nor at all any of the lowly names.

[VII] VII. Now let your tongue leap forth to dispute, let the slings be sent forth, let the syllogisms be woven. Either He is entirely unbegotten, you say, or begotten. And if unbegotten, then there are two without beginning. But if begotten, you subdivide again: either He is begotten from the Father, or from the Son. And if from the Father, then there are two Sons and they are brothers. Fashion for me also twins, if you wish, or one elder and one younger; since you are so immersed in corporeal things. But if from the Son, then, you will say, a grandson God has appeared to us; than which what could be fashioned more absurd? These are men wise for doing evil, but unwilling to write good things. I, however, if I saw this division to be necessary, would certainly have accepted the facts, not fearing the names. For it is not because the Son is the Son according to a certain higher relation (because we could not otherwise, than in this way, indicate that which is from God and is of the same essence with Him), that we must therefore think that all earthly names and those of our own relationship must necessarily be transferred to the Divine. Otherwise, what prevents you even from assuming God to be male to us, according to this reason, because He is called God and Father? And that the Godhead is something female, as far as the designations

of the word can be estimated? And finally, that the Spirit is neuter, because He generates nothing? But if, according to ancient fables and trifles, you have toyed also in this way, claiming that God, by His own will, came together with Himself to generate the Son, you have introduced to us a kind of hermaphrodite god after the manner of Marcion and Valentinus, who invented the new aeons.

^B VIII. Since, furthermore, we do not at all accept your primary division, which assumes that there is nothing intermediate between the unbegotten and the begotten, those brothers and nephews of yours will immediately perish along with your brilliant division, as if at the very beginning of your argument—that complex knot—having been dissolved, they are simultaneously dissolved and slip away, and withdraw themselves from the doctrine of the Godhead. For where, I ask, will you place "that which proceeds," which is admitted to be placed between the two parts of your division, and is introduced by a theologian much superior to you—namely, our Savior? Unless, perchance, because of your third Testament, you have removed from the Gospels that utterance: "The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father" (Joan. xv, 26); who, inasmuch as He proceeds from Him, is not a creature; and inasmuch as He is not begotten, He is not the Son; but inasmuch as He is intermediate between the unbegotten and the begotten, He is God. And thus, having escaped the traps of your syllogisms, He has appeared as God, stronger than your divisions. ^C What, therefore, is this "procession"? Tell me the "unbegottenness" of the Father, and I will physiologically explain the "generation" of the Son and the "procession" of the Spirit; and both of us will be raving mad, peering into the mysteries of God. And who are we to do this? We who cannot even know what is under our feet, nor account for the sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the age, let alone penetrate into the depths of God, and give an account of a nature so ineffable and beyond reason, and so far surpassing all power of speech.

IX. "What, then," they say, "is wanting to the Spirit, in order that He might be the Son?" For if nothing were wanting, He would be the Son. We say that nothing is wanting; for God is not deficient. But the difference, if I may so express it, of the manifestation—or rather, ^D of their mutual relation to one another—has created their different names. For neither does anything want to the Son, in order that He might be the Father (for sonship is not a defect), yet He is not for that reason the Father. Otherwise, by the same reasoning, something would be wanting to the Father in order that He might be the Son. For the Father is not the Son. But these things are by no means proofs of defect, nor of any subordination according to essence; but the very fact of "not having been begotten," and of "having been begotten," and of "proceeding," designates the Father, and the Son, and the

Holy Spirit, so that the unconfused distinction of the three persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son the Father (for the Father is one), but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit the Son, because He is from God (for the Only-Begotten is one), but He is what the Son is: these three are one in Godhead, and the one acts as three in properties, so that neither may the one lead to Sabellianism, nor the three to the baneful division which flourishes at this time. ^A

X. What then? Is the Holy Spirit God? Most certainly. Is He therefore consubstantial? Absolutely, if indeed He is God. Give me then, you say, something from the same source that is one thing, and something else that is not that thing, and yet is of the same substance as it, and I will admit they are God. Give me also another God, and a nature of God, and I will give you the same Trinity with the same names and realities. But since God is one, and there is one supreme nature, from where, pray, shall I present to you a likeness? ^B Or do you again demand that it be drawn from earthly and human things? It is truly very disgraceful, and not only disgraceful, but also very foolish and hollow, to take a representation of the supernal and heavenly things from lowly things, and of certain and constant things from a mutable and fragile nature, and what Isaiah says, to seek those that are living among the dead. Nevertheless, since you so wish, I will attempt to bring some aid to our discourse from this area as well. Indeed, I think I should pass over other things, though I could mention much from the history of animals, partly known to us, partly known to few, which nature has produced by an amazing artifice concerning the origins and generations of living creatures. For things are said to be generated, not only the same from the same, and different from different, but also the same from different, and different from the same. ^C And if this argument causes doubt for anyone, there is another mode of generation, where the same animal is consumed and generated by itself. There are also those which, as a kind of magnificence of nature, in a way depart from themselves, and pass from other animals into others and are changed. Furthermore, it is possible to find the same animal, partly not generated, and partly generated, and yet of the same substance; which indeed approaches more closely to the likeness of the present question. When I have mentioned one thing from our own kind, which is also known to everyone, the discourse will afterwards pass to another topic. ^D

XI. What, then, was Adam? A workmanship of God. What was Eve? A segment of that workmanship. What then was Seth? The offspring of both.

^A Does it seem to you the same thing, to be a workmanship, a segment, and an offspring? Why not? And are these of the same essence, or what? How should they not be? It is therefore admitted that those which have a diverse mode of subsistence may partake of the same essence. I say this, not ascribing to the Godhead the workmanship, or the segment, or anything else belonging to the nature of the body (let no captious person again lay wait for me for this), but as viewing those things which are contemplated in the intellect as if upon a stage. For it is not possible that any image or similitude should ^B fully and perfectly reach the truth of the thing. But they say, what is the point of this? For they are not of one and the same person, another a Son, another something else. What then? Is not Eve, and [is not] Seth, from the same Adam? For from whom else? Or are both offspring? Not at all. But what? The one is a segment, the other an offspring; and yet both are the same as each other, for they are human beings; no one will deny it. Will you then cease to fight against the Spirit, ^C as if He were either entirely an offspring, or not consubstantial, and not God, having taken from human things the possibility of our conception? I for my part think it is well with you, if you have not determined to be too contentious, and to fight against the manifest.

XII. But who, you ask, has worshipped the Spirit? Who of the ancients, or of the moderns? Who has prayed to him, and where in the world is it written that He ought to be worshipped or prayed to? And whence have you this? We shall give the more perfect cause ^D later on, when we discuss things unwritten; but for the present it will suffice to say this: It is the Spirit in whom we worship, and through whom we pray. For God is a Spirit, He says, and they who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth. And again: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and, I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the mind also; that is, in mind and in Spirit. Therefore, to worship in the Spirit, or to pray, appears to me to be nothing else than offering prayer and worship to Him Himself. And who of those who are godly, and who well know that the worship of the one is the worship of the three, on account of the equality of worth and Godhead in the three, would not approve this sentiment? And I shall not fear even that objection, that it is said all things were made through the Son, as if the Holy Spirit were to be included in the universe of things. For, all things that have been made, says the evangelist, are spoken of, not all things simply; for not even the Father himself, nor all things which have not been made. Show therefore,

that it has been made, and then give it to the Son, and number it among the creatures. As long as you cannot show this, that summary ^A of yours contributes nothing to your impiety. For if it was made, it was made entirely through Christ; not even I would deny that. But if it was not made, how is it either one of all things, or made through Christ? Cease therefore also from dishonoring the Father against the Son (for it is a base honor to deprive the Father of the Son, however much you concede that he is a more excellent creature), and from dishonoring the Son against the Spirit. For he is not the maker of a fellow-servant, but is glorified together with one who is of equal dignity. Do not attribute anything of your own to the Trinity, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not cut away the one ^B equal object of worship from any. For since if you pull down any one of the three, you will have pulled down the whole, or rather, will have fallen away from the whole. It is better to have a small conception of the union, than to dare a total impiety.

XIII.

XIV.

^A and to the One, those things which are from Him have their reference, even if they are believed as Three. For neither is there one God "more" or "less," nor is there one "prior" or "posterior." They are not divided by will, nor separated by power; nor can any of the things that belong to divided things be found here. But the divinity, to speak briefly, is an undivided thing in divided beings; ^B and it is, as it were, a single blending and tempering of light in three suns that are joined to one another. When, therefore, we look at the divinity, and the first cause, and the monarchy, that which is imagined is one; but when we look at the things in which the divinity is—those things which exist from the first cause timelessly and with equal glory—the objects of worship are three.

XV. What then? Should someone say, "Do not the Greeks also have one divinity, just as those among them who philosophize more perfectly teach? And is there not with us one humanity, the whole race?" But yet, are there not many gods, and not one, just as there are many human beings? But there, the community has oneness only in what is contemplated by thought; ^C yet in their particulars, they are most divided from one another, both in time, and in affections, and in power. For we are not only composite, but also opposed—both to one another and to ourselves—and we do not remain the same even for a single day, let alone for our whole life, but we are always flowing and changing, both in body and in soul. And I do not know if this is not also the case with the angels, and every nature above, and ^D all that is after the Trinity; even if some are simple and more steadfast toward the good, by reason of their nearness to the supreme Good.

XVI. As for those gods whom the pagans worship—and demons, as they themselves call them—there is no need for them to be accused by us, since they are convicted by their own theologians; as they are subject to base affections, and are turbulent as well.

^A For they are full of evils and changes, and are opposed not only to one another, but also to those first causes—the ones they call Oceans, and Tethyses, and Phanetes, and I know not by what other names; and finally some god ^B who is a hater of children due to a love of power, devouring all the rest out of insatiability, so that he might be the father of all men and gods alike, miserably eaten and then vomited forth. But if they contend that these are myths and certain tropes, as they themselves say, in order to escape the indecency of the account, what, then, will they say regarding the claim that "All things have been divided in three," and that one being presides over one part of the world and another over another, and that they are distinct both in their materials ^C and their dignities? But our doctrine has no such rationale; nor is this "the portion of Jacob," as my theologian says. Rather, each of them possesses unity in relation to that with which it is joined, no less than in relation to itself, on account of the identity of essence and power. And this is the rationale of this union, as far as we have been able to grasp it. If, then, this reasoning is strong, thanks be to God for the contemplation; but if not, we shall seek a stronger one.

XVII. Against your arguments

XVIII. Things of the same substance, you say, are numbered together,

number, and they are distinct in nature; yet if I say "one, and one, and one," I am reckoning such monads otherwise, even if they are joined in substance, not looking so much to the things themselves as to the quantity of the things, according to which the enumeration itself exists. ^B But since you hold stubbornly to the letter, even though you otherwise wage war against the letter, take these proofs for me from there: "There are three things in Proverbs which walk well: a lion, and a goat, and a cock; and the fourth is a king speaking to his people," to say nothing of the others—the quaternities reckoned there, but divided by nature. And I find two cherubim in Moses, which are numbered as single units. How then are those three, by your technical rule, so sundered from one another in their natures? Or are these monads so homogeneous and united to one another? For if I were to name God and Mammon, two lords numbered as one, being so far distant from one another, perhaps I would be even more ridiculous for the enumeration.

XIX.

^A how your argument regarding enumeration, refuted by so many and such great reasons, has collapsed? For since things that are consubstantial are not always enumerated together, and things that are of disparate essence are sometimes enumerated together, and yet we see the names being brought forward together in both cases, what have you gained from your dogmas? So, how the argument concerning enumeration has slipped away from you!

XX. But I consider this too, and perhaps not without reason. Does one and one not constitute a compound of two? And does the two not resolve back into one and one? It certainly does. If, then, according to your argument, things that are combined are consubstantial, while things that are separated are of different essence, what follows from this? Why, that the same things are both consubstantial and of different essence! I laugh, too, at your pre-numerations and sub-numerations, in which you take such great pride, as if the things themselves were situated ^B by the order of the words. For if this is the case, what prevents us, by the same reasoning, since the same things are both pre-enumerated and sub-enumerated in the divine Scripture because of the equality of the excellence of their nature, from saying that they are, in themselves, both more honorable and more base? I have the same to say regarding the terms "God" and "Lord"; and furthermore regarding these prepositions, "of whom," "through whom," and "in whom," to which you subject that divine name according to the prescription of art, assigning the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. For what would you have done if any one of these prepositions had been constantly attributed to each person? Whereas, even though they are all used indiscriminately with all, as is evident ^C to diligent and accurate readers, you yourself induce such a diversity of dignity and nature through them! These things are sufficient for men who are not too unfair and perverse. But because it is difficult for you, once you have leaped upon the Holy Spirit, to restrain your impulse, and not rather, like fierce boars, to contend stubbornly to the very end and to hurl yourself upon the sword itself until you have received the entire wound in your breast: come, let us see what argument remains for you.

XXI. Again and again you din into our ears that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is not set forth in any place of Scripture. But that it is neither new nor foreign, nor newly introduced, but is acknowledged and revealed ^D both by the ancients and by men of this age, although it has already been shown by many who have discussed this matter, and who have not been idle or perfunctory in the divine Scriptures, but having penetrated the letter and looked inside, have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty and have been illumined by the light of knowledge—yet we also shall show this in passing, as far as the matter allows, lest we seem to be, as it were, superfluous, or more ambitious than is necessary, building upon another's foundation.

^A But if, because God is not mentioned with extreme clarity in Scripture, nor as often by name as the Father first, or the Son later, this provides you an occasion for blasphemy and for this superfluous glibness and impiety, we shall remove this harm from you, after having discoursed a little on things and names, and especially on the custom and usage of Scripture.

^B XXII. Of things, some do not exist, but are spoken of; others exist, but are not spoken of; others neither exist nor are spoken of; others finally both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proofs of these? I am ready to provide them. God sleeps in Scripture, and keeps watch, and is angry, and walks, and has the cherubim as His throne ^C—yet when has He become subject to passion? When have you heard that God is a body? This, therefore, was fashioned. For we have named the things of God from our own, as far as we are capable. That He rests from us, and as it were disregards us, for reasons which He Himself knows, is called “sleeping.” For our sleep is such, inactive and idle. That He does good suddenly after a change, is called “keeping watch.” For waking is a release from sleep, just as a visitation is from an turning away. That He punishes is termed “being angry”; for thus are we stirred by anger to punish. That He acts now here, ^D now there, is called “walking.” For the passing from one place to another is walking. That He rests in the holy powers, and as it were dwells fondly, is called “sitting” and “being enthroned”; even this is human. For nowhere does the Divinity rest as in the holy ones. And Scripture calls His swiftness and speed of movement “flight”; His visitation a “face”; His bestowing and receiving a “hand”; and, to speak in summary, it has sketched for us some power or energy of God by one of our own bodily things.

XXIII. Again, from where have you obtained those citadels of yours, the “unbegotten” or “anarchos” (that is, the beginnerless), or the term “immortal” which we also use? Show these by name and expressly, or else we shall reject them, for they are not written, or we shall strike them out. And thus you will perish, weighed down by your own principles, with those terms—the walls of your refuge in which you trusted—overturned. Or is it evident that from those who collected these things, [index: entries preserved]

^A even if these words are not said? Of which things? "I am the first, and I am after these," and, "Before me there is no other God, and after me there shall be none." For the whole "being" is mine; it has no beginning, nor will it have an end. Having taken these as points from Scripture, you have designated as "anarchos" (without beginning) and "unbegotten" the fact that there is nothing prior to Him and that He has no cause more ancient than Himself; and as "immortal" and "indestructible" the fact that He will never cease to be. Such, then, are the first categories, and thus they stand. But what things neither are, nor are even spoken of? A wicked God, a square sphere, the past time is present, man is not a composite being ^B (34). For whom have you ever known to have arrived at such a pitch of insanity as to have dared either to think or to utter anything of the sort? It remains to show what things both are and are spoken of: God, man, angel, judgment, vanity (35)—such are these syllogisms, and these serve for the overturning of the faith and the emptying of the mystery.

XXIV. On the Necessity of Investigating Meaning Rather than Mere Words

Since, then, there is such a great difference between names and things, what is the reason why you so slavishly serve the letter, and, following Judaic wisdom, hold to the syllables while abandoning the realities? If, when you said "twice five" or "twice seven," I were to collect "ten" or "fourteen" from your words, or if, from your saying "a rational, mortal animal," I were to conclude that you meant "man," would I seem to you to be drivelling? And how could that be the case, when I am simply stating what is yours? For the words belong no more to the one speaking them than to the one who brings about the necessity of speaking them. Just as, therefore, in this case I would not observe what is ^C said so much as what is understood, in the same way, if I were to find any other thing—even of those that are either not stated at all, or at any rate not stated with sufficient clarity—which is nevertheless understood and gathered from Scripture, I would not shrink from the public proclamation (39), fearing you, the sycophant of terms. In this way, then, we shall take our stand against those who are only half-right. For you, who even wage war upon the Son, are not even permitted to say this. For you, who deny the Son's titles, which are so clear and so numerous, would surely not be moved by these, even if you knew of many more and clearer ones. But now, I shall explain the cause of all this concealment, even though you are wise and learned, by carrying the argument back a little bit:

XXV. The Transformations of Human Life: The Transitions to the New Covenant

XXV. ^D There have been two illustrious transformations of human life since the beginning of all time, which are also called two Testaments, and, because of the celebrity of the event, "earthquakes": the one from the worship of idols to the Law, and the other from the Law to the Gospel. And a third earthquake [cont.]

^A awaits us, the migration from this life to that other life which is exempt from all motion and agitation. The same thing has happened with the two Testaments. What is this? They were not changed suddenly, nor at the first movement of the attempt. Why so? (For it is necessary to know.) It was so that we might not be forced, but persuaded. For that which is involuntary is not even lasting, just as ^B streams or plants that are held in place by force. But that which is voluntary is more lasting and more secure. And the one belongs to him who used force, the other to us; the one is of God’s kindness, the other of tyrannical power. Therefore, He did not think it right to benefit those who were unwilling, but rather to benefit those who were willing. For this reason, in the manner of a pedagogue and a physician, He partly removed ancestral customs, and partly conceded them, yielding a little to their pleasure, just as physicians do for the sick, so that the medicine ^C might be accepted by being tempered with milder things through the art. For the change from things that have been held in honor for long use and for a long time is not easy. And what do I mean? The first Law cut away the idols, but allowed the sacrifices; the second removed the sacrifices, but did not prohibit circumcision. Then, once they had accepted the removal of some things, they also let go of what had been conceded—some the sacrifices, others the circumcision—and they have become, instead of heathens, Jews; and instead of these, Christians, being led ^D by degrees through these changes to the Gospel. Let Paul persuade you of this, who proceeded from circumcising and purifying himself to saying: "But I, brethren, if I preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" That was of the dispensation; this is of perfection.

XXVI.

^A should shine forth more splendidly. ^B For this reason, I think, it is imparted to the disciples also by degrees, distributing itself according to the capacity and measure of those who receive it; evidently bringing to perfection the powers at the beginning of the Gospel, being breathed upon them after the passion of Christ, and appearing in tongues of fire after the ascension. And it is revealed bit by bit by Jesus himself, as you also will find if you attend more diligently. "I will ask the Father," he says, "and he will send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth." He said these words, so that no adversary might think he was an enemy of God, or that he was speaking as if from some other power. Here, omitting the word "I will ask," he kept the word "he will send." Presently, [he says] "I will send," so as to show his own authority. Then finally, "he will come," by which word the power of the Spirit is indicated.

^A XXVII. You see the enlightenments shining upon us by degrees, and the order of theology, which it is better for us also to observe—neither bringing everything to light suddenly and all at once, nor concealing it to the very end. For the former is unskilled, and the latter is godless; the one might offend and wound those who are outside, the other might alienate our own people from us. But the point that has perhaps occurred to some others, though I consider it a product of my own mind, I shall add to what has been said. The Savior possessed certain things which, although the disciples were otherwise filled with abundant teaching, he said could not then be borne by them—perhaps for the reasons I have brought forward—and for that reason he hid them from them. And again, he said that all things would be taught to us by the Spirit when he had come. Therefore, I consider that one of the number of these things is the very Deity of the Holy Spirit, which was to be declared more openly at a later time, that is to say, when—now after the full restoration of the Savior—the knowledge of it would be mature and perceivable, inasmuch as faith in such a notable miracle would no longer be denied. For what could be greater than this, either [for Him] to promise, or for the Spirit to teach? If indeed anything is to be considered great, or worthy of the greatness of God, either what was promised or what was being taught.

^B XXVIII. And may I feel thus concerning these things—and would that I may feel [so], and whoever is my friend—may we worship God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three properties, one divinity, undivided in glory, honor, essence, and kingdom, as one of those who were recently divinely inspired ^C and bore God philosophized; ^D or may he not see the morning star rising.

as the Scripture says, nor does he see the morning star, who thinks otherwise, or who yields to the times, assuming one form after another, and acting foolishly regarding the greatest matters. For if He ^A is not to be worshipped, how does He make me divine through baptism? And if He is to be worshipped, how is He not to be revered? And if He is to be revered, how is He not God? “One is linked to the One,” a truly golden and saving chain. And from the Spirit we have our regeneration; from regeneration, our renewal; and from renewal, the knowledge of the dignity of Him by whom we have been renewed.

XXIX. These, then, are the things that one might say who supposes that the Spirit’s divinity rests on no Scriptural authority. But now there shall come before you a swarm of testimonies, from which it will be shown that the divinity of the Spirit is very strongly supported by Scripture, to those who are not too dull-witted and estranged from the Spirit. Consider it thus: Christ is born; the Spirit precedes Him. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him away. He performs miracles; the Spirit accompanies Him. He ascends; the Spirit succeeds Him. For what is there so great and divine that He cannot do? Or what divine name is there by which He is not called, with the exception of the names Begotten and Unbegotten? For it was fitting that the properties of the Father and the Son should remain unscathed and entire for Them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead, which also brings all other things into order and harmony. ^B Indeed, I tremble when I consider the wealth of these titles, against which those who oppose the Spirit brazenly set their faces. He is called Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Mind of Christ, Spirit of the Lord, and Lord Himself, Spirit of adoption, of truth, of freedom; Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of strength, of knowledge, of piety, of the fear of God; for He is the creator of all these, filling all things by His essence, holding all things together, filling the world in His essence, uncontained by the world in His power, good, upright, sovereign, holy by nature, not by appointment; measuring, not measured; partaken of, not partaking; filling, not filled; containing, ^C not contained; inherited; glorified; numbered with; threatened; the finger of God; fire as God—to indicate, I think, the consubstantiality—the Spirit that created, that restores through baptism, through resurrection, the Spirit that knows all things, that teaches, that breathes where and as much as He wills, leading, speaking, sending, setting apart, being angered, ^D tempted, grieving, and doing all that God does.

^A It imparts grace, is not imparted; it measures, is not measured; it bestows, is not a recipient; it fills, is not filled; it contains, is not contained; it is received by inheritance, is glorified, is numbered with the Father and the Son, is threatened, is the finger of God, is fire like God, to show, as I think, that it is of the same essence. It is the Spirit who fashioned, who creates anew through baptism and resurrection; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who breathes where and as much as He wills, who provides guidance, who speaks, who sends, who separates; the Spirit who is provoked to anger, who is tempted, who reveals, who brings light and life; or rather, who is life and light himself; who makes temples, who makes gods, who perfects, so that He even precedes baptism and is sought after baptism; who acts as God, who is divided in tongues of fire, who distributes gifts, who makes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; intelligent, manifold, clear, distinct, unpolluted, unimpeded (which means the same as if I were to say, most wise, and through its activities various and manifold, and clarifying and manifesting all things, and possessed of independence, and unchangeable), almighty, all-seeing, penetrating through all ^B spirits—intelligent, pure, and most subtle (that is, through the angelic ^C powers, I believe), just as it does through the prophetic and apostolic ones, at the same moment, and yet not in the same places (for some of them were scattered and dispersed elsewhere), which indeed clearly shows that He is not restrained by the circumscription of any place.

XXX.

^A of connecting the persons, or the Arian view of distinguishing and separating the natures. XXXI. Enimvero, whenever I have turned the matter over many times in the curiosity of my mind, and examined the discourse from every side, and sought some image of so great a subject, I have not been able to find anything among earthly things to which I might compare the Divine Nature. ^B For even if I have found some small likeness, the greater part escapes me, leaving me down below with my illustration. I have considered an eye, and a spring, and a river—as others have also done—to see if the Father might correspond to the eye, the Son to the spring, and the Holy Spirit to the river. For these three are not separated by time, nor are they broken off from one another by continuity, and yet they seem to be divided in a certain way by three properties. But I feared, first, to admit a certain instability in the Divinity by such a flux; and second, to introduce a numerical unity by this analogy. For the eye, and the spring, and the river are one in number, though differently formed.

XXXII. Again, I thought of the sun, and a ray, and light. But here too there is a fear: first, lest we should imagine some composition of the incomposite nature, as is the case with the sun and the things that are in the sun; ^C and second, lest we attribute essence only to the Father, while denying subsistence to the others, and instead make them mere powers of God, which exist in Him but do not subsist by themselves. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but they are certain effluences of the sun, and substantial qualities. And at once we must grant to God both existence and non-existence in these instances, as far as this illustration goes, which is even more absurd than the previous ones. Furthermore, I heard someone outlining a simile of this kind: he described a solar splendor shining upon a wall and trembling from the movement of water, which the ray, having received through the intervening air, then, once it has been checked by a resisting solid body, produces a wondrous quivering. ^D For it leaps with many and frequent motions, being not so much one as many, and not so much many as one, due to the speed of the union and the division, escaping notice before it can be grasped by the eye.

XXXIII. But I cannot even accept this, for one reason, because that which caused the motion—