and yet, at the same time, giving insight into His divine majesty, first by saying to the young man who had called Him good: "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except one, God." And He A rightly declared this, for as if to say, "I have appeared to you, young man, as a human being, but you, by calling me a teacher like one of the scribes, have added the epithet 'good.' But no human being is good, and this designation belongs to God alone. Therefore, you have called him 'good' in vain, who up to now has appeared to you only as a human being." Thus, by declaring this, He showed His humility to the man, saying, "No one is good, of those whom you take into account." But the addition, "except one, God," while He Himself and the Father are one, shows that He, appearing mystically and humbly, had unfolded the truth, and had shown Himself to be a partaker of the Father's goodness. Therefore, the words, "I and the Father are one," and the words, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," show Him to be equal to the Father. For the Son must be perfect, born of a perfect Father.
12. But perhaps you might say this as well: If the Father, being perfect, fills all things, what is left for the Son, who is also perfect, to contain? But I say that they have become receptive and containing of each other; for He says, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." And if they contain one another, they must be equal to one another in magnitude. How, then, they could be in one another, you have certainly intended to hear; for it is necessary that the one be contained by the other. Now, the contained is in the container; but the container would not, in its turn, be contained by the contained. Do not imagine that God has a void within Himself where He receives the contained. For regarding humans, this must be supposed, since we are not capable of containing others, nor do we pass into another to be contained. And even if we were to enter into one another, we would be contained and grasped within a void. But in the case of God, one must think of it in such a way as this: Just as in the soul of a human, two or more branches of knowledge—such as medicine and philosophy, and as many others—happen to be present together, and are not crowded by one another in the mind and in the space of the soul, although they are many in number, and find room and yield the whole to one another—and although they fill the soul and do not depart from one another, so as to provide the most penetrating men with the impression of a single essence, since they are established in one and the same mind—yet they differ from one another, in that one is medical science and the other is philosophical; so, truly, both the Father and the Son, having entered the same place and having become receptive of one another, and being one, as we said a little before, differ from one another only in person and designation, while they are nevertheless in one another. And just as the scent of an ointment diffused through the air, since both the scent and the air happen to exist in the same place, seems to be intermingled, yet in truth you will find the air to be one thing, and the scent another. And now, indeed, the light from the sun, and the breath of the winds,
possess a great difference; for light and winds are not least separated from one another. To these, liken the Godhead, and being thought of as something greater than can be proven by logic, you would find both to be one in essence and concord, and the one divided—as we have previously stated—into Father and Son, in subsistence and appellation. A
13. You will surely rouse this point against me: If the Father has filled all things, and likewise the Son, what place is left for the opposing power? For it would not be fitting for God to have an adversary with Him. But if, wherever the prince of malice resides, God is by chance not there, it follows that God would be demonstrated as circumscribed and divisible. B But I maintain that He is everywhere, and that there is nowhere where God is not, even if the prince of malice happens to be somewhere. For the rays of the sun are not defiled when they fall into mire and filth, but rather purify them by drying them with heat; thus also "our God is a consuming fire" is said; and, "fire shall burn before him," so that to the beloved indeed He might be a lamp and light, but to the enemies, a consuming flame: for Scripture says, "He shall inflame his enemies round about." Wherefore, also, the prince of malice, wishing to avoid the fiery missiles of God, traverses every place; yet finding God everywhere, he passes through all humanity: then he discovers some who are fervent in the Spirit, and he flees the heat from them. C But finding a hiding place in one who lacks the Spirit of God, having been cleansed and adorned with brooms, he dwells there for a short time, and will perish together with his host; for the guest will rightly be seen as an enemy, he who has received the adversary of God into friendship.
14. I think I have already discoursed sufficiently for the sake of proof. Yet let not even this escape me through forgetfulness, or because I am carried off to other things by haste, as if by a violent storm: namely, how the Son, just as other men, is ignorant of the last day, although He had the Father in Himself, and He Himself was in the Father? But in truth, this also shows the excess of His humility. D For it behooved the Son of God to humble Himself exceedingly, since He had adopted the rest of the manner of living according to the human custom to the highest degree. By saying, therefore, that He did not know, He revealed His own humility to those who were listening. But lest He seem a liar, He added, "Unless the Father alone," denying by the word, indeed, that He knew, yet by the power of the enigma affirming that He was privy to it; for the matter which the Father alone knows, the Son also knows, who is one with the Father. Thus, two accomplishments have resulted from this.
D Firstly, a foundation of humility; and secondly, an ignorance of the end of the world, which contributes immensely to the rectitude of life. For which, furthermore, would be more difficult to know: the final day of the world, or God and Father himself? Now, if the Son knew the Father, because He said, "That you may know me, as the Father knows me, and I know the Father," how could He have been ignorant of that day, of which He Himself also became the creator? For without Him, nothing was made. Since these things have been briefly demonstrated by us, let no one be hindered from holding to the true faith. You, therefore, followers of Arius or Sabellius, who differ so greatly from us, having acknowledged the whole truth from our words, come to concord with me, and walking between either snare, you shall find the way of truth, by walking in which you shall see eternal life. B
A SERMON BY THE SAME GREGORY ON THE HOLY SPIRIT AGAINST THE PNEUMATOMACHIAN MACEDONIANS
1. Perhaps it is not even fitting to reply to these foolish words; for the wise precept of Solomon seems to look to this, commanding that one should not answer a fool according to his folly. But since there is a danger that, through our silence, falsehood might prevail over the truth, and that this putrid gangrene of heresy, taking growth, might corrupt the healthy doctrine of the faith, it has seemed necessary to me not, indeed, to answer according to the folly of those who put forward such things against true religion, but to provide for the correction of their perverse opinions. For the proverbial precept seems to me to exhort not to silence, but to the correction of those who act foolishly; so that our responses might not coincide with the folly of the opinions, but rather that those insane
and erroneous opinions of theirs regarding dogma might be overturned.
2. What, then, do they object against us? They accuse those who hold sublime views concerning the Holy Spirit of acting impiously; and whatever we confess regarding the Spirit, adhering to the dogmas of the Fathers, these men interpret according to their own caprice, taking from it a handle to write against us in the name of irreligion. B For we profess that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father and the Son, in such a way that He differs in nothing from what is religiously thought and said concerning the divine nature, except that we contemplate the Holy Spirit as having a proper hypostasis, because He is from God and is of Christ, as we have read; nor, in the same way as the Father, is He unbegotten, nor, as the Son, is He only-begotten, so that He could be confounded with them. Therefore, by reason of certain peculiar properties, He is viewed in Himself, but in all other respects, as I have said, He is believed by us to preserve equality and parity. But the adversaries think otherwise: they say that He is alien from the natural communion of the Father and the Son, and that, on account of a diversity of nature, He is depressed and generally lesser—namely, in power, glory, dignity, and all things summarily which are said to be worthy of God, whether in terms or concepts of the mind; and for this reason they declare Him to be partaker of no majesty and unworthy of parity of honor with the Father and the Son; yet they allow that there is in Him as much power as is sufficient for certain appointed and particular operations, though they hold Him to be entirely alien to the power of creating. C Since this opinion prevails among them, they consequently conclude that the Holy Spirit has in Himself nothing of those things which are preached and believed concerning the divine nature.
3. What then is our argument? We offer no new answer, nor one of our own devising, to those who challenge us with such things, but we shall be content with the testimony of Divine Scripture concerning the Holy Spirit, from which we have learned that the Holy Spirit is, and is called, divine. If, therefore, they also agree on this, and do not resist the divinely inspired Scriptures, let those who are eager for war against us say: why do they not struggle against Scripture itself rather than against us? For we affirm nothing at all beyond this. D Furthermore, we recognize no difference in the divine nature which we confess, neither from the teaching of the Scriptures nor from common notions concerning this matter; namely, that the divine and exalted nature should be divisible within itself by any extension or contraction, or that it should differ from itself by a greater or lesser degree. For because it is believed to be simple, uniform, and incomposite, and no mixture or composition of dissimilar things is perceived in it, therefore, once we have conceived of the divine nature in our mind, we embrace within this name of God the perfection of any notion worthy of God; for the Divine holds perfection in every sense that is good. But if it were to fall short
in any way of this perfection, the very logic of deity would go lame, as if it were no longer to be either divine or to be called so in that part. For how could anyone adapt such a title to something imperfect, lacking, and in need of something else added to it?
4. Indeed, one may confirm this logic even by corporal examples. For the nature of fire communicates the sensation of heat equally to all parts that complete it, provided it touches them; nor does one part of the flame experience a more intense heat while another feels it less. But as long as it is fire, it maintains its union throughout, inseparable from itself by the identity of its activity. If, however, it should freeze in any part, it is no longer called fire in the part that has frozen, since both the name and the heating activity are changed by that alteration to the contrary state. Likewise, the same logic holds for water, air, and all the elemental substances, which admit of neither increase nor decrease. For water cannot be described as more or less water; as long as it is equally liquid, the name of water is true of it; but if it should be transformed into the opposite quality, the name is necessarily changed along with it. And the softness, upward tendency, and lightness of air are observed equally in all its parts, while its density, heaviness, and downward flow into the earth are qualities far from the name of air. Thus, also, the divine nature, as long as it preserves uniformly and religiously, in all the thoughts entertained about it, the perfection of its notion, justifies the application of the name according to the perfection of the Good. But if any of those things contributing to the logic of perfection were to be withdrawn, the name of deity would, in that part, become false and would not apply to its subject; for it is as impossible—or even more so—to adapt the name of water to a dry body, or to call something fire which has frozen in its quality, or to call a solid and resistant object air, as it is to invoke the name of "Divine" where the notion of perfection is not understood to accompany it.
5. If then the Holy Spirit is truly, and not merely in name, called Divine [E] by the Scripture and by our Fathers, what logic is left for those who oppose the glory of the Spirit? For if He is Divine, He is also surely good, powerful, wise, glorious, and eternal, and whatever names of this kind exist that elevate our thoughts toward magnificence. The simplicity of His underlying nature testifies that He does not possess these things by participation, as if He were something else in His own nature and became something else by the presence of the aforementioned qualities; for such things are proper to those who have obtained a composite nature. But it is acknowledged by all alike, without anyone contradicting, that the Holy Spirit is simple. If, then, the logic of His nature is simple, He does not have goodness as something acquired, but whatever He is, that is goodness, wisdom, power, sanctification, justice, eternity, incorruption, all the exalted names and those exceeding...
A excellences. With what mind, then, do those who do not shudder at the dire condemnation of those who blaspheme against the Spirit attempt to fashion Him as lacking glory? For they clearly affirm this, that He is not to be believed as worthy of glory. But I do not know, truly, by what reasoning they rely when they judge it advantageous not to confess Him who is by His own nature glorious, according to His merit. B
6. For it is not sufficient for their defense that, because He was revealed by the Lord to the disciples in the third place, He should for that reason be seen as alien to the notion of divine dignity. (For where the operation of goodness has no diminution or diversity, how could it be consistent with reason to imagine that the order of number is a sign of some diminution or of a change in nature? Just as if someone, seeing a flame divided in three lamps [let us suppose, however, that the cause of the third light is the first flame, which, flowing through the middle one, ignites the last one], should then imagine that the heat abounds in the first flame, but decreases in the second, and is changed to a lesser degree; and finally that the third is no longer even to be called fire, even if it burns and shines equally and performs all the offices of fire.) C But if nothing prevents the third lamp from being fire, even if it is ignited from the preceding flame, what wisdom is it of those who therefore think the dignity of the Holy Spirit should be impiously discarded, because He was numbered by the divine oracle after the Father and the Son? For if anything of the God-befitting thoughts is lacking in those things observed in the nature of the Spirit, they would rightly deny His majesty; but if rather the dignity of the Holy Spirit appears great on every side, why do they cavil about the confession of majesty? It is exactly as if someone, after having affirmed that someone is a human being, should judge it not at all safe to confess at the same time that he is rational and mortal, and whatever else is said to be proper to man; and thus, what he had already conceded, he should again overturn. For unless He is D rational...
Note on the Nyssen Fragment
(1) It has come to my attention not once that I have found confirmation in published books of authors, who had once read these works in manuscript and cited them as occasion arose, for pieces of the works that had been lost until then. And so, having now encountered in a Vatican codex this sermon of Nyssen *Against the Macedonians*, I discovered by chance that it is mentioned at least four times in the published booklets of the later Greeks by Allatius, along with a part of the same sermon. Since this is the same among all of them, it is clear that subsequent authors copied from earlier ones, as the Byzantines are wont to do everywhere. The first, therefore, who produced this place of Nyssen, marked by us in brackets, is Nicephorus Blemmides, a man of the XIII century, in his second Oration on the procession of the Holy Spirit, in Allatius, *Graecia orthodoxa* vol. I, p. 550: "Gregory of Nyssa in the sermon *Against the Macedonians* ... etc." The second is Job Veccus in his epigraph on the Holy Spirit, Vat. cod. 606, n. 245, and in Allatius, *Graec. orth.* vol. II, p. 537: "Gregory of Nyssa in the sermon *Against the Macedonians*." The third is George of Trebizond on the same subject in *Graec. orth.* p. 533. The fourth and last is Leo Allatius himself in his *Enchiridion* on the procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 103, who undoubtedly copied the preceding testimonies, but did not draw them from the sermon of Nyssen himself; otherwise that most learned man would not have envied us the knowledge of both the unpublished work and the Vatican codex; which codex surely either escaped his eyes, or hid the matter in its not inconsiderable bulk, or perhaps had not yet been brought into the papal library while Allatius was alive. I shall narrate almost the same about another fragment of Nyssen later. (2) Alternative: first flame. (3) In the procession from the Father through the Son; for which cause the aforementioned authors cite this authority of Nyssen. Indeed, nothing is more evident than this example of the three lamps for the dogma of the procession from both. (4) Alternative: the. (5) Hence the Arians in Luculentius, published by us, call the Father greater, the Son lesser, and the Holy Spirit per-lesser. (6) Alternative: he works.A nor is it even a man at all. But if this is granted, why is there doubt about that matter which is understood to be inherent in man? Thus then, if he speaks truly B concerning the Spirit who calls Him God, he does not lie who defines this One as glorious, good, and powerful; for all such thoughts accompany the notion of deity: so that it is necessary to choose one of two things, either not to call Him God, or to subtract none of the notions worthy of God. Therefore, it is necessary that both things be grasped together, both the divine nature with the judgment befitting it, and the orthodox notions concerning the divine and all-surpassing nature. C 7. Since, therefore, it has been said that the Spirit is of the divine nature, and it has been well said, and every magnificent notion is, as has been said, co-signified by this name, he who grants that power to Him has acknowledged the rest: that He is also glorious and powerful, and whatever else carries a meaning towards the better. For it is not possible that these things should not be confessed regarding the Spirit, because of the contradiction of those words which are set in opposition to such titles; for he who does not grant Him to be glorious will grant Him to be inglorious; and he who denies the powerful in His regard will agree to the contrary. Likewise also concerning the honorable and the good; for unless one admits those things that tend towards the better, he will by all means acknowledge the opposites. But if this is horrendous, and beyond every absurdity and blasphemy, it is manifest that the orthodox will agree regarding the Holy Spirit with D more illustrious titles and notions, and will say what we have frequently inculcated: that He is honorable, powerful, glorious, good, and whatever else is spoken that tends towards piety. And these things do not reside in the Spirit imperfectly, nor do they possess a limited quantity of goodness, but extend to infinity in their appellations; for He is not honorable up to a certain point, and then something else is understood other than the honorable, but He is always such. And if you reckon the ages past, and if you look towards those that are to follow, you will find Him in nothing to have lacked honor, or glory, or power, so that He might be increased by addition, or diminished by subtraction. Therefore, if He is perfect in every respect, He cannot be diminished in anything. For in whatever regard He might be diminished in such an estimation of Him, in that regard He will provide an opening for less worthy opinions; for that which is not perfectly honorable is understood to participate in some part of its opposite. But if even to conceive of this in one's mind is of the utmost insanity, it is well altogether to testify to the perfection in the virtues as being infinite, and uncircumscribed, and in no part diminished in Him. 8. But if it is such, let the discourse next consider the same concerning the Son, and likewise concerning the Father. Do we not confess the perfection of honor in the case of Him as well as the Other? I think that all who are gifted with a mind will agree with what has been said. If, therefore, the honor of the Father is perfect, and that of the Son is also perfect, and the perfection of honor has also been testified to the Holy Spirit, why do these new dogmatists legislate for us
A that we ought not to ascribe to Him the same honor as to the Father and the Son? For our part, consistent with our own inquiry, we can neither say nor think that which stands in need of no addition for its perfection is less honorable than anything else. For in that wherein our reason cannot find any excess, even though nothing is wanting in its perfection, I do not see in what respect it can discover a diminution. But they who deny the parity of honor, they surely assign to Him a lesser degree of honor. In like manner and consequently, by diminishing the person of the Spirit through comparison with the rest, they will turn all religious sentiments regarding Him to the contrary, and will refuse to bear witness to the perfection of goodness, or of power, or of any other attribute whatsoever that is piously said of Him. But if, avoiding manifest impiety, they confess that what is generally reputed to be good is perfect, let these wise men tell us how there can be something more perfect than the perfect, or more eternal. For as long as the definition of perfection applies to any thing, the reasoning does not admit of either more or less in the concept of perfection.
B 9. If, therefore, they agree that the Holy Spirit is in all respects perfect, and it is at the same time acknowledged to be orthodox to believe that the perfection of the Father and of the Son in every good thing is also perfect, what is the reasoning by which they judge it rational to annul the Spirit? They have already shown it; for to annul Him who enjoys equal honor is the same thing as to think He does not participate in perfection. But what kind of honor pertaining to the divine nature do they suppose this to be, which they wish the Holy Spirit to lack? Is it this very honor which men bestow upon one another, flattering with words and gestures, showing submissiveness by their company, and all other such offices of honor that are frequented by the vain custom of life? All of which come to pass by the free will of those performing them; and even if they were to wish to omit them, no man has, from his own nature, any cause to be more honorable than others, since all are alike comprehended by the same measures of nature. The argument is clear and subject to no doubt; for we shall find that he who today seems more honorable to the many on account of the magistracy he holds, will subsequently be found in the number D of those who show submissiveness, once that dignity has been transferred to another. Do they therefore think that this kind of honor exists also in the divine nature, so that, while we wish to show honor, or if we cease from honoring, the divine honor should cease at our own discretion? Would it not rather be ridiculous and at the same time impious to think such things? For God does not become more honorable because of us, but is always in the same state, and can neither pass to the worse nor to the better: for He does not admit the former, and has no possibility of the latter.
10. By what manner, then, will you honor the Divine? How will you exalt the Most High? How will you glorify the One who is above all D
A beings? How will you praise the Incomprehensible? Since "all nations are as a drop from a bucket," as Isaiah says, if the entire life of men, joining together in one harmony, were to send up praise, what addition would the grace of that drop be to Him who is by nature glorious? "The heavens declare the glory of God," and are deemed but small heralds of His worth; "for His magnificence is exalted," not merely up to the heavens, but above the heavens, which are contained by a small part of the Divinity, figuratively called "a span." And shall man, this ephemeral and short-lived creature, well compared to the grass, being here today and gone tomorrow, trust that he can worthily honor the Divine nature? It is just as if someone, having lit a thin thread of tow, should imagine he is adding some supplement to the sun’s radiance by that spark. Tell me, by what words B will you honor, if you are indeed willing to honor at all, the Holy Spirit? Will you say that He is altogether immortal, that He is unchangeable and immutable, and always good, and in need of no other's grace, that He works all in all as He wills, that He is holy, sovereign, upright, just, truthful, searching the depths of God, proceeding from the Father, received from the Son, and whatever else is like these? What then do you bestow by these and suchlike words? Do you mention what He already possesses, or do you honor Him by what He does not possess? For if you attest to what He does not possess, the grace is vain and brings no further benefit; for he who calls the bitter sweet, he himself lies, and he does not praise what is blameworthy. But if you speak of what is, it is such by nature, whether you acknowledge it or not. For the Apostle says: "If we do not believe, C He remains faithful."
11. What then is the meaning of this pusillanimity and yet haughtiness of men, who strive to honor the Father and grant the Son equal glory, but are stingy with the grace in regard to the Spirit? If it has been demonstrated that the honor strictly belonging to the Divine nature is not fulfilled by our choice, but is naturally inherent in It. For the misunderstanding of ungrateful men is hereby exposed by this opinion of theirs; yet the Spirit is, by His own nature, honorable, glorious, powerful, and all that is high in terms of understanding, even if these men do not wish it. "Yes," they say, "but we have been taught by Scripture that the Father is the Creator, and likewise we have learned that all things have been made through the Son, but the text D has taught us nothing of this kind regarding the Spirit." And how is it reasonable to bring the Holy Spirit into equal honor with the One who has displayed such magnitude of power through creation? What then do we answer to this? That they have uttered vanity in their hearts who imagine that the Spirit is not always with the Father and the Son, but that at certain times He is viewed as being by Himself, and at other times He is perceived as being conjoined. For if the heaven and the earth and the creation were made without the Spirit,
let those who speak thus say what the Holy Spirit was doing at the time when the Father was working creation with the Son. Was He busied with some other works, and for this reason was He not working together in the creation of all things? And what can they show to be a peculiar work of the Spirit while the creation was coming into being? Or is it foolish and irrational to conceive of any other creation besides that which subsists from the Father through the Son?
B 12. But perhaps the Spirit was not occupied, but abstained from the zeal of creating because of some sloth and idleness and avoidance of toil. May the grace of the Spirit itself forgive us for this insanity of words! For we, by closely following the absurdity of those who dogmatize such things, have unwillingly soiled our own discourse with their notions, as if with some mire. Yet the orthodox opinion stands as follows: Neither is the Father ever conceived of without the Son, nor is the Son understood apart from the Holy Spirit. For just as it is impossible to come to the Father unless one is lifted up through the Son, so it is impossible to say that Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, fitly and conjointly are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit always known as being with one another in the perfect Trinity; and before all creation, and before all ages, and before any conception of our intellect, the Father is always the Father, and with the Son is the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, these exist inseparably and together with one another, what is the insanity of those who attempt to separate that which is individual and to divide that which is inseparable, so as to dare to say that the Father made all things alone through the Son, with the Holy Spirit being either not present or doing nothing at the time of creation? For if He was not present, let them say where He was, since God in reality occupies all things; do they perhaps assign some peculiar station to the Spirit, such that He was by Himself separately at the time of creation? But if He was present, how was He inactive? Was it because He could do nothing, or because He did not wish to, omitting it of His own accord, or because He was repelled by some stronger necessity? For if He preferred leisure of His own accord, He would not be allowed to act in any other thing whatsoever; and he who says that He works all things in all as He wills would, according to the opinion of these men, be rendered a liar.
13. But if the Spirit is indeed moved of His own accord to work, but some superior power hinders this purpose, let them certainly say what the cause is of this hindering. Is it out of envy for the glory that arises from the works, so that the admiration for the things well done might not pass over to another, or is it because He does not trust the co-worker, as if His operation would result in the detriment of the present work? Surely these wise men will clarify for us the causes of these notions as well. But if neither does envy touch the divine nature, nor any failure [occur] concerning the unfailing
divine nature, what does this fastidiousness in their judgment signify, which denies the creative cause to the power of the Spirit, when, on the contrary, one ought to subordinate humble and human thoughts to sublime perceptions, and to think of what is subject in a way worthy of the dignity of the Most High? For neither did God, who surpasses all things, create all things through the Son because of any need for cooperation, nor does the only-begotten Son perform all things in the Holy Spirit because He has a power less than His intention. Rather, the Father is the fount of power, the Son is the power of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the power of the Spirit; but every creature, both sensible and incorporeal, is the effect of the divine power. And since no labor is understood to exist in the things that constitute the divine nature—for action follows the will immediately, and a purpose is translated into reality without delay—we shall rightly say that every substance which comes into being through creation, the movement of the will, the onset of purpose, and the communication of power, begins from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is brought to completion in the Holy Spirit.
B 14. Holding this sentiment in a manner according to our simple and customary way, we do not admit those wise arguments of our opponents, for we believe and confess in everything, both worldly and supramundane, temporal and eternal, that the Holy Spirit is to be associated with the Father and the Son, and is to be excluded from neither their will, nor their action, nor any matter piously believed to be good. And for this reason, except for the difference of order and person, we admit no diversity in any respect, but we say that He is numbered third after the Father and the Son: third also in the order of tradition. In all other respects, however, we confess the connection to be inseparable—in nature, that is, and honor, divinity, glory, magnificence, universal power, and the religious confession we hold. But in regards to what these wise men quibble about—worship and adoration and things of that C sort—we affirm this, namely, that the Holy Spirit is more exalted than any duty we offer through human efforts, and that our adoration is weaker than the honor due, and whatever expression of veneration human custom provides is inferior to the dignity of the Spirit; for He who is infinite by nature is greater than any homage that is offered to Him by the effort of a meager, circumscribed, and lowly faculty. We say these things, moreover, to those who adhere to the more religious opinion regarding the Holy Spirit—that He is God and possesses a divine nature.
15. If anyone should reject this declaration and the meaning that is evident in the name of divinity, and should advocate what is bruited about by many for the sake of abolishing the majesty of the Spirit—namely, that He is not [one] of the beings who create, but D that he should delete the meaning of divinity from that very word, and instead say that which is bandied about by many to abolish the majesty of the Spirit, namely that which is said by Paul, Gal. iv, 6, "the Spirit of the Son."
A but belongs to the created nature, we answer this argument by saying that we have not learned to number those who are in such a state among Christians. For just as no one would call an imperfect embryo a man, but rather a certain potentiality—if indeed it has been perfected to proceed into the generation of a human being—yet as long as it is in the imperfect state, it is something else and not a man; so too, he who has not received the true and orthodox form of the entire mystery of piety is not known by the Word as a Christian. For it is possible to hear even Jews confessing God, and indeed our God. The Lord Himself concedes to them in the Gospel that they think of no other God than the Father of the Only-Begotten, when He says, "Whom you say is your God." Are, then, the Jews to be called by the name of Christians because they confess that they worship the same God who is worshipped by us? I know that even the Manichaeans use the name of Christ. What then? Because the name which is worshipped by us is held in veneration among them, shall we for that reason also number them among Christians? Similarly, he who confesses the Father and admits the Son, but abolishes the majesty of the Spirit, has denied the faith, is worse than an unbeliever, and falsely assumes the name of Christian. The Apostle commands the man of God to be perfect. Perfection in the case of a common man will consist in his having a nature that is absolute in every respect; for he must be rational, capable of mind and knowledge, master of his life, upright in stature, capable of laughter, and broad-nailed. But if one were to name someone a man, while he is unable to provide the stated indications of that nature, he honours him with that appellation in vain. Thus also the Christian is characterized by faith in the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit: this is the form of him who has been fashioned according to the mystery of the truth. But if the form should happen to be otherwise, I will not recognize the nature of the thing that is B deformed: it is rather a confusion of the character and an alienation of the natural form, and a corruption of the distinguishing signs of humanity, when the Holy Spirit is not received together with the faith. For the word of the Preacher is true, that this is not a living man, but bones, as he says, in the womb of the woman with child. For how will he confess Christ, if he does not think of the anointing together with the Anointed One? "Him," says Scripture, "did God anoint with the Holy Spirit."
C 16. Let them tell us, then, those who abolish the glory of the Spirit and rank Him among the subject natures, of what thing the anointing is a symbol. Is it not of the kingdom? What then? Do they not believe the Only-Begotten to be king by His own nature? They will certainly not deny it, provided they do not have their hearts completely covered with the Jewish veil. If, therefore, the Son is by nature God, and that which is anointed is a symbol of the kingdom, what does consistent reason demonstrate to you? Namely, that the anointing is not something extraneous to Him who is by nature King, nor is the Spirit to be considered as D something foreign or alien to the Holy Trinity.
A For the Son is King, but the Holy Spirit is the living, substantial, and subsistent kingdom, by whom the Only-Begotten, being anointed, is Christ and King of all things that exist. If, therefore, the Father is King, and the Only-Begotten is King, and the Holy Spirit is the kingdom, there is altogether one account of the kingdom in the Trinity. Now, the notion of the anointing signifies through hidden things that there is no interval between the Son and the Holy Spirit; for just as reason and sense perceive nothing intermediate between the surface of the body and the anointing of oil, so the conjunction of the Holy Spirit with the Son is indivisible, such that it is necessary for him who is about to touch Him through faith to encounter the ointment through contact first; for there is no part that is bare of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, the confession of the lordship of the Son occurs in the Holy Spirit for those who lay hold of Him, the Spirit going before all who approach through faith on every side. If, therefore, the Son is King by nature, and the Holy Spirit is the dignity of the kingdom by which the Son is anointed, what sense can be made of an alienation of the kingdom from Him according to nature?
17. Then let us also consider this: The kingdom is known entirely by the authority over those who are subject to it. What, therefore, is subject to the reigning nature? Reason encompasses all of the ages and the things within them. "For Thy kingdom," it says, "is a kingdom of the ages" (Ps. CXLIV, 13). By saying "ages," He includes every creature whose composition is within them out of that which encompasses it, both visible and invisible; for in them all things were created by the Creator of the ages. If, therefore, the kingdom is always understood with the King, and it is confessed that the subject nature is something different from that which rules, what is the madness of those who conflict with themselves, assigning the chrism to Him who is King by nature as a dignity, yet at the same time dragging this same chrism down to the order of the subjects as if it were lower in value? For if it is of the nature of the subjects, how is it joined to the kingly dignity of the Only-Begotten, becoming the anointing of a kingdom? If, however, His sovereignty is shown by its being assumed into the magnificence of the kingdom, what need is there to destroy all this by bringing it down to private and servile humility, numbering it with the serving creature? For it is not possible that two things said about the same subject should both be true: namely, that He is Lord and subject. For if He rules, He is not ruled; but if He serves, He is no longer reckoned with the reigning nature. For just as men are recognized with men, and angels with angels, and all things with their like, so it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to be confessed with one or the other—either with the ruling nature or with the subject nature. For reason recognizes nothing intermediate between these, so that one might imagine some property of nature newly devised between the created and the uncreated, as if it participated in both, and neither... D
perfectly exists. For it is not permitted to admit some mixture and connection of opposites, namely, of the created with the uncreated, nor can two uncreated things be confounded into one hypostasis; for not only would that which is put together from this absurd mixture turn out composite, but it would also be a composition of things unlike, which do not agree in age: for that which finds its existence from creation is entirely more recent than that which has an uncreated subsistence. If, therefore, they say that the nature of the Spirit is mixed from both, they will in any case imagine some mixture of the older with the more recent; and there will be, according to their opinion, something at once older and more recent than itself, so that in as much as it is uncreated it is older, but in as much as it is created it is more recent. Since, therefore, this cannot exist in the nature of things, it is necessary that one of these things be true of the Spirit, which is that it is uncreated. B
18. But let us also contemplate how much absurdity this holds. Since all things which are in creation, for this very reason that they have had their existence from creation, have equal honor, what is the cause separating the Spirit from the rest of the things such that we can rank Him together with the Father and the Son? For it is found from the sequence of the argument that it could not be from creation, that which is observed to be associated with the uncreated nature; or if it were from there, it would have no more power than the creation of the same nature, nor could it be combined with the nature that is above it. If, however, they were to say that the Spirit is indeed created, but yet is able to do more than a created thing, we shall again find the created nature warring against itself and divided in two between what is dominant and what is subject, so that one part of it confers a benefit, and the other part receives it; one part sanctifies, and the other part is sanctified; and as many goods as are believed to be granted to the creature by the Holy Spirit, they indeed are present to Him abundantly, springing up and pouring over into others, but the creature is in need of the benefit and grace flowing from there, and receives the communion of goods flowing from one of the same nature through participation. C For such a thing as this involves partiality and respect of persons, since with no superiority of honor being in the nature, those whose substance does not differ from one another cannot have unequal powers. A point which no one in their right mind, I suppose, will concede; for either it does not provide to others, if it does not possess it naturally; or if it is believed to give, it is already confessed to possess it absolutely. But this is the property and distinctive mark of the divine nature alone, to be the giver of good things, but itself to be in need of nothing adventitious. D
19. Next let us inquire into this also: what is it we are striving for through holy baptism? Is it not that we might obtain a life no longer subject to death? I suppose no one, who is in any way counted among Christians, would contradict this statement. What then? Does the life-giving power reside in the water, which is applied for the grace of baptism? Is it not rather well known to everyone that water is applied for the sake of the bodily ministry, while (the page break occurs here)
it brings nothing of itself toward sanctification, unless its power is changed by the sanctification? But it is B the Spirit who vivifies those who are baptized, as the Lord Himself says by the oracle of His own voice: "It is the Spirit who vivifies." Yet the Spirit does not vivify alone, having been received for the perfection of this grace through faith; rather, faith toward the Lord must precede it, through which the vital grace is obtained by believers, just as it was said by the Lord, that He vivifies whom He wills. But because the grace also administered through the Son depends upon the unbegotten source, therefore our doctrine teaches that faith in the name of the Father, who vivifies all things, must precede it, as the Apostle says, so that, having originated thence—as if from a certain source pouring forth life through the only-begotten Son, who is the true life—it may be perfected in those who are deemed worthy by the operation of the Spirit. If, therefore, life comes through baptism, and baptism concludes its perfection in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, what do those say who consider the provider of life as nothing? For if the grace is small, let them say what is more precious than life. But if everything that is precious is inferior to life—I mean that high and honorable life in which an irrational nature in no way participates—how do they dare to diminish such and so great a gift, or rather the very giver of the gift, with their own thoughts, and to pull it down to a subordinate nature, severing it from that high and divine one? Furthermore, even if they say that the gift of life is slight, so that nothing august and great concerning the nature of the giver is revealed from it, how do they not consider the consequence of the matter, namely, that the same line of reasoning will compel one to think nothing great either C of the Only-Begotten or of the Father Himself, on account of that very life which we have from the Father through the Spirit, with the Son as mediator, as it is supplied?
20. Wherefore, if these contemners and enemies of their own life consider the gift to be small, and therefore judge the giver of this grace to be dishonored, let them not be unaware that they are ungrateful not against one person, but are extending their blasphemy through the Holy Spirit to the Holy Trinity. For just as grace flows and is carried indivisibly from the Father through the Son and the Spirit to those who are worthy, so also does blasphemy, turning back as it were in a retrograde course, proceed from the Son to the God of the universe. For if, because of a man who has been rejected, he who sent him is rejected—even though there is such a great interval between that man and the one who sent him—who could say how great a condemnation is in store for those who dare to act against the Spirit? Perhaps for this reason that unforgivable judgment has been decreed by the Lawgiver against such blasphemy, since the entire blessed and divine nature is simultaneously insulted by the will of the blasphemer through the Spirit. For just as he who has piously received the Spirit knows in the same Spirit the glory of the Only-Begotten; and he who knows the Son knows the image of the infinite, and by
the image has imprinted upon his understanding the knowledge of the archetype, so too, clearly, the man who is abusive and contemptuous, whenever he dares anything against the glory of the Spirit, by the same sequence extends his blasphemy through the Son even to the Father. Therefore, those who have any sense ought to fear, lest they dare anything of this kind rashly, the end of which will be the complete destruction of him who dares it; but rather let them, with all their strength, exalt the Spirit with their words, or even before words, let them lift Him up in their mind; for it is impossible for the mind to be lifted up except with words. And when you have reached the highest summit of human powers, that is, insofar as the human mind can dilate its intellect into sublime and great concepts, then consider yourself to be inferior to that excelling dignity, according to what is said in the psalmody, namely, that after you have exalted our God, only then will you worship at the footstool of his feet. B The reason why His dignity is incomparable is none other than that He is holy.
21. If, therefore, every height of human power is lower than the majesty of the One who is worshipped (for this is what the Scripture signifies by the footstool of the feet), what madness has seized those who think they have such power within themselves that they can decide, by their own judgment, what honor is appropriate to an inestimable nature? And because of this, they deem the Holy Spirit unworthy of certain signs of honor, as if their own powers were of more consequence than the dignity which the Holy Spirit possesses. O the miserable and wretched insanity of those who do not understand who they themselves are who speak such things, and who the Holy Spirit is, against whom they contend in their pride! Who could tell these people that they are a spirit that passes away and does not return, formed in the mother's womb by an impure conception, and all destined to be dissolved into putrid earth, having received a life comparable to hay, which, flourishing for a brief time in the error of the world, withers again, and the flower surrounding them falls away and vanishes, being nothing before their birth, and not exactly knowing to what place they shall depart from here, since the soul, as long as it remains in the body, is ignorant of its future abode? This, indeed, is the condition of men.
22. But the Holy Spirit, firstly, as far as the holiness of nature is concerned, is just as the Father is by nature holy, and likewise the Only-Begotten. So too the Holy Spirit, and likewise regarding the life-giving, and the incorruptible, and the unchangeable, and the eternal, just, wise, right, directing, good, powerful, the giver of all good things, and before all things, life itself: D existing everywhere, present to each one, filling the earth, remaining in heaven, diffused among the supernal powers, filling all things according to the capacity of each, and yet remaining full Himself, dwelling with all the saints, and yet not separated from the holy Trinity. He always searches the deep things of God, always receives from the Son, and is sent and is not separated, and is glorified
is sent and is not separated, and it is glorified and possesses glory; for he who confers glory upon another, it is clear that he is contained within a superabundant glory. For how does that which is devoid of glory glorify? If it were not itself light, how would it demonstrate the grace of light? So too, it would not demonstrate the glorifying power, were it not itself glory and honor and majesty and magnificence. The Spirit, therefore, glorifies the Father and the Son. But He who said this is true: "Those who glorify me, I will glorify." "I have glorified Thee," says the Lord to the Father; and again, "Glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." The divine voice answers: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." Do you see the circular rotation of glory through the things that are equal? The Son is glorified by the Spirit; the Father is glorified by the Son; the Son again receives glory from the Father, and the Only-Begotten becomes the glory of the Spirit. For by what other thing will the Father be glorified, if not by the true glory of the Only-Begotten? And by what other thing, again, will the Son be glorified, if not in the majesty of the Spirit? Thus, then, our discourse, revolving in a circle, honors the Son through the Spirit, and the Father through the Son. A
23. If, therefore, the majesty of the Spirit is so great, and if whatever is noble and whatever is good from God is brought to perfection through the Only-Begotten in the Spirit, who works all things in all, why do they make war against their own life? Why do they alienate themselves from the hope of those who are being saved? Why do they cut themselves off from the union with God? For how will anyone be united with the Lord if the Spirit does not work our conjunction with Him? Why do they contend with us regarding worship and adoration? Why do they mock the term "worship" toward the divine nature, which lacks nothing, as though they were not benefiting themselves in their petitions for salvation, but rather were conferring some honor upon Him if they choose to be saved? The prayer is the gain of the petitioner, not the honor of Him who grants it. Why then do you approach the Benefactor as if you were doing Him a favor, or rather, why do you not even deem Him who provides these good things worthy of the name of Benefactor? But while holding fast to life, you despise the Life-Giver; and while seeking sanctification, you maintain a false opinion concerning the dispenser of grace. And although you do not deny that He has the power to bestow good things, you judge Him unworthy to be asked. You do not even consider this: how much greater it is to give some good thing than to be asked for it. For a petition does not altogether bear witness to the greatness of the one who is asked; for it is possible to ask something even of one who does not have it. For it depends on the intention of the petitioner; but he who provides some good thing has made an undoubted demonstration of the power inherent in him. Why, then, when you bear witness to the greater thing in Him—I mean, that He is able to bestow every good thing—do you deprive Him of the honor of being asked, as if it were some great thing, even though this very thing often happens, as has been said, even toward those who are masters of nothing, through the error of the one who approaches? For they even ask of the idols of... B C D
[The Latin text begins in the middle of a sentence:] ...those things which they desire for themselves, nor does their petition shed any glory upon the idols: yet the worshippers, deceived by error, indulging in the expectation of obtaining what they hope for, do not cease to petition. But you, when you are sufficiently persuaded of how great and how many gifts the Holy Spirit is the giver, why do you neglect to petition Him? And why do you fly to the Mosaic Law A which commands that the Lord God be adored, and that worship be given to Him alone? How, I ask, will you offer worship to Him alone, while you sever Him from His own conjunction with the Only-Begotten and the Spirit? In truth, this is Jewish worship.
24. You will say: "I, when I think of the Father, include the Son also in that naming." But the Son, tell me, when you take Him into your mind, do you not also simultaneously include the Holy Spirit? You cannot deny it. For how will you confess Him, if you are not in the Holy Spirit? When, therefore, is the Spirit separated from the Son, so that when the Father is adored, the adoration of the Son and of the Spirit is not included along with Him? And what, I pray, do they think adoration itself to be, if it is to be offered as a certain extraordinary gift to the God above all, and they sometimes transfer this honor even to the Only-Begotten, yet deny this gift to the Spirit? B Indeed, human custom calls that inclination to the ground, by which subjects show obedience to those more powerful, "adoration": just as it is certain that the patriarch Jacob, in order to appease his brother's anger, demonstrated his own disparity and humility by this posture of the body when he encountered him. "He adored," says Scripture, "falling prostrate upon the ground." The brothers of Joseph also, as long as they were ignorant, and he feigned ignorance before them on account of the amplitude of his dignity, honored his power with adoration. The great Abraham, the stranger, also adored the Hittites, the inhabitants of the land, C signifying, as I suppose, how much more powerful the natives were than the sojourners. It would be possible to recount many other things of this kind, both from ancient histories and from present examples of life. Do these men, therefore, think the same thing about adoration? And truly, is it not ridiculous to think that the Holy Spirit is not to be honored even with this service, with which even the Canaanites were honored by the patriarch? Or do they think that there is some other adoration besides this, so that one kind is suitable for men, and another for the transcendent nature? Why, therefore, do they reject any adoration at all for the Spirit, not even granting Him that which is conceded to men?
25. But what do they judge to be the mode of adoration properly assigned to God? Is it that which is uttered with words, or that which is performed by the posture of the body? D Indeed, both modes are practiced among men also; for words are spoken among men, and gestures of the body are made. What, therefore, is more excellent in the case of God? Surely it is evident to any sane man that...
A human nature has nothing to give that is worthy of God; for our Creator has no need of our goods. But we men, these honorable and affectionate demonstrations which we make toward one another, by which we acknowledge one another to be humbler and testify to the higher rank of our neighbor, these same things, I say, we have transferred to the service of a higher nature, offering the things that are honorable among us to the nature that is beyond estimation. And for this reason, since men approaching kings or princes—for whatever they wish to obtain from those in power—do not offer their request to the rulers stripped of all else, but do so as much as possible to move them to pity and benevolence, they humble themselves in word, and they bow in posture, and they touch their knees, and they fall to the ground, and by all things making themselves pitiable, they put forward an advocate for their request, through which they perform... B Therefore, those who have recognized the true power, through which all things that exist are governed... those for whom it is pleasing to them. Some, who are lowly of soul, in regard to those things in this world... Those, however, who are lofty in mind, regarding eternal and ineffable hopes, because they do not know how to ask, nor is human nature capable of showing any honor that reaches to the magnificence of His glory, have transferred the service customary among men to the honor of the Divine. And this is adoration: a petition for some desired object, made with supplication and humility. C Hence Daniel also bends his knees to the Lord, seeking His philanthropy for the captive people. And He who bore our infirmities, and who intercedes for us, in the humanity which He assumed, is recorded by the Gospel to have fallen upon His face at the time of prayer, and in this posture He made His prayer, establishing, I think, as a rule for human life, that we should not act boldly at the time of prayer, but in every way should compose ourselves to move toward mercy, because "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble," and elsewhere, "He who exalts himself shall be humbled." If, therefore, D adoration is a kind of supplication or assistance put forward for the purpose of a request, and the request is made to the Lord of power, what is the meaning of this new legislation, that we should neither ask from Him who gives, nor fall down before the Prince, nor show the service due to a ruler?...