|
Augustine’s
teachings are a complete, although unconscious, rejection of doctrines
of at least three Ecumenical Councils i.e. that the doctrine about
|
 |
PART I:
AUGUSTINE'S TEACHINGS WHICH WERE CONDEMNED AS THOSE OF BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN BY THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF 1351.
PART II:
THE FIRST AND SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.
PART III:
THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES’ CREED OF 381.
© John S. Romanides
INTRODUCTION
In
Part One we put before the readers of this study the texts of Books II and
III of Augustine's De Trinitate. In Part II we present
texts of Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils which identify
Christ the Logos of the New Testament with the Angel of Great Council and
Lord/Yaweh of Glory of the Old Testament Who appeared
to His friends the prophets of the Old Testaments. In this way the reader
may see for himself whether Augustine belongs to the same tradition as the
Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. This will allow readers
to compare the texts of Part One and Part Two to see whether Augustine teaches
the same about the Lord Yaweh of Glory as the Fathers
of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. Thus they will see for themselves
that the heresies of Barlaam the Calabrian
condemned at the Ninth Ecumenical Council are those of Augustine himself.
In other words according to Augustine the prophets of the Old Testament and
the prophets and the apostles of the New Testament
did not see anything uncreated except by means of creatures God brings into
existence to be seen and heard and which He then passes back out of existence
once their mission is accomplished.
In contrast to such
Augustinian assertions, which are too silly to be called heresies,
both the Arians and the Eunomians condemned by the
First and Second Ecumenical Councils accepted that the Logos and the Holy
Spirit were the first creations of God by which He creates and sanctifies
created beings, but nevertheless remain in existence permanently. In
contrast Augustine's Logos and Holy Spirit are simple manners of existence of
the divine essence as related to itself, somewhat like the uncreated energies of
God in the teaching of our Orthodox
Fathers.
What is truly
amazing is that the East Romans being lead by St. Gregory Palamas
at the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1451 never realized that that the heresies
of Barlaam which they were condemning were the teachings
of Augustine himself. For this reason they claimed that the devil himself
inspired this Calabrian to teach his new heresies. While
pointing this out this writer has never raised the question about the sainthood
of Augustine. He himself believed himself to be fully Orthodox and repeatedly
asked to be corrected. Indeed his Filioque is part of
the West Roman Orthodox Filioque tradition which the
Anglicans deliberately choose to ignore as I point out on the website just
referred to.
It is very clear that
Augustine was completely obsessed by the Arian argument that proof that the
Logos of the Father is created is the fact that He was visible to the Prophets
and Patriarchates of the Old Testaments and the prophets and apostles of the
New Testament. It is because of this concrete problem that Augustine took
refuge in his peculiar argument that the Holy Trinity reveals Himself by
creatures which He brings into existence which are seen and heard and which He
passes back into non-existence when their missions are accomplished. In this
way the receptors of revelation end up with supposedly divinely inspired words
and concepts without real communion with uncreated glory of God.
In sharp contrast
to this heresy the Fathers of the Church know from their own prophetic and
apostolic experience of glorification/theosis that
there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated and
that "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to
understand God."
One of the keys to today's continued misunderstandings
of Patristic dogma and theology is that some modern Orthodox began dealing with
St. Gregory Palamas within a non Patristic context as
pointed out in my "Notes on the Palamite
Controversy and Related Topics Part One and Part Two."[1] However, a doctoral thesis
which had been published earlier than my just cited work was translated into
English, with a forward by Bishop Kallistos Ware[2] and which marks a serious backward step into the non
patristic past of modern Orthodox Dogmatics which
began in Russia. This Doctoral thesis of Professor Georgios
I. Mantzarides, "The Teaching Concerning Theosis According to St. Gregory Palamas,[3]" and unfortunately its cited translation, is not
aware of the fact that a prevalent Old and New Testament term for Theosis is simply "glorification." This led the
members of "A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue" to write in their COMMON
STATEMENT the following in their section entitled "THEOSIS
(DEIFICATION)."[4] After a quote from Bishop Kallistos Ware about the Orthodox understanding of
Christianity in terms of deification_(theosis),[5] both Lutherans and Orthodox state that,
"Although the term theosis does not occur
in Holy Scriptures the idea of sharing in the divine nature (which theosis means) does occur.[6]" But neither Mantzarides,
nor Bishop Ware, nor the rest of the Orthodox present, were not only unaware
that one of the biblical terms for theosis is
glorification, but were also unaware that theosis/glorification
was already a present reality in the Old Testament as the divine power which
ordained the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets before the Incarnation and
by which they already saw and communed with Christ the Lord of Glory before His
Incarnation. This is why St. Gregory Palamas quotes Maximus the Confessor's interpretation of Hebrews 7,3 as
follows: "The Great Melchisedek is recorded as 'without
having neither beginning of days nor end of life,' not because of the
created nature, by which he began and ended, but because of the divine and
forever existing uncreated and above every nature and all time, but because of
the eternally existing God"[7] Although all the prophets and patriarchs of the Old
Testament had reached glorification, they did die, but were resurrected with
Christ and became members of His Body, the Church, on Pentecost.
PART I
AUGUSTINE'S
TEACHINGS WHICH WERE CONDEMNED AS THOSE OF
BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN
BY THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF 1351.
FROM
AUGINTINE'S "DE TRINITATE."
AUGUSTIN PURSUES HIS DEFENSE OF THE
EQUALITY OF THE TRINITY; AND IN TREATING OF THE SENDING OF THE SON AND OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT, AND OF THE VARIOUS APPEARANCES OF GOD, DEMONSTRATES THAT HE WHO IS
SENT IS NOT THEREFORE LESS THAN HE WHO SENDS, BECAUSE THE ONE HAS SENT, THE
OTHER HAS BEEN SENT; BUT THAT THE TRINITY, BEING IN ALL THINGS EQUAL, AND ALIKE
IN ITS OWN NATURE UNCHANGEABLE AND INVISIBLE AND OMNIPRESENT, WORKS INDIVISIBLY
IN EACH SENDING OR APPEARANCE.
PREFACE.
WHEN men seek to
know God, and bend their minds according to the capacity of human weakness to
the understanding of the Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience, the
wearisome difficulties of the task, whether from the sight itself of the mind
striving to gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed, from the manifold and
various modes of--speech employed in the sacred writings (wherein, as it seems
to me, the mind is nothing else but roughly exercised, in order that it may
find sweetness when glorified by the grace of Christ);--such men, I say, when
they have dispelled every ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, ought of
all others most easily to make allowance for those who err in the investigation
of so deep a secret. But there are two things most hard to bear with, in the
case of those who are in error: hasty assumption before the truth is made
plain; and, when it has been made--plain, defense of
the falsehood thus hastily assumed. From which two faults, inimical as they are
to the finding out of the truth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred
books, should God, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield of
His good will,(1) and with the grace of His mercy, shall more desire to be
examined by the upright, than fear to be carped at by the perverse. For
charity, most excellent and unassuming, gratefully accepts the dovelike eye;
but for the dog's tooth nothing remains, save either to shun it by the most
cautious humility, or to blunt it by the most solid truth; and far rather would
I be censured by any one whatsoever, than I will not be slow to search out the
substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through the creature. For
both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this end, that He may
Himself be sought, and Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the
other. Nor shall I be afraid of giving my opinion, in which I be praised by
either the erring or the flatterer. For the lover of truth need fear no one's
censure. For he that censures, must needs be either enemy or friend. And if an
enemy reviles, he must be borne with: but a friend, if he errs, must be taught;
if he teaches, listened to. But if one who errs praises you, he confirms your
error; if one who flatters, he seduces you into error. "Let the
righteous," therefore, "smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him
reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head."(2)
CHAP. 1.--THERE IS A DOUBLE RULE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE
SCRIPTURAL MODES OF SPEECH CONCERNING THE SON OF GOD. THESE MODES OF SPEECH ARE
OF A THREEFOLD KIND.
2. Wherefore,
although we hold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be
called the canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures,
and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of the same Scriptures,
namely, that the Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father
according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according
to the form of a servant which He took;(1) in which form He was found to be not
only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so,
but less even than Himself,--not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is;
because, by taking the form of a servant, He did not lose the form of God, as
the testimonies of the Scriptures taught us, to which we have referred in the
former book: yet there are some things in the sacred text so put as to leave it
ambiguous to which rule they are rather to be referred; whether to that by
which we understand the Son as less, in that He has taken upon Him the
creature, or to that by which we understand that the Son is not indeed less
than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light
of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God.
Whence it is plain that the Son has another of whom He is, and to whom He is
Son; but that the Father has not a Son of whom He is, but only to whom He is
father. For every son is what he is, of his father, and is son to his father;
but no father is what he is, of his son, but is father to his son.(2)
3. Some things,
then, are so put in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son, as to
intimate the unity and equality of their substance; as, for instance, "I
and the Father are one;"(3) and, "Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God;"(4) and whatever ether texts
there are of the kind. And some, again, are so put that they show the Son as
less on account of the form of a servant, that is, of His having taken upon Him
the creature of a changeable and human substance; as, for instance, that which
says, "For my Father is greater than I;"(5) and, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the
Son." For a little after he goes on to say, "And hath given Him authority
to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." And further, some
are so put, as to show Him at that time neither as less nor as equal, but only
to intimate that He is of the Father; as, for instance, that which says,
"For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to
have life in Himself;" and that other: "The Son can do nothing of
Himself, but what He seeth the Father do."(6)
For if we shall take this to be therefore so said, because the Son is less in
the form taken from the creature, it will follow that the Father must have
walked on the water, or opened the eyes with clay and spittle of some other one
born blind, and have done the other things which the Son appearing in the flesh
did among men, before the Son did them;(7) in order that He might be able to do
those things, who said that the Son was not able to do anything of Himself,
except what He hath seen the Father do. Yet who, even though he were mad, would
think this? It remains, therefore, that these texts are so expressed, because
the life of the Son is unchangeable as that of the Father is, and yet He is of
the Father; and the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible, and
yet so to work is given to the Son from Him of whom He Himself is, that is, from
the Father; and the Son so sees the Father, as that He is the Son in the very
seeing Him. For to be of the Father, that is, to be born of the Father. is to
Him nothing else than to see the Father; and to see Him working, is nothing
else than to work with Him: but therefore not from Himself, because He is not
from Himself. And, therefore, those things which "He sees the Father do,
these also doeth the Son likewise," because He is of the Father. For He
neither does other things in like manner, as a painter paints other pictures,
in the same way as he sees others to have been painted by another man; nor the
same things in a different manner, as the body expresses the same letters,
which the mind has thought; but "whatsoever things," saith He, "the Father doeth, these same things also
doeth the Son likewise."(8) He has said both these same things," and
"likewise;" and hence the working of both the Father and the Son is
indivisible and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son
cannot do anything of Himself, except what He seeth
the Father do. From this rule, then, whereby the Scriptures so speak as to
mean, not to set forth one as less than another, but only to show which is of
which, some have drawn this meaning, as if the Son were said to be less. And
some among ourselves who are more unlearned and least instructed in these
things, endeavoring to take these texts according to
the form of a servant, and so mis-interpreting them,
are troubled. And to prevent this, the rule in question is to be observed
whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply intimated that He is of the
Father, in which words not His inequality but His birth is declared.
CHAP. 2.--THAT SOME WAYS OF SPEAKING CONCERNING THE SON ARE TO
BE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO EITHER RULE.
4. There are, then,
some things in the sacred books, as I began by saying, so put, that it is
doubtful to which they are to be referred: whether to that rule whereby the Son
is less on account of His having taken the creature; or whether to that whereby
it is intimated that although equal, yet He is of the Father. And in my
opinion, if this is in such way doubtful, that which it really is can neither
be explained nor discerned, then such passages may without danger be understood
according to either rule, as that, for instance, "My doctrine is not mine,
but His that sent me."(1) For this may both be taken according to the form
of a servant, as we have already treated it in the former book;(2) or according
to the form of God, in which He is in such way equal to the Father, that He is
yet of the Father. For according to the form of God, as the Son is not one and
His life another, but the life itself is the Son; so the Son is not one and His
doctrine another, but the doctrine itself is the Son. And hence, as the text,
"He hath given life to the Son," is no otherwise to be understood
than, He hath begotten the Son, who is life; so also when it is said, He hath
given doctrine to the Son, it may be rightly understood to mean, He hath begotten
the Son, who is doctrine so that, when it is said, "My doctrine is not
mine, but His who sent me," it is so to be understood as if it were, I am
not from myself, but from Him who sent me.
CHAP. 3.--SOME
THINGS CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE ONE
RULE ONLY.
5. For even of the
Holy Spirit, of whom it is not said, "He emptied Himself, and took upon
Him the form of a servant;" yet the Lord Himself says, "Howbeit, when
He the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall
not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and He
will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive of
mine, and shall show it unto you." And except He had immediately gone on
to say after this, "All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore
said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you;"(3) it
might, perhaps, have been believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ,
as Christ is of the Father. Since He had said of Himself, "My doctrine is
not mine, but His that sent me;" but of the Holy Spirit," For He
shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall He
speak;" and, "For He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto
you." But because He has rendered the reason why He said, "He shall
receive of mine" (for He says, "All things that the Father hath are
mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine "); it remains that the
Holy Spirit be understood to have of that which is the Father's, as the Son
also hath. And how can this be, unless according to that which we have said
above, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth
from the Father, He shall testify of me"?(4) He is said, therefore, not to
speak of Himself, in that He proceedeth from the
Father; and as it does not follow that the Son is less because He said,
"The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth
the Father do" (for He has not said this according to the form of a
servant, but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these
words do not set Him forth as less than, but as of the Father), so it is not
brought to pass that the Holy Spirit is less, because it is said of Him, "For
He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He
speak;" for the words belong to Him as proceeding from the Father. But
whereas both the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father, why both are not called sons, and both not said to be begotten, but the
former is called the one only-begotten Son, and the latter, viz. the Holy
Spirit, neither son nor begotten, because if begotten, then certainly a son, we
will discuss in another place, if God shall grant, and so far as He shall
grant.(5)
CHAP. 4.--THE GLORIFICATION OF THE SON BY THE FATHER DOES NOT
PROVE INEQUALITY.
6. But here also
let them wake up if they can, who have thought this, too, to be a testimony on
their side, to show that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son
hath said, "Father, glorify me." Why, the Holy Spirit also glorifies
Him. Pray, is the Spirit, too, greater than He? Moreover, if on that account
the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, because He shall receive of that which is
the Son's, and shall therefore receive of that which is the Son's because all
things that the Father has are the Son's also; it is evident that when the Holy
Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it may be
perceived that all things that the Father hath are not only of the Son, but
also of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son,
whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than he whom he
glorifies, let them allow that those are equal who mutually glorify each other.
But it is written, also, that the Son glorifies the Father; for He says,
"I have glorified Thee on the earth."(1) Truly let them beware test
the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because He glorifies the Son whom
the Father glorifies, while it is not written that He Himself is glorified
either by the Father or by the Son.
CHAP. 5.--THE
SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE NOT THEREFORE LESS BECAUSE SENT. THE SON IS SENT ALSO
BY HIMSELF. OF THE SENDING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
7. But being proved
wrong so far, men betake themselves to saying, that he who sends is greater
than he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the
Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by the Father; and the Father
is also greater than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus has said of the Spirit,
"Whom the Father will send in my name;"(2) and the Holy Spirit is
less than both, because both the Father sends Him, as we have said, and the
Son, when He says, "But if I depart, I will send Him unto you." I
first ask, then, in this inquiry, whence and whither the Son was sent. "I,"
He says, "came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."(3)
Therefore, to be sent, is to come forth from the Father, and to come into the
world. What, then, is that which the same evangelist says concerning Him,
"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew
Him not;" and then he adds, "He came unto His own?"(4) Certainly
He was sent thither, whither He came; but if He was sent into the world,
because He came forth from the Father, then He both came into the world and was
in the world. He was sent therefore thither, where He already was. For consider
that, too, which is written in the prophet, that God said, "Do not I fill
heaven . and earth?"(5) If this is said of the Son (for some will have it
understood that the Son Himself spoke either by the prophets or in the
prophets), whither was He sent except to the place where He already was? For He
who says, "I fill heaven and earth," was everywhere. But if it is
said of the Father, where could He be without His own word and without His own
wisdom, which "reacheth from one end to another
mightily, and sweetly ordereth all things?"(6)
But He cannot be anywhere without His own Spirit. Therefore, if God is
everywhere, His Spirit also is everywhere. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, too, was
sent thither, where He already was. For he, too, who finds no place to which he
might go from the presence of God, and who says, "If I ascend up into
heaven, Thou art there; if I shall go down into hell, behold, Thou art
there;" wishing it to be understood that God is present everywhere, named
in the previous verse His Spirit; for He says," Whither shall I go from
Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?"(7)
8. For this reason,
then, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent thither where they were, we
must inquire, how that sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is to
be understood; for of the Father alone, we nowhere read that He is sent. Now,
of the Son, the apostle writes thus: "But when the fullness of the time
was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them that were under the law."(8) "He sent," he says,
"His Son, made of a woman." And by this term, woman,(9) what Catholic
does not know that he did not wish to signify the privation of virginity; but,
according to a Hebraism, the difference of sex? When, therefore, he says,
"God sent His Son, made of a woman," he sufficiently shows that the
Son was "sent" in this very way, in that He was "made of a
woman." Therefore, in that He was born of God, He was in the world; but in
that He was born of Mary, He was sent and came into the world. Moreover, He
could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the
Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainly
understood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but also because it
is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary,
when she asked of the angel, "How shall this be?" "The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee."(1) And Matthew says, "She was found with child of the Holy
Ghost."(2) Although, too, in the prophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is
understood to say of His own future advent, "And now the Lord God and His
Spirit hath sent me."(3)
9. Perhaps some one
may wish to drive us to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself, because the
conception and childbirth of Mary is the working of the Trinity, by whose act
of creating all things are created. And how, he will go on to say, has the
Father sent Him, if He sent Himself? To whom I answer first, by asking him to
tell me, if he can, in what manner the Father hath sanctified Him, if He hath
sanctified Himself? For the same Lord says both; "Say ye of Him," He
says, "whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God;"(4)
while in another place He says, "And for their sake I sanctify
myself."(6) I ask, also, in what manner the Father delivered Him, if He
delivered Himself? For the Apostle Paul says both: "Who," he says,
"spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;"(6) while
elsewhere he says of the Saviour Himself, "Who loved me, and delivered
Himself for me."(7) He will reply, I suppose, if he has a right sense in
these things, Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their
working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation
and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been
wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly;
the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly
said, "She was found with child by the Holy Ghost." For perhaps our
meaning will be more plainly unfolded, if we ask in what manner God sent His
Son. He commanded that He should come, and He, complying with the commandment,
came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it
was, certainly it was done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God
Himself. Wherefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the
work of both the Father and His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the
Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who
would embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to have uttered a
word in time, in order that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and might
appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? But assuredly it was in that Word
of God itself which was in the beginning with God and was God, namely, in the
wisdom itself of God, apart from time, at what time that wisdom must needs
appear in the flesh. Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the
Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it
was in the Word itself without any time, at what time the Word was to be made
flesh and dwell among us.(8) And when this fullness of time had come, "God
sent His Son, made of a woman,"(9) that is, made in time, that the
Incarnate Word might appear to men; while it was in that Word Himself, apart
from time, at what time this was to be done; for the order of times is in the
eternal wisdom of God without time. Since, then, that the Son should appear in
the flesh was wrought by both the Father and the Son, it is fitly said that He
who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sent
Him; because those things which are transacted outwardly before the bodily eyes
have their existence from the inward structure (apparatu)
of the spiritual nature, and on that account are filly said to be sent. Further,
that form of man which He took is the person of the Son, not also of the
Father; on which account the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with
the Father is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Him
visible. But if He became visible in such way as to cease to be invisible with
the Father, that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were turned by a
change and transition into a visible creature, then the Son would be so
understood to be sent by the Father, that He would be found to be only sent;
not also, with the Father, sending. But since He so took the form of a servant,
as that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that that which
became apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son not being
apparent; that is, that by the invisible Father, with the invisible Son, the
same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say,
"Neither came I of myself?" This, we may now say, is said according
to the form of a servant, in the same way as it is said, "I judge no
man."(10)
10. If, therefore,
He is said to be sent, in so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodily
creature, who inwardly in His spiritual nature is always hidden from the eyes
of mortals, it is now easy to understand also of the Holy Spirit why He too is
said to be sent. For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature
was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown; whether when He
descended upon the Lord Himself in a bodily shape as a dove,(1) or when, ten
days having past since His ascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came
suddenly from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues like as of
fire were seen upon them, and it sat upon each of them.(2) This operation,
visibly exhibited, and presented to mortal eyes, is called the sending of the Holy
Spirit; not that His very substance appeared, in which He himself also is
invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and the Son, but that the hearts of
men, touched by things seen outwardly, might be turned from the manifestation
in time of Him as coming to His hidden eternity as ever present.
CHAP. 6.--THE CREATURE IS NOT SO TAKEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AS
FLESH IS BY THE WORD.
11. It is, then,
for this reason nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the Holy
Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the
creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way
as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the person of the Word of God
Himself should be set forth not that He might possess the word of God, as other
holy and wise men have possessed it, but "above His fellows;" a not
certainly that He possessed the word more than they, so as to be of more
surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but that He was the very Word Himself. For
the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another; i.e.
the word in man is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is put
for man, where it is said, "The Word was made flesh;"(4) and again,
"And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'' For it does not mean
flesh without soul and without mind; but "all flesh," is the same as
if it were said, every man. The creature, then, in which the Holy Spirit should
appear, was not so taken, as that flesh and human form were taken, of the
Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or the wind, or the fire,
and join them for ever to Himself and to His person in unity and
"fashion."(6) Nor, again, is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable
and changeable; so that these things were not made of the creature, but He
himself was turned and changed first into one and then into another, as water
is changed into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons at which they
ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, and being changed and
converted at the command of Him who remains immutably in Himself, in order to
signify and manifest Him in such way as it was fit He should be signified and
manifested to mortal men. Accordingly, although that dove is called the
Spirit;(7) and in speaking of that fire, "There appeared unto them,"
he says, "cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them;
and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance;(8) in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire, as
by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both
God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as we
call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says,
"Behold the Lamb of God,"(9) but also John the Evangelist sees the
Lamb slain in the Apocalypse.(10) For that prophetic vision was not shown to
bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of
bodily things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire, saw them with their
eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputed concerning the fire, whether it was
seen by the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For
the text does not say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, "There appeared
to them." But we are not wont to say with the same meaning, It appeared to
me; as we say, I saw. And in those spiritual visions of corporeal images the
usual expressions are, both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things
which are shown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the common
expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may, therefore, be a
question raised respecting that fire, how it was seen; whether within in the
spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But
of that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever
doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock
(for it is written, "And that Rock was Christ"(11)), can we so call
the Spirits dove or fire. For that rock was a thing already created, and after
the mode of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified;
like the stone placed under Jacob's head, and also anointed, which he took in
order to signify the Lord;(1) or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried the wood
for the sacrifice of himself.(2) A particular significative
action was added to those already existing things; they did not, as that dove
and fire, suddenly come into being in order simply so to signify. The dove and
the fire, indeed, seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in
the bush,(3) or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness,(4) or
the thunders and lightnings which came when the Law
was given in the mount.(5) For the corporeal form of these things came into
being for the very purpose, that it might signify something, and then pass
away.(6)
CHAP. 7.--A DOUBT RAISED
ABOUT DIVINE APPEARANCES.
12. The Holy Spirit, then, is
also said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which came into
existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as He must needs be
manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as
the Son, because He was in the form of a servant, is said to be; because that
form of a servant inhered in the unity of the person of the Son, but those
corporeal forms appeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to be
shown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also said to be
sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the bush, and the pillar of
cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount,
and whatever other things of the kind appeared at that time, when (as we have
learned from Scripture testimony) He spake face to
face with the fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes and forms of
the creature, as exhibited ant presented corporeally to human sight? But if the
Son was manifested by them, why is He said to be sent so long after, when He
was made of a woman, as the apostle says, "But when the fullness of time
was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,"(7) seeing that He was
sent also before, when He appeared to the fathers by those changeable forms of
the creature? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent, unless when the Word
was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such
incarnation was ever wrought? But if by those visible things, which are put
before us in the Law and in the prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but
the Holy Spirit was manifested, why also is He said to be sent now, when He was
sent also before after these modes?
13. In the perplexity of this
inquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether the Father, or the
Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son,
sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of
persons, in such way as the one and only God is Spoken of, that is, that the
Trinity itself appeared to the Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next,
whichever of these alternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether
for this purpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged it
suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whether angels, who already
existed, were so sent, as to speak in the person of God, taking a corporeal
form from the corporeal creature, for the purpose of their ministry, as each
had need; or else, according to the power the Creator has given them, changing
and converting their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern
it as subject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would that were
suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall discern that which it
was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent
before; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is between that
sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether in truth
neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin
Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in
tongues of fire.
CHAP. 8.--THE ENTIRE
TRINITY INVISIBLE.
14. Let us therefore say
nothing of those who, with an over carnal mind, have thought the nature of the
Word of God, and the Wisdom, which, "remaining in herself, maketh all things new,"(8) whom we call the only Son
of God, not only to be changeable, but also to be visible. For these, with more
audacity than religion, bring a very dull heart to the inquiry into divine
things. For whereas the soul is a spiritual substance, and whereas itself also
was made, vet could not be made by any other than by Him by whom all things
were made, and without whom nothing is made,(1) it, although changeable, is yet
not visible; and this they have believed to be the case with the Word Himself
and with the Wisdom of God itself, by which the soul was made; whereas this
Wisdom is not only invisible, as the soul also is, but likewise unchangeable,
which the soul is not. It is in truth the same unchangeableness
in it, which is referred to when it was said, "Remaining in herself she maketh all things new." Yet these people, endeavoring, as it were, to prop up their error in its fall
by testimonies of the divine Scriptures, adduce the words of the Apostle Paul;
and take that, which is said of the one only God, in whom the Trinity itself is
understood, to be said only of the Father, and neither of the Son nor of the
Holy Spirit: "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honor and glory for ever and
ever;"(2) and that other passage, "The blessed and only Potentate,
the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in
the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can
see."(3) How these passages are to be understood, I think we have already
discoursed sufficiently.(4)
CHAP. 9.--AGAINST THOSE WHO
BELIEVED THE FATHER ONLY TO BE IMMORTAL AND INVISIBLE. THE TRUTH TO BE SOUGHT
BY PEACEFUL STUDY.
15. But they who will have
these texts understood only of the Father, and not of the Son or the Holy
Spirit, declare the Son to be visible, not by having taken flesh of the Virgin,
but aforetime also in Himself. For He Himself, they
say, appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. And if you say to them, In whatever
manner, then, the Son is visible in Himself, in that manner also He is mortal
in Himself; so that it plainly follows that you would have this saying also
understood only of the Father, viz., "Who only hath immortality;" for
if the Son is mortal from having taken upon Him our flesh, then allow that it
is on account of this flesh that He is also visible: they reply, that it is not
on account of this flesh that they say that the Son is mortal; but that, just
as He was also before visible, so He was also before mortal. For if they say
the Son is mortal from having taken our flesh, then it is not the Father alone
without the Son who hath immortality; because His Word also has immortality, by
which all things were made. For He did not therefore lose His immortality,
because He took mortal flesh; seeing that it could not happen even to the human
soul, that it should die with the body, when the Lord Himself says, "Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul."(5) Or,
forsooth, also the Holy Spirit took flesh: concerning whom certainly they will,
without doubt, be troubled to say--if the Son is mortal on account of taking
our flesh--in what manner they understand that the Father only has immortality
without the Son and the Holy Spirit, since, indeed, the Holy Spirit did not
take our flesh; and if He has not immortality, then the Son is not mortal on
account of taking our flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is
not said only of the Father, "Who only hath immortality." And
therefore they think they are able to prove that the Son in Himself was mortal
also before the incarnation, because changeableness itself is not unfitly called mortality, according to which the soul also
is said to die; not because it is changed and turned into body, or into some
substance other than itself, but because, whatever in its own selfsame
substance is now after another mode than it once was, is discovered to be mortal,
in so far as it has ceased to be what it was. Because then, say they, before
the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, He Himself appeared to our fathers,
not in one and the same form only, but in many forms; first in one form, then
in another; He is both visible in Himself, because His substance was visible to
mortal eyes, when He had not yet taken our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch as He is
changeable. And so also the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove,
and another time as fire. Whence, they say, the following texts do not belong
to the Trinity, but singularly and properly to the Father only: "Now unto
the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only wise God;" and,
"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see."
16. Passing by, then, these reasoners, who are unable to know the substance even of the
soul, which is invisible, and therefore are very far indeed from knowing that
the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit, remains ever not only invisible, but also unchangeable, and that
hence it possesses true and real immortality; let us, who deny that God,
whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared to bodily
eyes, unless through the corporeal creature made subject to His own power; let
us, I say--ready to be corrected, if we are reproved in a fraternal and upright
spirit, ready to be so, even if carped at by an enemy, so that he speak the
truth--in catholic peace and with peaceful study inquire, whether God
indiscriminately appeared to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or
whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whether severally, as it were
by turns.
CHAP. 10--WHETHER GOD THE
TRINITY INDISCRIMINATELY APPEARED TO THE FATHERS, OR ANY ONE PERSON OF THE
TRINITY. THE APPEARING OF GOD TO ADAM. OF THE SAME APPEARANCE. THE VISION TO
ABRAHAM.
17. And first, in that which
is written in Genesis, viz., that God spake with man
whom He had formed out of the dust; if we set apart the figurative meaning, and
treat it so as to place faith in the narrative even in the letter, it should
appear that God then spake with man in the appearance
of a man. This is not indeed expressly laid down in the book, but the general
tenor of its reading sounds in this sense, especially in that which is written,
that Adam heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of
the evening, and hid himself among the trees of the garden; and when God said,
"Adam, where art thou?"(1) replied, "I heard Thy voice, and I
was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Thy face." For I do
not see how such a walking and conversation of God can be understood literally,
except He appeared as a man. For it can neither be said that a voice only of
God was framed, when God is said to have walked, or that He who was walking in
a place was not visible; while Adam, too, says that he hid himself from the
face of God. Who then was He? Whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
Spirit? Whether altogether indiscriminately did God the Trinity Himself speak
to man in the form of man? The context, indeed, itself of the Scripture
nowhere, it should seem, indicates a change from person to person; but He seems
still to speak to the first man, who said, "Let there be light," and,
"Let there be a firmament," and so on through each of those days;
whom we usually take to be God the Father, making by a word whatever He willed
to make. For He made all things by His word, which Word we know, by the right
rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God the Father spake to the first man, and Himself was walking in the
garden in the cool of the evening, and if it was from His face that the sinner
hid himself amongst the trees of the garden, why are we not to go on to
understand that it was He also who appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to
whom He would, and how He would, through the changeable and visible creature,
subjected to Himself, while He Himself remains in Himself and in His own
substance, in which He is unchangeable and invisible? But, possibly, it might
be that the Scripture passed over in a hidden way from person to person, and
while it had related that the Father said "Let there be light," and
the rest which it mentioned Him to have done by the Word, went on to indicate
the Son as speaking to the first man; not unfolding this openly, but intimating
it to be understood by those who could understand it.
18. Let him, then, who has the
strength whereby he can penetrate this secret with his mind's eye, so that to
him it appears clearly, either that the Father also is able, or that only the
Son and Holy Spirit are able, to appear to human eyes through a visible
creature; let him, I say, proceed to examine these things if he can, or even to
express and handle them in words; but the thing itself, so far as concerns this
testimony of Scripture, where God spake with man, is,
in my judgment, not discoverable, because it does not evidently appear even
whether Adam usually saw God with the eyes of his body; especially as it is a
great question what manner of eyes it was that were opened when they tasted the
forbidden fruit;(2) for before they had tasted, these eyes were closed. Yet I
would not rashly assert, even if that scripture implies Paradise to have been a
material place, that God could not have walked there in any way except in some
bodily form. For it might be said, that only words were framed for the man to
hear, without seeing any form. Neither, because it is written, "Adam hid
himself from the face of God," does it follow forthwith that he usually
saw His face. For what if he himself indeed could not see, but feared to be
himself seen by Him whose voice he had heard, and had felt His presence as he
walked? For Cain, too, said to God, "From Thy face I will hide
myself;"(3) yet we are not therefore compelled to admit that he was wont
to behold the face of God with his bodily eyes in any visible form, although he
had heard the voice of God questioning and speaking with him of his sin. But
what manner of speech it was that God then uttered to the outward ears of men,
especially in speaking to the first man, it is both difficult to discover, and
we have not undertaken to say in this discourse. But if words alone and sounds
were wrought, by which to bring about some sensible presence of God to those
first men, I do not know why I should not there understand the person of God
the Father, seeing that His person is manifested also in that voice, when Jesus
appeared in glory on the mount before the three disciples;(1) and in that when
the dove descended upon Him at His baptism;(2) and in that where He cried to
the Father concerning His own glorification and it was answered Him, "I
have both glorified, and will glorify again."(3) Not that the voice could
be wrought without the work of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (since the
Trinity works indivisibly), but that such a voice was wrought as to manifest
the person of the Father only; just as the Trinity wrought that human form from
the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone; for the invisible
Trinity wrought the visible person of the Son alone. Neither does anything
forbid us, not only to understand those words spoken to Adam as spoken by the
Trinity, but also to take them as manifesting the person of that Trinity. For
we are compelled to understand of the Father only, that which is said,
"This is my beloved Son."(4) For Jesus can neither be believed nor
understood to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. And where the
voice uttered, "I have both glorified, and will glorify again," we
confess it was only the person of the Father; since it is the answer to that
word of the Lord, in which He had said, "Father, glorify thy Son,"
which He could not say except to God the Father only, and not also to the Holy
Spirit, whose Son He was not. But here, where it is written, "And the Lord
God said to Adam," no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should
not be understood.
19. Likewise, also, in that
which is written, "Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and thy father's house," it is not clear
whether a voice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or whether anything also
appeared to his eyes. But a little while after, it is somewhat more clearly
said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy seed will I
give this land."(5) But neither there is it expressly said in what form
God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit
appeared to him. Unless, perhaps, they think that it was the Son who appeared
to Abraham, because it is not written, God appeared to him, but "the Lord
appeared to him." For the Son seems to be called the Lord as though the
name was appropriated to Him; as e.g. the apostle says, "For though there
be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many
and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we by Him."(6) But since it is found that God the Father also is called
Lord in many places,--for instance, "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art
my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;"(7) and again, "The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand; "a since also the Holy Spirit is
found to be called Lord, as where the apostle says, "Now the Lord is that
Spirit;" and then, lest any one should think the Son to be signified, and
to be called the Spirit on account of His incorporeal substance, has gone on to
say, "And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;(9) and no one
ever doubted the Spirit of the Lord to be the Holy Spirit: therefore, neither
here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that
appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said,
"Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only
shall thou serve."(10) But under the oak at Mature he saw three men, whom
he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet
Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared
to him, but, "The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting forth in
due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account
of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number,
and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He
promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in
the beginning of the same narrative, "The Lord," it says,
"appeared to Abraham." He invites them then, and washes their feet,
and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks
as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the
destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.(11)
CHAP. 11.--OF THE SAME
APPEARANCE.
20. That place of Scripture
demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had
appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was
visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it
was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the Father, "To the only
invisible God."(1) And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner
"He was found in fashion as a man," before He had taken our flesh,
seeing that his feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could
that be, when He was still "in the form of God, and thought it not robbery
to be equal with God?"(2) For, pray, had He already "emptied Himself,
taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and
found in fashion as a man?" when we know when it was that He did this
through His birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He
appear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? I could put
these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that
one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no
one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or
power, why should we not here understand, as visibly intimated by the visible
creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three
persons?(3)
21. For, lest any one should
think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the
greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son
of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared,
Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to
anticipate, by a contradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a
little while after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just
man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as
to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, "And the Lord went His way,
as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his
place."(4)
CHAP. 12.--THE APPEARANCE
TO LOT IS EXAMINED.
"But there came two
angels to Sodom at even." Here, what I have begun to set forth must be
considered more attentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and
called that one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one may say,
he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What,
then, does that mean which Scripture goes on to say, "And the Lord went
His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to
his place: and there came two angels to Sodom at even?" Are we to suppose
that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed,
and had sent the two angels that were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see,
then, what follows. "There came," it is said, "two angels to
Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up
to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he
said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's
house." Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that in the
plural number they were invited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honorably designated lords, when they perchance were
thought to be men.
22. Yet, again, it is objected
that except they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have bowed
himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is both hospitality and food
offered to them, as though they wanted such human succor?
But whatever may here lie hid, let us now pursue that which we have undertaken.
Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited plurally;
he speaks as with two plurally, until the departure
from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, "And it came to pass, when
they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Escape for thy life; look
not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain,
and there thou shalt be saved,(5) lest thou be
consumed. And Lot said unto them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, thy servant
hath found grace in thy sight,"(6) etc. What is meant by his saying to
them, "Oh! not so, my lord," if He who was the Lord had already
departed, and had sent the angels? Why is it said, "Oh! not so, nay
lord," and not, "Oh! not so, my lords?" Or if he wished to speak
to one of them, why does Scripture say, "But Lot said to them. Oh! not so,
my lord: be hold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight," etc.? Are
we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural number, but when the two
are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of one substance? But which two
persons do we here understand?--of the Father and of the Son, or of the Father
and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The last,
perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselves that they were sent,
which is that which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we find
nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.(1)
CHAP. 13.--THE APPEARANCE
IN THE BUSH.
23. But when Moses was sent to
lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to
him thus: "Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro
his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led
the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even
to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him
in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the
bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will
now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when
the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst
of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."(2) He is here also first called the Angel
of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Therefore He may be rightly understood to be
the Saviour Himself, of whom the apostle says, "Whose are the fathers, and
of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for
ever."(3) He, therefore, "who is over all, God blessed for
ever," is not unreasonably here understood also to be Himself the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But why is He previously
called the Angel of the Lord, when He appeared in a flame of fire out of the
bush? Was it because it was one of many angels, who by an economy [or
arrangement] bare the person of his Lord? or was something of the creature
assumed by Him in order to bring about a visible appearance for the business in
hand, and that words might thence be audibly uttered, whereby the presence of
the Lord might be shown, in such way as was fitting, to the corporeal senses of
man, by means of the creature made subject? For if he was one of the angels,
who could easily affirm whether it was the person of the Son which was imposed
upon him to announce, or that of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or
altogether of the Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, in order that he
might say, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob?" For we cannot say that the Son of God is the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and that the Father is not; nor will
any one dare to deny that either the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, whom
we believe and understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he who is not God, is not the God of those
fathers. Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, as all, even heretics,
admit; but also the Son, which, whether they will or not, they are compelled to
acknowledge, since the apostle says, "Who is over all, God blessed for
ever;" and the Holy Spirit, since the same apostle says, "Therefore
glorify God in your body;" when he had said above, "Know ye not that
your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of
God?"(4) and these three are one God, as catholic soundness believes: it
is not sufficiently apparent which person of the Trinity that angel bare, if he
was one of the rest of the angels, and whether any person, and not rather that
of the Trinity itself. But if the creature was assumed for the purpose of the
business in hand, whereby both to appear to human eyes, and to sound in human
ears, and to be called the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord, and God; then
cannot God here be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy
Spirit. Although I cannot call to mind that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else
called an angel, which yet may be understood from His work; for it is said of
Him, "And He will show you s things to come;"(6) and
"angel" in Greek is certainly equivalent to "messenger"(7)
in Latin: but we read most evidently of the Lord Jesus Christ in the prophet,
that He is called "the Angel of Great Counsel,"(1) while both the
Holy Spirit and the Son of God is God and Lord of the angels.
CHAP. 14.--OF THE APPEARANCE
IN THE PILLAR OF CLOUD AND OF FIRE.
24. Also in the going forth of
the children of Israel from Egypt it is written, "And the Lord went before
them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a
pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar
of fire by night, from before the people."(2) Who here, too, would doubt
that God appeared to the eyes of mortal men by the corporeal creature made
subject to Him, and not by His own substance? But it is not similarly apparent
whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the
one God. Nor is this distinguished there either, in my judgment, where it is
written, "The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of
the children of Israel,"(3) etc.
CHAP. 15.--OF THE
APPEARANCE ON SINAI. WHETHER THE TRINITY SPAKE IN
THAT APPEARANCE OR SOME ONE PERSON SPECIALLY.
25. But now of the clouds, and
voices, and lightnings, and the trumpet, and the
smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said, "And Mount Sinai was altogether on
a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof
ascended as the smoke of a furnace; and all the people that was in the camp
trembled; and when the voice of the trumpet sounded long and waxed louder and
louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a
voice."(4) And a little after, when the Law had been given in the ten
commandments, it follows in the text, "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings,
and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking." And a little
after, "And [when the people saw it,] they removed and stood afar off, and
Moses drew near unto the thick darkness(5) where God was, and the Lord said
unto Moses,"(6) etc. What shall I say about this, save that no one can be
so insane as to believe the smoke, and the fire, and the cloud, and the
darkness, and whatever there was of the kind, to be the substance of the word
and wisdom of God which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the
Arians ever dared to say that they were the substance of God the Father. All
these things, then, were wrought through the creature serving the Creator, and
were presented in a suitable economy (dispensatio) to
human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is said,"And
Moses drew near to the cloud where God was," carnal thoughts must needs
suppose that the cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud
Moses with the eyes of the flesh saw the Son of God, whom doting heretics will
have to be seen in His own substance. Forsooth, Moses may have seen Him with
the eyes of the flesh, if not only the wisdom of God which is Christ, but even
that of any man you please and howsoever wise, can be seen with the eyes of the
flesh; or if, because it is written of the elders of Israel, that "they
saw the place where the God of Israel had stood," and that "there was
under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the
body of heaven in his clearness,"(7) therefore we are to believe that the
word and wisdom of God in His own substance stood within the space of an
earthly place, who indeed "reacheth firmly from
end to end, and sweetly ordereth all things;"(8)
and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made,(9) is in such wise
changeable, as now to contract, now to expand Himself; (may the Lord cleanse
the hearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts !) But indeed all these
visible and sensible things are, as we have often said, exhibited through the
creature made subject in order to signify the invisible and intelligible God,
not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit," of whom are
all things, and through whom are all things, and in whom are all
things;"(10) although "the invisible things of God, from the creation
of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead."(11)
26. But as far as concerns our
present undertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it appears, by all
those things which were fearfully displayed to the senses of mortal men,
whether God the Trinity spake, or the Father, or the
Son, or the Holy Spirit severally. But if it is allowable, without rash
assertion, to venture upon a modest and hesitating conjecture from this
passage, if it is possible to understand it of one person of the Trinity, why
do we not rather understand the Holy Spirit to be spoken of, since the Law
itself also, which was given there, is said to have been written upon tables of
stone with the finger of God,(1) by which name we know the Holy Spirit to be
signified in the Gospel.(2) And fifty days are numbered from the slaying of the
lamb and the celebration of the Passover until the day in which these things
began to be done in Mount Sinai; just as after the passion of our Lord fifty
days are numbered from His resurrection, and then came the Holy Spirit which
the Son of God had promised. And in that very coming of His, which we read of
in the Acts of the Apostles, there appeared cloven tongues like as of fire, and
it sat upon each of them:(3) which agrees with Exodus, where it is written,
"And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended
upon it in fire;" and a little after, "And the sight of the glory of
the Lord," he says, "was like devouring fire on the top of the mount
in the eyes of the children of Israel."(4) Or if these things were
therefore wrought because neither the Father nor the Son could be there
presented in that mode without the Holy Spirit, by whom the Law itself must
needs be written; then we know doubtless that God appeared there, not by His
own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but by the appearance
above mentioned of the creature; but that some special person of the Trinity
appeared, distinguished by a proper mark, as far as my capacity of
understanding reaches, we do not see.
CHAP. 16.--IN WHAT MANNER
MOSES SAW GOD.
26. There is yet another
difficulty which troubles most people, viz. that it is written, "And the
Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend;" whereas a little after, the
same Moses says, "Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy
sight, show me now Thyself plainly, that I may see Thee, that I may find grace
in Thy sight, and that I may consider that this nation is Thy people;" and
a little after Moses again said to the Lord, "Show me Thy glory." What
means this then, that in everything which was done, as above said. God was
thought to have appeared by His own substance; whence the Son of God has been
believed by these miserable people to be visible not by the creature, but by
Himself; and that Moses, entering into the cloud, appeared to have had this
very object in entering, that a cloudy darkness indeed might be shown to the
eyes of the people, but that Moses within might hear the words of God, as
though he beheld His face; and, as it is said, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his friend;" and yet, behold, the same Moses says, "If I have
found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself plainly?" Assuredly he knew that
he saw corporeally, and he sought the true sight of God spiritually. And that
mode of speech accordingly which was wrought in words, was so modified, as if
it were of a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with the
eyes of the body? And that Word, which was in the beginning, the Word which was
with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were made,(5)--who sees
Him with the eyes of the body? And the spirit of wisdom, again, who sees with
the eyes of the body? Yet what is, "Show me now Thyself plainly, that I,
may see Thee," unless, Show me Thy substance? But if Moses had not said
this, we must indeed have borne with those foolish people as we could, who
think that the substance of God was made visible to his eyes through those
things which, as above mentioned, were said or done. But when it is here
demonstrated most evidently that this was not granted to him, even though he
desired it; who will dare to say, that by the like forms which had appeared
visibly to him also, not the creature serving God, but that itself which is
God, appeared to the eyes of a mortal man?
28. Add, too, that which the
Lord afterward said to Moses, "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall
no man see my face, and live. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by
me, and thou shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory
passeth by, that I will put thee into a
watch-tower(6) of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my
back parts; but my face shall not be seen."(7)
CHAP. 17.--HOW THE BACK
PARTS OF GOD WERE SEEN. THE FAITH OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH ONLY IS THE PLACE FROM WHENCE THE BACK PARTS OF GOD ARE SEEN. THE BACK
PARTS OF GOD WERE SEEN BY THE ISRAELITES. IT IS A RASH OPINION TO THINK THAT
GOD THE FATHER ONLY WAS NEVER SEEN BY THE FATHERS.
Not unfitly
is it commonly understood to be prefigured from the person of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that His "back parts" are to be taken to be His flesh, in
which He was born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again; whether they are
called back parts(1) on account of the posteriority
of mortality, or because it was almost in the end of the world, that is, at a
late period,(2) that He deigned to take it: but that His "face" was
that form of God, in which He "thought it not robbery to be equal with
God,"(3) which no one certainly can see and live; whether because after
this life, in which we are absent from the Lord,(4) and where the corruptible
body presseth down the soul,(5) we shall see
"face to facet,"(6) as the apostle says--(for it is said in the
Psalms, of this life, "Verily every man living is altogether
vanity;"(7) and again, "For in Thy sight shall no man living be
justified;"(8) and in this life also, according to John, "It doth not
yet appear what we shall be, but we know," he says, "that when He
shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is,"(9)
which he certainly intended to be understood as after this life, when we shall
have paid the debt of death, and shall have received the promise of the
resurrection);--or whether that even now, in whatever degree we spiritually
understand the wisdom of God, by which all things were made, in that same
degree we die to carnal affections, so that, considering this world dead to us,
we also ourselves die to this world, and say what the apostle says, "The
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."(10) For it was of this
death that he also says, "Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, why as though
living in the world are ye subject to ordinances?"(11) Not therefore
without cause will no one be able to see the "face," that is, the
manifestation itself of the wisdom of God, and live. For it is this very
appearance, for the contemplation of which every one sighs who strives to love
God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind; to the
contemplation of which, he who Loves his neighbor,
too, as himself builds up his neighbor also as far as
he may; on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.(12) And
this is signified also in Moses himself. For when he had said, on account of
the love of God with which he was specially inflamed, "If I have found
grace in thy sight, show me now Thyself plainly, that I may find grace in Thy
sight;" he immediately subjoined, on account of the love also of his neighbor, "And that I may know that this nation is Thy
people." It is therefore that "appearance" which hurries away
every rational soul with the desire of it, and the more ardently the more pure
that soul is; and it is the more pure the more it rises to spiritual things;
and it rises the more to spiritual things the more it dies to carnal things. But
whilst we are absent from the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight,(13) we
ought to see the "back parts" of Christ, that is His flesh, by that
very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock
signifies,(14) and beholding it from such a safe watch-tower, namely in the
Catholic Church, of which it is said, "And upon this rock I will build my
Church."(15) For so much the more certainly we love that face of Christ,
which we earnestly desire to see, as we recognize in His back parts how much
first Christ loved us.
29. But in the flesh itself,
the faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, "If thou shalt believe," he says, "in thine
heart, that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved;"(16) and again, "Who was delivered," he says,
"for our offenses, and was raised again for our
justification."(17) So that the reward of our faith is the resurrection of
the body of our Lord.(18) For even His enemies believe that that flesh died on
the cross of His passion, but they do not believe it to have risen again. Which
we believing most firmly, gaze upon it as from the solidity of a rock: whence
we wait with certain hope for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our
body;(19) because we hope for that in the members of Christ, that is, in
ourselves, which by a sound faith we acknowledge to be perfect in Him as in our
Head. Thence it is that He would not have His back parts seen, unless as He
passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For that which is Pascha in Hebrew, is translated Passover.(20) Whence John
the Evangelist also says, "Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus
knew that His hour was come, that He should pass out of this world unto the
Father."(21)
30. But they who believe this,
but believe it not in the Catholic Church, but in some schism or in heresy, do
not see the back parts of the Lord from "the place that is by Him." For
what does that mean which the Lord says, "Behold, there is a place by me,
and thou shalt stand upon a rock?" What earthly
place is "by" the Lord, unless that is "by Him" which
touches Him spiritually? For what place is not "by" the Lord, who
"reacheth from one end to another mightily, and
sweetly doth order all things,"(1) and of whom it is said, "Heaven is
His throne, and earth is His footstool;" and who said, "Where is the
house that ye build unto me, and where is the place of my rest? For has not my
hand made all those things?"(2) But manifestly the Catholic Church itself
is understood to be "the place by Him," wherein one stands upon a
rock, where he healthfully sees the "Pascha Domini," that is, the "Passing by"(3) of the
Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body, who believes in His resurrection. "And
thou shalt stand," He says, "upon a rock
while my glory passeth by." For in reality,
immediately after the majesty of the Lord had passed by in the glorification of
the Lord, in which He rose again and ascended to the Father, we stood firm upon
the rock. And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with
confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied;(4)
although, indeed, already before placed in predestination upon the watch-tower
of the rock, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him that he might
not see. For he was to see His back parts, and the Lord had not yet
"passed by," namely, from death to life; He had not yet been
glorified by the resurrection.
31. For as to that, too, which
follows in Exodus, "I will cover thee with mine hand while I pass by, and
I will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back
parts;" many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a figure, believed in the
Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had been taken off from their eyes,
and they now saw His back parts. And hence the evangelist also mentions that
prophesy of Isaiah, "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes."(5) Lastly, in the Psalm, that is not
unreasonably understood to be said in their person, "For day and night Thy
hand was heavy upon me." "By day," perhaps, when He performed
manifest miracles, yet was not acknowledged by them; but "by night,"
when He died in suffering, when they thought still more certainly that, like
any one among men, He was cut off and brought to an end. But since, when He had
already passed by, so that His back parts were seen, upon the preaching to them
by the Apostle Peter that it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again, they were
pricked in their hearts with the grief of repentance,(6) that that might come
to pass among the baptized which is said in the beginning of that Psalm,
"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered;" therefore, after it had been said, "Thy hand is heavy upon
me," the Lord, as it were, passing by, so that now He removed His hand,
and His back parts were seen, there follows the voice of one who grieves and
confesses and receives remission of sins by faith in the resurrection of the
Lord: "My moisture," he says, "is turned into the drought of
summer. I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin."(7) For we ought not
to be so wrapped up in the darkness of the flesh, as to think the face indeed
of God to be invisible, but His back visible, since both appeared visibly in
the form of a servant; but far be it from us to think anything of the kind in
the form of God; far be it from us to think that the Word of God and the Wisdom
of God has a face on one side, and on the other a back, as a human body has, or
is at all changed either in place or time by any appearance or motion.(8)
35. Wherefore, if in those
words which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those corporeal appearances, the
Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in some cases Christ was manifested, as
the consideration of this passage persuades us, in others the Holy Spirit, as
that which we have said above admonishes us; at any rate no such result
follows, as that God the Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers.
For many such appearances happened in those times, without either the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being expressly named and designated in them;
but yet with some intimations given through certain very probable
interpretations, so that it would be too rash to say that God the Father never
appeared by any visible forms to the fathers or the prophets. For they gave
birth to this opinion who were not able to understand in respect to the unity
of the Trinity such texts as, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only wise God;"(9) and, "Whom no man hath seen, nor
can see."(1) Which texts are understood by a sound faith in that substance
itself, the highest, and in the highest degree divine and unchangeable, whereby
both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one and only God. But
those visions were wrought through the changeable creature, made subject to the
unchangeable God, and did not manifest God properly as He is, but by
intimations such as suited the causes and times of the several circumstances.
CHAP. 18.--THE VISION OF
DANIEL.
33. I do not know in what
manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel(2),
from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood
to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms,
"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall
give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance; and who
has "put all things under His feet."(4) If, however, both the Father
giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily
form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets,
and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man
has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: "I beheld," he
says, "till the thrones were set,(5) and the Ancient of Days did sit,
whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool:
His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery
stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered
unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment
was set, and the books were opened," etc. And a little after, "I
saw," he says, "in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of
man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they
brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed."(6) Behold the Father giving, and the
Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who
prophesies, in a visible form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably believed that
God the Father also was wont to appear in that manner to mortals.
34. Unless, perhaps, some one
shall say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because He appeared within
the sight of one who was dreaming; but that therefore the Son and the Holy
Spirit are visible, because Moses saw all those things being awake; as if,
forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that
even the human spirit which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that
corporeal thing which is called wind;--how much less can that Spirit of God be
seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels, by the ineffable
excellence of the divine substance? Or can any one fall headlong into such an
error as to dare to say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible also to
men who are awake, but that the Father is not visible except to those who
dream? How, then, do they understand that of the Father alone, "Whom no
man hath seen, nor can see."? When men sleep, are they then not men? Or
cannot He, who can fashion the likeness of a body to signify Himself through
the visions of dreamers, also fashion that same bodily creature to signify
Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Whereas His own very substance,
whereby He Himself is that which He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness
to one who sleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; but this
not of the Father only, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And
certainly, as to those who are moved by the visions of waking men to believe
that not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to the
corporeal sight of men,--to omit the great extent of the sacred pages, and
their manifold interpretation, such that no one of sound reason ought to affirm
that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men by
any corporeal appearance;--but, as I said, to omit this, what do they say of
our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and ministering, when, after
Scripture had premised, "The Lord appeared unto Abraham," not one, or
two, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is said to have stood
prominently above the others, no one more than the others to have shone with
greater glory, or to have acted more authoritatively?(7)
35. Wherefore, since in that
our threefold division we determined to inquire,(8) first, whether the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the
Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether, without any distinction of persons,
as it is said, the one and only God, that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to
the fathers through those forms of the creature: now that we have examined, so
far as appeared to be sufficient what places of the Holy Scriptures we could, a
modest and cautious consideration of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can
judge, to no other conclusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm which
person of the Trinity appeared to this or that of the fathers or the prophets
in some body or likeness of body, unless when the context attaches to the
narrative some probable intimations on the subject. For the nature itself, or
substance, or essence, or by whatever other name that very thing, which is God,
whatever it be, is to be called, cannot be seen corporeally: but we must
believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or
the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to
mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness. And since the case stands thus,
that this second book may not extend to an immoderate length, let us consider
what remains in those which follow.
BOOK III.
THE QUESTION IS DISCUSSED WITH
RESPECT TO THE APPEARANCES OF GOD SPOKEN OF IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK, WHICH WERE
MADE UNDER BODILY FORMS, WHETHER ONLY A CREATURE WAS FORMED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MANIFESTING GOD TO HUMAN SIGHT IN SUCH WAY AS HE AT EACH TIME JUDGED FITTING;
OR WHETHER ANGELS, ALREADY EXISTING, WERE SO SENT AS TO SPEAK IN THE PERSON OF
GOD; AND THIS, EITHER BY ASSUMING A BODILY APPEARANCE FROM THE BODILY CREATURE,
OR BY CHANGING THEIR OWN BODIES INTO WHATEVER FORMS THEY WOULD, SUITABLE TO THE
PARTICULAR ACTION, ACCORDING TO THE POWER GIVEN TO THEM BY THE CREATOR; WHILE
THE ESSENCE ITSELF OF GOD WAS NEVER SEEN IN ITSELF.
PREFACE.--WHY AUGUSTIN WRITES OF THE TRINITY. WHAT HE CLAIMS FROM
READERS, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK.
1. I WOULD have them believe,
who are willing to do so, that I had rather bestow labor
in reading, than in dictating what others may read. But let those who will not
believe this, but are both able and willing to make the trial, grant me
whatever answers may be gathered from reading, either to my own inquiries, or
to those interrogations of others, which for the character I bear in the
service of Christ, and for the zeal with which I burn that our faith may be
fortified against the error of carnal and natural men,(1) I must needs bear
with; and then let them see how easily I would refrain from this labor, and with how much even of joy I would give my pen a
holiday. But if what we have read upon these subjects is either not
sufficiently set forth, or is not to be found at all, or at any rate cannot
easily be found by us, in the Latin tongue, while we are not so familiar with
the Greek tongue as to be found in any way competent to read and understand
therein the books that treat of such topics, in which class of writings, to
judge by the little which has been translated for us, I do not doubt that
everything is contained that we can profitably seek;(2) while yet I cannot
resist my brethren when they exact of me, by that law by which I am made their
servant, that I should minister above all to their praiseworthy studies in
Christ by my tongue and by my pen, of which two yoked together in me, Love is
the charioteer; and while I myself confess that I have by writing learned many
things which I did not know: if this be so, then this my labor
ought not to seem superfluous to any idle, or to any very learned reader; while
it is needful in no small part, to many who are busy, and to many who are
unlearned, and among these last to myself. Supported, then, very greatly, and
aided by the writings we have already read of others on this subject, I have
undertaken to inquire into and to discuss, whatever it seems to my judgment can
be reverently inquired into and discussed, concerning the Trinity, the one
supreme and supremely good God; He himself exhorting me to the inquiry, and
helping me in the discussion of it; in order that, if there are no other
writings of the kind, there may be something for those to have and read who are
willing and capable; but if any exist already, then it may be so much the
easier to find some such writings, the more there are of the kind in existence.
2. Assuredly, as in all my
writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, so I
especially desire this in the present inquiry, which is so important that I
would there were as many inquirers as there are objectors. But as I do not wish
my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound
down to himself. Let not the former love me more than the catholic faith, let
not the latter love himself more than the catholic verity. As I say to the
former, Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to the canonical
Scriptures; but in these, when thou hast discovered even what thou didst not
previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly; while in those, unless thou hast
understood with certainty what thou didst not before hold as certain, be
unwilling to hold it fast: so I say to the latter, Do not be willing to amend
my writings by thine own opinion or disputation, but
from the divine text, or by unanswerable reason. If thou apprehendest
anything of truth in them, its being there does not make it mine, but by
understanding and loving it, let it be both thine and
mine; but if thou convictest anything of falsehood,
though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by
avoiding it let it be neither thine nor mine.
3. Let this third book, then,
take its beginning at the point to which the second had reached. For after we
had arrived at this, I that we desired to show that the Son was not l therefore
less than the Father, because the Father sent and the Son was sent; nor the
Holy Spirit therefore less than both, because we read in the Gospel that He was
sent both by the one and by the other; we undertook then to inquire, since the
Son was sent thither, where He already was, for He came into the world, and
"was in the world;"(1) since also the Holy Spirit was sent thither,
where He already was, for "the Spirit of the Lord filleth
the world, and that which containeth all things hath
knowledge of the voice;"(2) whether the Lord was therefore
"sent" because He was born in the flesh so as to be no longer hidden,
and, as it were, came forth from the bosom of the Father, and appeared to the
eyes of men in the form of a servant; and the Holy Spirit also was therefore
"sent," because He too was seen as a dove in a corporeal form,(3) and
in cloven tongues, like as of fire;(4) so that, to be sent, when spoken of
them, means to go forth to the sight of mortals in some corporeal form from a
spiritual hiding-place; which, because the Father did not, He is said only to
have sent, not also to be sent. Our next inquiry was, Why the Father also is
not sometimes said to be sent, if He Himself was manifested through those
corporeal forms which appeared to the eyes of the ancients. But if the Son was
manifested at these times, why should He be said to be "sent" so long
after, when the fullness of time was come that He should be born of a woman;(5)
since, indeed, He was sent before also, viz., when He appeared corporeally in
those forms? Or if He were not rightly said to be "sent," except when
the Word was made flesh;(6) why should the Holy Spirit be read of as
"sent," of whom such an incarnation never took place? But if neither
the Father, nor the Son, but the Holy Spirit was manifested through these
ancient appearances; why should He too be said to be "sent" now, when
He was also sent before in these various manners? Next we subdivided the
subject, that it might be handled most carefully, and we made the question
threefold, of which one part was explained in the second book, and two remain,
which I shall next proceed to discuss. For we have already inquired and
determined, that not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Holy
Spirit appeared in those ancient corporeal forms and visions. but either
indifferently the Lord God, who is understood to be the Trinity itself, or some
one person of the Trinity, whichever the text of the narrative might signify,
through intimations supplied by the context.
CHAP. 1.--WHAT IS TO BE
SAID THEREUPON.
4. Let us, then, continue our
inquiry now in order. For under the second head in that division the question
occurred, whether the creature was formed for that work only, wherein God, in
such way as He then judged it to be fitting, might be manifested to human
sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent as to speak in the
person of God, assuming a corporeal appearance from the corporeal creature for
the purpose of their ministry; or else changing and turning their own body
itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves,
into whatever forms they would, that were appropriate and fit for their
actions, according to the power given to them by the Creator. And when this
part of the question shall have been investigated, so far as God permit, then,
lastly, we shall have to see to that question with which we started, viz.,
whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also "sent" before; and if
it be so, then what difference there is between that sending and the one of
which we read in the Gospel; or whether neither of them were sent, except when
either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in
a visible form, whether as a dove or in tongues of fire.(1)
5. I confess, however, that it
reaches further than my purpose can carry me to inquire whether the angels.
secretly working by the spiritual quality of their body abiding still in them,
assume somewhat from the inferior and more bodily elements, which, being fitted
to themselves, they may change and turn like a garment into any corporeal
appearances they will, and those appearances themselves also real, as real
water was changed by our Lord into real wine;(2) or whether they transform
their own bodies themselves into that which they would, suitably to the
particular act. But it does not signify to the present question which of these
it is. And although I be not able to understand these things by actual
experience, seeing that I am a man, as the angels do who do these things, and
know them better than I know them, viz., how far my body is changeable by the
operation of my will; whether it be by my own experience of myself, or by that
which I have gathered from others; yet it is not necessary here to say which of
these alternatives I am to believe upon the authority of the divine Scriptures,
lest I be compelled to prove it, and so my discourse become too long upon a
subject which does not concern the present question.
6. Our present inquiry then
is, whether the angels were then the agents both in showing those bodily
appearances to the eyes of men and in sounding those words in their ears when
the sensible creature itself, serving the Creator at His beck, was turned for
the time into whatever was needful; as it is written in the book of Wisdom,
"For the creature serveth Thee, who art the
Maker, increaseth his strength against the unrighteous
for their punishment, and abateth his strength for
the benefit of such as put their trust in Thee. Therefore, even then was it
altered into all fashions, and was obedient to Thy grace, that nourisheth all things according to the of them that longed
for Thee."(3) For the power of the will of God reaches through the
spiritual creature even to visible and sensible effects of the corporeal
creature. For where does not the wisdom of the omnipotent God work that which
He wills, which "reacheth from one end to
another mightily, and sweetly doth order all things"?(4)
CHAP. 2.--THE WILL OF GOD IS
THE HIGHER CAUSE OF ALL CORPOREAL CHANGE. THIS IS SHOWN BY AN EXAMPLE.
7. But there is one kind of
natural order in the conversion and changeableness of bodies, which, although
itself also serves the bidding of God, yet by reason of its unbroken continuity
has ceased to cause wonder; as is the case, for instance, with those things
which are changed either in very short, or at any rate not long, intervals of
time, in heaven, or earth, or sea; whether it be in rising, or in setting, or
in change of appearance from time to time; while there are other things, which,
although arising from that same order, yet are less familiar on account of
longer intervals of time. And these things, although the many stupidly wonder
at them, yet are understood by those who inquire into this present world, and
in the progress of generations become so much the less wonderful, as they are
the more often repeated and known by more people. Such are the eclipses of the
sun and moon, and some kinds of stars, appearing seldom, and earthquakes, and
unnatural births of living creatures, and other similar things; of which not
one takes place without the will of God; yet, that it is so, is to most people
not apparent. And so the vanity of philosophers has found license to assign
these things also to other causes, true causes perhaps, but proximate ones,
while they are not able to see at all the cause that is higher than all others,
that is, the will of God; or again to false causes, and to such as are not even
put forward out of any diligent investigation of corporeal things and motions,
but from their own guess and error.
8. I will bring forward an
example, if I can, that this may be plainer. There is, we know, in the human
body, a certain bulk of flesh and an outward form, and an arrangement and
distraction of limbs, and a temperament of health; and a soul breathed into it
governs this body, and that soul a rational one; which, therefore, although changeable,
yet can be partaker of that unchangeable wisdom, so that "it may partake
of that which is in and of itself;"(5) as it is written in the Psalm
concerning all saints, of whom as of living stones is built that Jerusalem
which is the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. For so it is sung,
"Jerusalem is builded as a city, that is
partaker of that which is in and of itself."(1) For "in and of
itself," in that place, is understood of that chiefest
and unchangeable good, which is God, and of His own wisdom and will. To whom is
sung in another place, "Thou shalt change them,
and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same."(2)
CHAP. 3.--OF THE SAME
ARGUMENT.
Let us take, then, the case of
a wise man, such that his rational soul is already partaker of the unchangeable
and eternal truth, so that he consults it about all his actions, nor does
anything at all, which he does not by it know ought to be done, in order that
by being subject to it and obeying it he may do rightly. Suppose now that this
man, upon counsel with the highest reason of the divine righteousness, which he
hears with the ear of his heart in secret, and by its bidding, should weary his
body by toil in some office of mercy, and should contract an illness; and upon
consulting the physicians, were to be told by one that the cause of the disease
was overmuch dryness of the body, but by another that it was overmuch moisture;
one of the two no doubt would allege the true cause and the other would err,
but both would pronounce concerning proximate causes only, that is, corporeal
ones. But if the cause of that dryness were to be inquired into, and found to
be the self-imposed toil, then we should have come to a yet higher cause, which
proceeds from the soul so as to affect the body which the soul governs. Yet
neither would this be the first cause, for that doubtless was a higher cause
still, and lay in the unchangeable wisdom itself, by serving which in love, and
by obeying its ineffable commands, the soul of the wise man had undertaken that
self-imposed toil; and so nothing else but the will of God would be found most
truly to be the first cause of that illness. But suppose now in that office of
pious toil this wise man had employed the help of others to co-operate in the
good work, who did not serve God with the same will as himself, but either
desired to attain the reward of their own carnal desires, or shunned merely
carnal unpleasantnesses;--suppose, too, he had
employed beasts of burden, if the completion of the work required such a
provision, which beasts of burden would be certainly irrational animals, and
would not therefore move their limbs under their burdens because they at all
thought of that good work, but from the natural appetite of their own liking,
and for the avoiding of annoyance;--suppose, lastly, he had employed bodily
things themselves that lack all sense, but were necessary for that work, as
e.g. corn, and wine, and oils, clothes, or money, or a book, or anything of the
kind;--certainly, in all these bodily things thus employed in this work,
whether animate or inanimate, whatever took place of movement, of wear and
tear, of reparation, of destruction, of renewal or of change in one way or
another, as places and times affected them; pray, could there be, I say, any
other cause of all these visible and changeable facts, except the invisible and
unchangeable will of God, using all these, both bad and irrational souls, and
lastly bodies, whether such as were inspired and animated by those souls, or
such as lacked all sense, by means of that upright soul as the seat of His
wisdom, since primarily that good and holy soul itself employed them, which His
wisdom had subjected to itself in a pious and religious obedience?
CHAP. 4.--GOD USES ALL
CREATURES AS HE WILL, AND MAKES VISIBLE THINGS FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF
9. What, then, we have alleged
by way of example of a single wise man, although of one still bearing a mortal
body and still seeing only in part, may be allowably extended also to a family,
where there is a society of such men, or to a city, or even to the whole world,
if the chief rule and government of human affairs were in the hands of the
wise, and of those who were piously and perfectly subject to God; but because
this is not the case as yet (for it behoves us first to be exercised in this
our pilgrimage after mortal fashion, and to be taught with stripes by force of
gentleness and patience), let us turn our thoughts to that country itself that
is above and heavenly, from which we here are pilgrims. For there the will of
God, "who maketh His angels spirits, and His
ministers a flaming fire,"(3) presiding among spirits which are joined in
perfect peace and friendship, and combined in one will by a kind of spiritual
fire of charity, as it were in an elevated and holy and secret seat, as in its
own house and in its own temple, thence diffuses itself through all things by
certain most perfectly ordered movements of the creature first spiritual, then
corporeal; and uses all according to the unchangeable pleasure of its own purpose,
whether incorporeal things or things corporeal, whether rational or irrational
spirits, whether good by His grace or evil through their own will. But as the
mort gross and inferior bodies are governed in due order by the more subtle and
powerful ones, so all bodies are governed by the living spirit; and the living
spirit devoid of reason, by the reasonable living spirit; and the reasonable
living spirit that makes default and sins, by the living and reasonable spirit
that is pious and just; and that by God Himself, and so the universal creature
by its Creator, from whom and through whom and in whom it is also created and
established.(1) And so it comes to pass that the will of God is the first and
the highest cause of all corporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done
visibly or sensibly, unless either by command or permission from the interior
palace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor, according to the
unspeakable justice of rewards and punishments, of favor
and retribution, in that far-reaching and boundless commonwealth of the whole
creature.
10. If, therefore, the Apostle
Paul, although he still bare the burden of the body, which is subject to
corruption and presseth down the soul,(2) and
although he still saw only in part and in an enigma,(3) wishing to depart and
be with Christ,(4) and groaning within himself, waiting for the adoption, to
wit, the redemption of his body,(5) yet was able to preach the Lord Jesus
Christ significantly, in one way by his tongue, in another by epistle, in
another by the sacrament of His body and blood (since, certainly, we do not
call either the tongue of the apostle, or the parchments, or the ink, or the
significant sounds which his tongue uttered, or the alphabetical signs written
on skins, the body and blood of Christ; but that only which we take of the
fruits of the earth and consecrate by mystic prayer, and then receive duly to
our spiritual health in memory of the passion of our Lord for us: and this,
although it is brought by the hands of men to that visible form, yet is not
sanctified to become so great a sacrament, except by the spirit of God working
invisibly; since God works everything that is done in that work through
corporeal movements, by setting in motion primarily the invisible things of His
servants, whether the souls of men, or the services of hidden spirits subject
to Himself): what wonder if also in the creature of heaven and earth, of sea
and air, God works the sensible and visible things which He wills, in order to
signify and manifest Himself in them, as He Himself knows it to be fitting,
without any appearing of His very substance itself, whereby He is, which is
altogether unchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly exalted than all
spirits whom He has created?
CHAP. 5.--WHY MIRACLES ARE
NOT USUAL WORKS.
11. For since the divine power
administers the whole spiritual and corporeal creature, the waters of the sea
are summoned and poured out upon the face of the earth on certain days of every
year. But when this was done at the prayer of the holy Elijah; because so
continued and long a course of fair weather had gone before, that men were
famished; and because at that very hour, in which the servant of God prayed,
the air itself had not, by any moist aspect, put forth signs of the coming
rain; the divine power was apparent in the great and rapid showers that
followed, and by which that miracle was granted and dispensed.(6) In like
manner, God works ordinarily through thunders and lightnings:
but because these were wrought in an unusual manner on Mount Sinai, and those
sounds were not uttered with a confused noise, but so that it appeared by most
sure proofs that certain intimations were given by them, they were miracles.(7)
Who draws up the sap through the root of the vine to the bunch of grapes, and
makes the wine, except God; who, while man plants and waters, Himself giveth the increase?(8) But when, at the command of the
Lord, the water was turned into wine with an extraordinary quickness, the
divine power was made manifest, by the confession even of the foolish.(9) Who
ordinarily clothes the trees with leaves and flowers except God? Yet, when the
rod of Aaron the priest blossomed, the Godhead in some way conversed with
doubting humanity.(10) Again, the earthy matter certainly serves in common to
the production and formation both of all kinds of wood and of the flesh of all
animals: and who makes these things, but He who said, Let the earth bring them
forth;(11) and who governs and guides by the same word of His, those things which
He has created? Yet, when He changed the same matter out of the rod of Moses
into the flesh of a serpent, immediately and quickly, that change, which was
unusual, although of a thing which was changeable, was a miracle.(1) But who is
it that gives life to every living thing at its birth, unless He who gave life
to that serpent also for the moment, as there was need.(2)
CHAP. 6.--DIVERSITY ALONE
MAKES A MIRACLE.
And who is it that restored to
the corpses their proper souls when the dead rose again,(3) unless He who gives
life to the flesh in the mother's womb, in order that they may come into being
who yet are to die? But when such things happen in a continuous kind of river
of ever-flowing succession, passing from the hidden to the visible, and from
the visible to the hidden, by a regular and beaten track, then they are called
natural; when, for the admonition of men, they are thrust in by an unusual
changeableness, then they are called miracles.
CHAP. 7.--GREAT MIRACLES
WROUGHT BY MAGIC ARTS.
12. I see here what may occur
to a weak judgment, namely, why such miracles are wrought also by magic arts;
for the wise men of Pharaoh likewise made serpents, and did other like things. Yet
it is still more a matter of wonder, how it was that the power of those
magicians, which was able to make serpents, when it came to very small flies,
failed altogether. For the lice, by which third plague the proud people of
Egypt were smitten, are very short-lived little flies; yet. there certainly the
magicians failed, saying, "This is the finger of God."(4) And hence
it is given us to understand that not even those angels and powers of the air
that transgressed, who have been thrust down into that lowest darkness, as into
a peculiar prison, from their habitation in that lofty ethereal purity, through
whom magic arts have whatever power they have, can do anything except by power
given from above. Now that power is given either to deceive the deceitful, as
it was given against the Egyptians, and against the magicians also themselves,
in order that in the seducing of those spirits they might seem admirable by
whom they were wrought, but to be condemned by the truth of God; or for the
admonishing of the faithful, lest they should desire to do anything of the kind
as though it were a great thing, for which reason they have been handed down to
us also by the authority of Scripture; or lastly, for the exercising, proving,
and manifesting of the patience of the righteous. For it was not by any small
power of visible miracles that Job lost all that he had, and both his children
and his bodily health itself.(5)
CHAP. 8.--GOD ALONE CREATES
THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE CHANGED BY MAGIC ART.
13. Yet it is not on this
account to be thought that the matter of visible things is subservient to the
bidding of those wicked angels; but rather to that of God, by whom this power
is given, just so far as He, who is unchangeable, determines in His lofty and
spiritual abode to give it. For water and fire and earth are subservient even
to wicked men, who are condemned to the mines, in order that they may do
therewith what they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, are
those evil angels to be called creators, because by their means the magicians,
withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and serpents; for it was not they
who created them. But, in truth, some hidden seeds of all things that are born
corporeally and visibly, are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world.
For those seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things,
are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; from which, at
the bidding of the Creator, the water produced the first swimming creatures and
fowl, and the earth the first buds after their kind, and the first living
creatures after their kind.(6) For neither at that time were those seeds so
drawn forth into products of their several kinds, as that the power of
production was exhausted in those products; but oftentimes, suitable
combinations of circumstances are wanting, whereby they may be enabled to burst
forth and complete their species. For, consider, the very least shoot is a
seed; for, if fitly consigned to the earth, it produces a tree. But of this shoot
there is a yet more subtle seed in some grain of the same species, and this is
visible even to us. But of this grain also there is further still a seed,
which, although we are unable to see it with our eyes, yet we can conjecture
its existence from our reason; because, except there were some such power in
those elements, there would not so frequently be produced from the earth things
which had not been sown there; nor yet so many animals, without any previous
commixture of male and female; whether on the land, or in the water, which yet
grow, and by commingling bring forth others, while themselves sprang up without
any union of parents. And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their
young by commixture, but gather them as they lie scattered over the earth with
their mouth.(1) For the Creator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all
things Himself; since whatever comes forth to our sight by being born, receives
the first beginnings of its course from hidden seeds, and takes the successive
increments of its proper size and its distinctive forms from these as it were
original rules. As therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor
farmers the creators of corn,--although it is by the outward application of
their actions that the power(2) of God operates within for the creating these
things;--so it is not right to think not only the bad but even the good angels
to be creators, if, through the subtilty of their
perception and body, they know the seeds of things which to us are more hidden,
and scatter them secretly through fit temperings of
the elements, and so furnish opportunities of producing things, and of
accelerating their increase. But neither do the good angels do these things,
except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, except
as far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wicked one makes his
own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receives rightfully, whether for
his own punishment, or, in the case of others, for the punishment of the
wicked, or for the praise of the good.
14. Accordingly, the Apostle
Paul, distinguishing God's creating and forming within, from the operations of
the creature which are applied from without, and drawing a similitude from
agriculture, says, "I planted, Apollos watered;
but God gave the increase."(3) As, therefore, in the case of spiritual
life itself, no one except God can work righteousness in our minds, yet men
also are able to preach the gospel as an outward means, not only the good in
sincerity, but also the evil in pretence;(4) so in the creation of visible
things it is God that works from within; but the exterior operations, whether
of good or bad, of angels or men, or even of any kind of animal, according to
His own absolute power, and to the distribution of faculties, and the several
appetites for things pleasant, which He Himself has imparted, are applied by
Him to that nature of things wherein He creates all things, in like manner as
agriculture is to the soil. Wherefore I can no more call the bad angels, evoked
by magic arts, the creators of the frogs and serpents, than I can say that bad
men were creators of the corn crop, which I see to have sprung up through their
labor.
15. Just as Jacob, again, was
not the creator of the colors in the flocks, because
he placed the various colored rods for the several
mothers, as they drank, to look at in conceiving.(5) Yet neither were the
cattle themselves creators of the variety of their own offspring, because the
variegated image, impressed through their eyes by the sight of the varied rods,
clave to their soul, but could affect the body that was animated by the spirit
thus affected only through sympathy with this commingling, so far as to stain
with color the tender beginnings of their offspring. For
that they are so affected from themselves, whether the soul from the body, or
the body from the soul, arises in truth from suitable reasons, which immutably
exist in that highest wisdom of God Himself, which no extent of place contains;
and which, while it is itself unchangeable, yet quits not one even of those
things which are changeable, because there is not one of them that is not
created by itself. For it was the unchangeable and invisible reason of the
wisdom of God, by which all things are created, which caused not rods, but
cattle, to be born from cattle; but that the color of
the cattle conceived should be in any degree influenced by the variety of the
rods, came to pass through the soul of the pregnant cattle being affected
through their eyes from without, and so according to its own measure drawing
inwardly within itself the rule of formation, which it received from the
innermost power of its own Creator. How great, however, may be the power of the
soul in affecting and changing corporeal substance (although certainly it
cannot be called the creator of the body, because every cause of changeable and
sensible substance, and all its measure and number and weight, by which are
brought to pass both its being at all and its being of such and such a nature,
arise from the intelligible and unchangeable life, which is above all things,
and which reaches even to the most distant and earthly things), is a very
copious subject, and one not now necessary. But I thought the act of Jacob
about the cattle should be noticed, for this reason, viz. in order that it
might be perceived that, if the man who thus placed those rods cannot be called
the creator of the colors in the lambs and kids; nor
yet even the souls themselves of the mothers, which colored
the seeds conceived in the flesh by the image of variegated color,
conceived through the eyes of the body, so far as nature permitted it; much
less can it be said that the creators of the frogs and serpents were the bad
angel, through whom the magicians of Pharaoh then made them.
CHAP. 9.--THE ORIGINAL CAUSE
OF ALL THINGS IS FROM GOD.
16. For it is one thing to
make and administer the creature from the innermost and highest turning-point
of causation, which He alone does who is God the Creator; but quite another
thing to apply some operation from without in proportion to the strength and
faculties assigned to each by Him, so that what is created may come forth into
being at this time or at that, and in this or that way. For all these things in
the way of original and beginning have already been created in a kind of
texture of the elements, but they come forth when they get the opportunity.(1)
For as mothers are pregnant with young, so the world itself is pregnant with
the causes of things that are born; which are not created in it, except from
that highest essence, where nothing either springs up or dies, either begins to
be or ceases. But the applying from without of adventitious causes,which,
although they are not natural, yet are to be applied according to nature, in
order that those things which are contained and hidden in the secret bosom of
nature may break forth and be outwardly created in some way by the unfolding of
the proper measures and numbers and weights which they have received in secret
from Him "who has ordered all things in measure and number and
weight:"(2) this is not only in the power of bad angels, but also of bad
men, as I have shown above by the example of agriculture.
17. But lest the somewhat
different condition of animals should trouble any one, in that they have the
breath of life with the sense of desiring those things that are according to
nature, and of avoiding those things that are contrary to it; we must consider
also, how many men there are who know from what herbs or flesh, or from what
juices or liquids you please, of whatever sort, whether so placed or so buried,
or so bruised or so mixed, this or that animal is commonly born; yet who can be
so foolish as to dare to call himself the creator of these animals? Is it,
therefore, to be wondered at, if just as any, the most worthless of men, can
know whence such or such worms and flies are produced; so the evil angels in
proportion to the subtlety of their perceptions discern in the more hidden
seeds of the elements whence frogs and serpents are produced, and so through
certain and known opportune combinations applying these seeds by secret
movements, cause them to be created, but do not create them? Only men do not
marvel at those things that are usually done by men. But if any one chance to
wonder at the quickness of those growths, in that those living beings were so
quickly made, let him consider how even this may be brought about by men in
proportion to the measure of human capability. For whence is it that the same
bodies generate worms more quickly in summer than in winter, or in hotter than
in colder places? Only these things are applied by men with so much the more
difficulty, in proportion as their earthly and sluggish members are wanting in
subtlety of perception, and in rapidity of bodily motion. And hence it arises
that in the case of any kind of angels, in proportion as it is easier for them
to draw out the proximate causes from the elements, so much the more marvellous
is their rapidity in works of this kind.
18. But He only is the creator
who is the chief former of these things. Neither can any one be this, unless He
with whom primarily rests the measure, number, and weight of all things
existing; and He is God the one Creator, by whose unspeakable power it comes to
pass, also, that what these angels were able to do if they were permitted, they
are therefore not able to do because they are not permitted. For there is no
other reason why they who made frogs and serpents were not able to make the
most minute flies, unless because the greater power of God was present
prohibiting them, through the Holy Spirit; which even the magicians themselves
confessed, saying, "This is the finger of God."(1) But what they are
able to do by nature, yet cannot do, because they are prohibited; and what the
very condition of their nature itself does not suffer them to do; it is difficult,
nay, impossible, for man to search out, unless through that gift of God which
the apostle mentions when he says, "To another the discerning of
spirits."(2) For we know that a man can walk, yet that he cannot do so if
he is not permitted; but that he cannot fly, even if he be permitted. So those
angels, also, are able to do certain things if they are permitted by more
powerful angels, according to the supreme commandment of God; but cannot do
certain other things, not even if they are permitted by them; because He does
not permit from whom they have received such and such a measure of natural
powers: who, even by His angels, does not usually permit what He has given them
power to be able to do.
19. Excepting, therefore,
those corporeal things which are done in the order of nature in a perfectly
usual series of times, as e.g., the rising and setting of the stars, the
generations and deaths of animals, the innumerable diversities of seeds and
buds, the vapors and the clouds, the snow and the
rain, the lightnings and the thunder, the
thunderbolts and the hail, the winds and the fire, cold and heat, and all like
things; excepting also those which in the same order of nature occur rarely,
such as eclipses, unusual appearances of stars, and monsters, and earthquakes.
and such like;--all these, I say, are to be excepted, of which indeed the first
and chief cause is only the will of God; whence also in the Psalm, when some
things of this kind had been mentioned, "Fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind," lest any one should think those
to be brought about either by chance or only from corporeal causes, or even
from such as are spiritual, but exist apart from the will of God, it is added
immediately, "fulfilling His word."(3)
CHAP. 10.--IN HOW MANY WAYS
THE CREATURE IS TO BE TAKEN BY WAY OF SIGN. THE EUCHARIST.
Excepting, therefore, all
these things as I just now said, there are some also of another kind; which,
although from the same corporeal substance, are yet brought within reach of our
senses in order to announce something from God, and these are properly called
miracles and signs; yet is not the person of God Himself assumed in all things
which are announced to us by the Lord God. When, however, that person is
assumed, it is sometimes made manifest as art angel; sometimes in that form
which is not an angel in his own proper being, although it is ordered and
ministered by an angel. Again, when it is assumed in that form which is not an
angel in his own proper being; sometimes in this case it is a body itself
already existing, assumed after some kind of change, in order to make that
message manifest; sometimes it is one that comes into being for the purpose,
and that being accomplished, is discarded. Just as, also, when men are the
messengers, sometimes they speak the words of God in their own person, as when
it is premised, "The Lord said," or, "Thus saith
the Lord,"(4) or any other such phrase, but sometimes without any such
prefix, they take upon themselves the very person of God, as e.g.: "I will
instruct time, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt
go:"(5) so, not only in word, but also in act, the signifying of the
person of God is imposed upon the prophet, in order that he may bear that
person in the ministering of the prophecy; just as he, for instance, bore that
person who divided his garment into twelve parts, and gave ten of them to the
servant of King Solomon, to the future king of Israel.(6) Sometimes, also, a
thing which was not a prophet in his own proper self, and which existed already
among earthly things, was assumed in order to signify this; as Jacob, when he
had seen the dream, upon waking up did with the stone, which when asleep he had
under his head.(7) Sometimes a thing is made in the same kind, for the mere
purpose; so as either to continue a little while in existence, as that brazen
serpent was able to do which was lifted up in the wilderness,(8) and as written
records are able to do likewise; or so as to pass away after having
accomplished its ministry, as the bread made for the purpose is consumed in the
receiving of the sacrament.
20. But because these things
are known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meet with
reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder as being miracles.
And therefore those things which are done by angels are the more wonderful to
us, in that they are more difficult and more known; but they are known and easy
to them as being their own actions. An angel speaks in the person of God to
man, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob;" the Scripture having said just before, "The angel of the
Lord appeared to him."(1) And a man also speaks in the person of God,
saying, "Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee, O Israel: I am
the Lord thy God."(2) A rod was taken to serve as a sign, and was changed
into a serpent by angelical power;(3) but although that power is wanting to
man, yet a stone was taken also by man for a similar sign.(4) There is a wide
difference between the deed of the angel and the deed of the man. The former is
both to be wondered at and to be understood, the latter only to be understood. That
which is understood from both, is perhaps one and the same; but those things
from which it is understood, are different. Just as if the name of God were
written both in gold and in ink; the former would be the more precious, the
latter the more worthless; yet that which is signified in both is one and the
same. And although the serpent that came from Moses' rod signified the same
thing as Jacob's stone, yet Jacob's stone signified something better than did
the serpents of the magicians. For as the anointing of the stone signified
Christ in the flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil of gladness above
His fellows;(5) so the rod of Moses, turned into a serpent, signified Christ
Himself made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.(6) Whence it is
said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life;."(7) just as by gazing on that serpent which
was lifted up in the wilderness, they did not perish by the bites of the
serpents. For "our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed."(8) For by the serpent death is understood, which was
wrought by the serpent in paradise,(9) the mode of speech expressing the effect
by the efficient. Therefore the rod passed into the serpent, Christ into death;
and the serpent again into the rod, whole Christ with His body into the
resurrection; which body is the Church;(10) and this shall be in the end of
time, signified by the tail, which Moses held, in order that it might return
into a rod.(11) But the serpents of the magicians, like those who are dead in
the world, unless by believing in Christ they shall have been as it were
swallowed up by,(12) and have entered into, His body, will not be able to rise
again in Him. Jacob's stone, therefore, as I said, signified something better
than did the serpents of the magicians; yet the deed of the magicians was much
more wonderful. But these things in this way are no hindrance to the
understanding of the matter; just as if the name of a man were written in gold,
and that of God in ink.
21. What man, again, knows how
the angels made or took those clouds and fires in order to signify the message
they were bearing, even if we supposed that the Lord or the Holy Spirit was
manifested in those corporeal forms? Just as infants do not know of that which
is placed upon the altar and consumed after the performance of the holy
celebration, whence or in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for
religious use. And if they were never to learn from their own experience or
that of others, and never to see that species of thing except during the
celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered and given; and if it
were told them by the most weighty authority whose body and blood it is; they
will believe nothing else, except that the Lord absolutely appeared in this
form to the eyes of mortals, and that that liquid actually flowed from the
piercing of a side(13) which resembled this. But it is certainly a useful
caution to myself, that I should remember what my own powers are, and admonish
my brethren that they also remember what theirs are, lest human infirmity pass
on beyond what is safe. For how the angels do these things, or rather, how God
does these things by His angels, and how far He wills them to be done even by
the bad angels, whether by permitting, or commanding, or compelling, from the
hidden seat of His own supreme power; this I can neither penetrate by the sight
of the eyes, nor make clear by assurance of reason, nor be carried on to
comprehend it by reach of intellect, so as to speak thereupon to all questions
that may be asked respecting these matters, as certainly as if I were an angel,
or a prophet, or an apostle. "For the thoughts of mortal men are
miserable, and our devices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind, that museth
upon many things. And hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth,
and with labor do we find the things that are before
us; but the things that are in heaven, who hath searched out?" But because
it goes on to say, "And Thy counsel who hath known, except Thou give
wisdom, and send Thy Holy Spirit from above;"(14) therefore we refrain
indeed from searching out the things which are in heaven, under which kind are
contained I both angelical bodies according to their proper dignity, and any
corporeal action of those bodies; yet, according to the Spirit of God sent to
us from above, and to His grace imparted to our minds, I dare to say
confidently, that neither God the Father, nor His Word, nor His Spirit, which
is the one God, is in any way changeable in regard to that which He is, and
whereby He is that which He is; and much less is in this regard visible. Since
there are no doubt some things changeable, yet not visible, as are our
thoughts, and memories, and wills, and the whole incorporeal creature; but
there is nothing that is visible that is not also changeable.
CHAP. 11.--THE ESSENCE OF
GOD NEVER APPEARED IN ITSELF. DIVINE APPEARANCES TO THE FATHERS WROUGHT BY THE
MINISTRY OF ANGELS. AN OBJECTION DRAWN FROM THE MODE OF SPEECH REMOVED. THAT
THE APPEARING OF GOD TO ABRAHAM HIMSELF, JUST AS THAT TO MOSES, WAS WROUGHT BY
ANGELS. THE SAME THING IS PROVED BY THE LAW BEING GIVEN TO MOSES BY ANGELS. WHAT
HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS BOOK, AND WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID IN THE NEXT.
Wherefore the substance, or,
if it is better so to say, the essence of God,(1) wherein we understand, in
proportion to our measure, in however small a degree, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper
self be visible.
22. It is manifest,
accordingly, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God was presented
to them according to His own dispensation, suitable to the times, were wrought
through the creature. And if we cannot discern in what manner He wrought them
by ministry of angels, yet we say that they were wrought by angels; but not
from our own power of discernment, lest we should seem to any one to be wise
beyond our measure, whereas we are wise so as to think soberly, as God hath
dealt to us the measure of faith;(2) and we believe, and therefore speak.(3)
For the authority is extant of the divine Scriptures, from which our reason
ought not to turn aside; nor by leaving the solid support of the divine
utterance, to fall headlong over the precipice of its own surmisings,
in matters wherein neither the perceptions of the body rule, nor the clear
reason of the truth shines forth. Now, certainly, it is written most clearly in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the dispensation of the New Testament was to
be distinguished from the dispensation of the Old, according to the fitness of
ages and of times, that not only those visible things, but also the word
itself, was wrought by angels. For it is said thus: "But to which of the
angels said He at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of
salvation?"(4) Whence it appears that all those things were not only
wrought by angels, but wrought also on our account, that is, on account of the
people of God, to whom is promised the inheritance of eternal life. As it is
written also to the Corinthians, "Now all these things happened unto them
in a figure: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
world arecome."(5) And then, demonstrating by
plain consequence that as at that time the word was spoken by the angels, so
now by tim Son; "Therefore," he says,
"we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard,
lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was
steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense
of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" And
then, as though you asked, What salvation?--in order to show that he is now
speaking of the New Testament, that is, of the word which was spoken not by
angels, but by the Lord, he says, "Which at the first began to be spoken
by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing
them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts
of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will."(6)
23. But some one may say, Why
then is it written, "The Lord said to Moses;" and not, rather, The
angel said to Moses? Because, when the crier proclaims the words of the judge,
it is not usually written in the record, so and so the crier said, but so and
so the judge. In like manner also, when the holy prophet speaks, although we
say, The prophet said, we mean nothing else to be understood than that the Lord
said; and if we were to say, The Lord said, we should not put the prophet
aside, but only intimate who spake by him. And,
indeed, these Scriptures often reveal the angel to be the Lord, of whose
speaking it is from time to time I said, "the Lord said," as we have
shown already. But on account of those who, since the Scripture in that place
specifies an angel, will have the Son of God Himself and in Himself to be
understood, because He is called an angel by the prophet, as announcing the
will of His Father and of Himself; I have therefore thought fit to produce a
plainer testimony from this epistle, where it is not said by an angel, but
"by angels."
24. For Stephen, too, in the
Acts of the Apostles, relates these things in that manner in which they are
also written in the Old Testament: "Men, brethren, and fathers,
hearken," he says; "The God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia."(1) But lest any one, should think
that the God of glory appeared then to the eyes of any mortal in that which He
is in Himself, he goes on to say that an angel appeared to Moses. "Then
fled Moses," he says, "at that saying, and was a stranger in the land
of Midian, where he begat two sons. And when forty
years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an
angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered
at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto
him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Then
said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet,"(3) etc. Here,
certainly, he speaks both of angel and of Lord; and of the same as the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; as is written in Genesis.
25. Can there be any one who
will say that the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel, but to Abraham by Himself?
Let us not answer this question from Stephen, but from the book itself, whence
Stephen took his narrative. For, pray, because it is written, "And the
Lord God said unto Abraham;"(3) and a little after, "And the Lord God
appeared unto Abraham;"(4) were these things, for this reason, not done by
angels? Whereas it is said in like manner in another place, "And the Lord
appeared to him in the plains of Mature, as he sat in the tent door in the heat
of the day;" and yet it is added immediately, "And he lift up his
eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him:"(5) of whom we have
already spoken. For how will these people, who either will not rise from the
words to the meaning, or easily throw themselves down from the meaning to the
words,--how, I say, will they be able to explain that God was seen in three
men, except they confess that they were angels, as that which follows also
shows? Because it is not said an angel spoke or appeared to him, will they
therefore venture to say that the vision and voice granted to Moses was wrought
by an angel because it is so written, but that God appeared and spake in His own substance to Abraham because there is no
mention made of an angel? What of the fact, that even in respect to Abraham an
angel is not left unmentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered up as
a sacrifice, we read thus: "And it came to pass after these things that
God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I
am. And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son
Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land
of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering
upon one of the mountains that I will tell thee of." Certainly God is here
mentioned, not an angel. But a little afterwards Scripture hath it thus:
"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham,
Abraham: and he said, Here am I And he said, Lay not thine
hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him." What can be
answered to this? Will they say that God commanded that Isaac should be slain,
and that an angel forbade it? and further, that the father himself, in
opposition to the decree of God, who had commanded that he should be slain,
obeyed the angel, who had bidden him spare him? Such an interpretation is to be
rejected as absurd. Yet not even for it, gross and abject as it is, does
Scripture leave any room, for it immediately adds: "For now I know that
thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son, on account of me."(6) What
is "on account of me," except on account of Him who had commanded him
to be slain? Was then the God of Abraham the same as the angel, or was it not
rather God by an angel? Consider what follows. Here, certainly, already an
angel has been most clearly spoken of; yet notice the context: "And
Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a
thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for
a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that
place, The Lord saw:(7) as it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was
seen."(8) Just as that which a little before God said by an angel,
"For now I know that thou fearest God;" not
because it was to be understood that God then came to know, but that He brought
it to pass that through God Abraham himself came to know what strength of heart
he had to obey God, even to the sacrificing of his only son: after that mode of
speech in which the effect is signified by the efficient,--as cold is said to
be sluggish, because it makes men sluggish; so that He was therefore said to
know, because He had made Abraham himself to know, who might well have not
discerned the firmness of his own faith, had it not been proved by such a
trial. So here, too, Abraham called the name of the place "The Lord
saw," that is, caused Himself to be seen. For he goes on immediately to
say, "As it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was seen." Here
you see the same angel is called Lord: wherefore, unless because the Lord spake by the angel? But if we pass on to that which
follows, the angel altogether speaks as a prophet, and reveals expressly that
God is speaking by the angel. "And the angel of the Lord," he says,
"called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself I
have sworn, saith the Lord; for because thou hast
done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine
only son, on account of me,"(1) etc. Certainly these words, viz. that he
by whom the Lord speaks should say, "Thus saith
the Lord," are commonly used by the prophets also. Does the Son of God say
of the Father, "The Lord saith," while He
Himself is that Angel of the Father? What then? Do they not see how hard
pressed they are about these three men who appeared to Abraham, when it had
been said before, "The Lord appeared to him?" Were they not angels
because they are called men? Let them read Daniel, saying, "Behold the man
Gabriel."(2)
26. But why do we delay any
longer to stop their mouths by another most clear and most weighty proof, where
not an angel in the singular nor men in the plural are spoken of, but simply
angels; by whom not any particular word was wrought, but the Law itself is most
distinctly declared to be given; which certainly none of the faithful doubts
that God gave to Moses for the control of the children of Israel, or yet, that
it was given by angels. So Stephen speaks: "Ye stiff-necked," he
says, "and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your
fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming
of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have
received the Law by the disposition of angels,(3) and have not kept
it."(4) What is more evident than this? What more strong than such an
authority? The Law, indeed, was given to that people by the disposition of
angels; but the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ was by it prepared and
pre-announced; and He Himself, as the Word of God, was in some wonderful and
unspeakable manner in the angels, by whose disposition the Law itself was
given. And hence He said in the Gospel, "For had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me; for he wrote of me."(5) Therefore then the Lord
was speaking by the angels; and the son of God, who was to be the Mediator of
God and men, from the seed of Abraham, was preparing His own advent by the
angels, that He might find some by whom He would be received, confessing
themselves guilty, whom the Law unfulfilled had made transgressors. And hence
the apostle also says to the Galatians, "Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, which [seed] was
ordered(6) through angels in the hand of a mediator;"(7) that is, ordered
through angels in His own hand. For He was not born in limitation, but in
power. But you learn in another place that he does not mean any one of the
angels as a mediator, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in so far as He
deigned to be made man: "For there is one God," he says, "and
one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."(8) Hence that passover in the killing of the lamb:(9) hence all those
things which are figuratively spoken in the Law, of Christ to come in the
flesh, and to suffer, but also to rise again, which Law was given by the
disposition of angels; in which angels, were certainly the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit; and in which, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son,
sometimes the Holy Spirit, and sometimes God, without any distinction of
person, was figuratively signified by them, although appearing in visible and
sensible forms, yet by His own creature, not by His substance, in order to the
seeing of which, hearts are cleansed through all those things which are seen by
the eyes and heard by the ears.
27. But now, as I think, that
which we had undertaken to show in this book has been sufficiently discussed
and demonstrated, according to our capacity; and it has been established, both
by probable reason, so far as a man, or rather, so far as I am able, and by
strength of authority, so far as the divine declarations from the Holy
Scriptures have been made clear, that those words and bodily appearances which
were given to these ancient fathers of ours before the incarnation of the
Saviour, when God was said to appear, were wrought by angels: whether
themselves speaking or doing something in the person of God, as we have shown
that the prophets also were wont to do, or assuming from the creature that
which they themselves were not, wherein God might be shown in a figure to men;
which manner of showing also, Scripture teaches by many examples, that the
prophets, too, did not omit. It remains, therefore, now for us to
consider,--since both in the Lord as born of a virgin, and in the Holy Spirit
descending in a corporeal form like a dove.(1) and in the tongues like as of
fire, which appeared with a sound from heaven on the day of Pentecost, after
the ascension of the Lord,(2) it was not the Word of God Himself by His own
substance, in which He is equal and eternal with the Father, nor the Spirit of
the Father and of the Son by His own substance, in which He Himself also is
equal and co-eternal with both, but assuredly a creature, such as could be
formed and exist in these fashions, which appeared to corporeal and mortal
senses,--it remains, I say, to consider what difference there is between these
manifestations and those which were proper to the Son of God and to the Holy
Spirit, although wrought by the visible creature;(3) which subject we shall
more conveniently begin in another book.
PART II
THE TEACHING OF THE FIRST AND SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
AND THE HERETICS CONDEMNED BY THESE COUNCILS.
Christ in the Old Testament and the 1st
and 2nd Ecumenical Councils.
There
is an essential aspect Of the theological presuppositions of all Ecumenical
Councils concerning the Person of Christ which is either missing or has been
rejected by those following Augustine. This raises the question of whether
those who do so really accept these Councils.
With
the sole exception of Augustine, the Fathers maintain that Jesus Christ, before
His birth from the Virgin Theotokos, in His uncreated Person of the Angel of
God, Angel of the Great Council, the Lord of Glory, the Lord Sabbaoth, is He who revealed God in Himself to the
patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. Both the Arians and Eunomians agreed that it was Christ who did this in His
person or hypostasis which existed before the creation of the ages, but they
insisted that He was created from non-being and is therefore not of the same
nature (consubstantial or co-essential) with God, who is alone truly God by
nature.
In
order to prove their points the Arians and Eunomians
argued, as did the Jew Trypho with Justin Martyr,
that it was not the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush who said "I am
He Who Is" (Ex. 3, 14), but God Himself by means of the created Logos
Angel. The Fathers insisted that the Angel-Logos revealed this about Himself
also, and not only about God. The Angel of the Lord spoke in His own right also
when to Moses He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the
God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Ex. 3, 6).
Against
the Arians St. Athanasius argues that the name
'angel' is sometimes applied to the uncreated Logos and sometimes to a created
angel. He insists that there can be no confusion on whether one sees a created
angel or the uncreated Son of God sometimes called 'angel' in the Old
Testament. He insists that "when the Son is seen, so is the Father, for He
is the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one... What God
speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Logos and not through another...
And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not an
angel, nor one merely greater than angels, nor in short any creature, but the
Father Himself. And he who hears the Logos, knows that he hears the Father; as
he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun
(Against Arians III, 12-14). As a key to the Old and New Testaments, St. Athanasius states that "there is nothing that the Father
operates except through the Son...” (Ibid. III, 12).
This
means that the Old Testament is Christocentric since
Christ is the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord and of the Great Council, the
Lord of Glory, and the Lord Sabbaoth in Whom the
patriarchs and prophets see and hear God and through Whom they receive grace, succor, and forgiveness.
That
the Orthodox and Arians agreed that it was the Angel-Logos Who appeared to and
revealed God to the prophets and the very same person who became man and the
Christ should be taken very seriously as the key to understanding the decisions
of the First and subsequent Ecumenical Councils. It is important to realize
that the Orthodox and Arians were not arguing speculatively over an abstract
Second Person of the Holy Trinity whose identity and nature one allegedly
deciphered by mulling over biblical passages with the help of Hellenistic
philosophy and the Holy Spirit. What they were discussing was the spiritual
experience of the prophets and apostles; specifically whether it is a created
or uncreated Logos who appears in glory to them and reveals in Himself as Image
God the Father as Archetype.
Because
the Eunomians held the same positions as the Arians
on the appearances of the allegedly created Logos-Angel to the prophets, this
same discussion was carried to the Second Ecumenical Council, St, Basil the
Great with a bit of loss of patience accosts Eunomius
as follows: You atheist, are you not
going to cease calling Him who is really He Who Is - the source of life, the one
who gives to all that exist their being - non-being? Him who found, when giving
an audience to His own servant Moses, His proper and meet appellation for His
eternity, naming Himself 'He Who Is.' For He said 'I am He Who Is. And that
these things were said by the Person of the Lord no one will gainsay; that is,
no one who does not have the Jewish covering lying over against his heart in
the reading of Moses (2 Cor. 3. 15). For it is
written, that an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in fire of flame from the
bush (Ex. 3, 2). Whereas the Scripture presents in the narrative an angel, the
voice of God follows: 'He said to Moses, I am the God of your father Abraham'
(Ex. 3, 6). And a bit later again, 'I am He Who Is.' Who then is He Himself
both angel and God? Therefore, is it not He about whom we learned, that He is
called 'the Angel of the Great Council'? (Is. 9, 6)." After summarizing
the same observations about the encounter between the Angel-Logos and Jacob,
which one finds in St. Athanasius the Great and the
earlier Fathers, St. Basil gives expression to the same interpretative
principle as we saw in the bishop of Alexandria. It is clear to all, that
wherever the same person is called both angel and God, it is the Only-Begotten
who is declared, who manifests Himself to human beings from generation to
generation and announces the will of the Father to His saints. Thus He who to
Moses gave Himself the name 'He Who Is,' is to be thought of as none other than
God the Logos, who in the beginning is with God (John l. I - 2)' (Refutation Of
Eunomius Apology II, 18). Eunomius
answered these arguments of Basil by claiming that the Son is the angel of “Him Who Is” but not “He Who Is Himself. This
angel is called god to show his superiority over all the things created by him,
but this does not mean that he is He Who Is. Thus Eunomius
claims that, He who sent Moses was Himself He Who Is, but he by whom He sent
and spake was the angel of Him Who Is, and the god of
all else (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius XI. 3).
The
sophistic subtlety of the argument may seem strange but it is nevertheless
important as a witness to the fact that the identity of the Angel, called God
in the Old Testament, with Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God and Creator,
was so entrenched in the tradition that the Eunomians
could never think of getting rid of it as Augustine, a younger contemporary,
was about to do in North Africa in spite of the fact his alleged teacher
Ambrose and all the rest of the Western Fathers agreed with the tradition herein
described.
St.
Basil could not reply to Eunomius answers to his
arguments since he had passed away, so his brother Gregory did so in his twelve
books Against Eunomius which he read through with to
St. Jerome during the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. This safe to claim that
Jerome was in full agreement with the main Father of the Second Ecumenical
Council together with Gregory the Theologian.
St.
Gregory of Nyssa argues among other things that "if Moses begs that the
people may not be led by an angel (Ex. 33, 15; 34, 9), (which God had announced
He would send to lead His people to freedom; Ex. 32, 34; 33, 2) and if He who
was discoursing with him consents to become his fellow-traveler
and the guide of the army (Ex. 33, 17), it is hereby manifestly shown that He
who made Himself known by the title 'He Who Is' is the Only-Begotten God. If
anyone gainsays this, he will show himself to be a supporter of the Jewish
persuasion in not associating the Son with the deliverance of the people. For
if, on the one hand, it was not an angel that went forth with the people, and
if, on the other, as Eunomius would have it, He Who
was manifested by the name of 'He Who Is' is not the Only-Begotten, this
amounts to nothing less than transferring the doctrines of the synagogue to the
Church of God. Accordingly, of the two alternatives they must needs admit one,
namely either that the Only-Begotten God on no occasion appeared to Moses, or
that the Son is Himself 'He Who Is,' from whom the word came to His servant. But
he contradicts what has been said above, alleging the Scripture itself (Ex. 3,
2) which informs us that the voice of an angel was interposed and that it was
thus that the discourse of 'He Who Is' was conveyed. This, however, is no
contradiction but a confirmation of our view. For we too say plainly, that the
prophet, wishing to make manifest to men the mystery concerning Christ, called
'Him Who Is, an 'Angel,' that the meaning of the words might not be referred to
the Father, as it would have been if the title 'He Who Is' alone had been found
throughout the discourse (Against Eunomius, XI, 3).
These
passages from mainstay Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils
should be sufficient indications that for the Council Fathers the doctrine of
the Holy Trinity was identical to the appearances of Christ the Logos without
flesh to the prophets and in His human nature to the apostles. No one within
the tradition, except for Augustine, ever doubted this identity of the Logos
with this concrete Individual who revealed in Himself the invisible God of the
Old Testament to the prophets and who became man and continued this same
revelation of God's glory in and through His own human nature taken from the
Virgin.
The
controversy between the Orthodox and Arians/Eunomians
was not about who the Logos is in the Old and New Testaments, but about what
the Logos is and what His relationship is to God the Father. The Orthodox
maintained that the Logos is uncreated and unchangeable having always existed
from the essence or hypostasis of the Father who eternally and by nature causes
His Son's existence before the Ages. The Arians and Eunomians
insisted that this same Angel-Logos is a changeable creation of God who derives
His existence before the Ages from non-being not by God's nature but by His
will.
Thus
the basic question was, did the prophets and apostles see in God's uncreated
glory (Orthodox and Arians) or created energy (Eunomians)
an uncreated or a created Logos, a Logos who is God by nature and has therefore
all the energies and powers of God by nature or a God by grace, who has some
but not all the energies of God the Father and then only by grace and not by
nature. Both Orthodox and Arians/Eunomians agreed in
principle that if the Logos has every power and energy of the Father by nature
then He is uncreated, if not He is then a creature.
The
question at issue was the experiences of revelation or glorification or theosis which God gives in His Spirit through His Logos
Angel-Christ to the prophets. apostles, and saints. These experiences or these
lives of saints are recorded primarily in the Bible but also in the
post-biblical continuation of Pentecost in the Body of Christ, the Church. Therefore,
both sides appealed to the Fathers of all ages, beginning with their lives recorded
in Genesis and extending to their own day. They could not agree on the
authority of the witnesses of their own time, but they did have a common ground
of debate in the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as in the earlier
patristic tradition.
Thus
Orthodox and heretics use both the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately in
order to prove whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or uncreated
divine hypostasis or person of Christ. The argumentation is simple. Both sides
make a list of all the powers and energies of God recorded in the Bible. They
do the same for the Angel-Logos- Only-Begotten Son. Then they compare them to
see if they are identical or not. They must not be simply similar but
identical.
Both
Orthodox and Arians fully agreed with the inherited tradition of the Old
Testament witnessed to by the apostles and saints to whom God reveals His glory
in His incarnate Son that creatures cannot know the uncreated essence of God,
and that between the uncreated and the created there is no similarity
whatsoever. Thus, in order to prove that the Logos is a creature, the Arians
argued that He knows neither the essence of God nor His own essence and is not
in all respects similar to God. The Orthodox argued that the Logos does know
the essence of the Father and is in every respect similar to the Father, having
all that the Father has by nature except Fatherhood or the being the cause of
the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The
Orthodox and Arians were in agreement that what God is in Himself by nature and
what He is or does by will are not identical, but they differed sharply in the
application of this distinction between the divine essence and will or energy. Thus
the Orthodox argued that God causes the existence of the Logos by nature and
the existence of creatures by will, whereas the Arians argued that both the
Logos and all other creatures are products of the divine will.
Against
these positions the Eunomians argued that the essence
and uncreated energy of God are identical, that the Logos is a product of a
created energy of God, that the Holy Spirit is the product of a created energy
of the Logos and that each created species is a product of separate or distinct
created energies of the Holy Spirit. If each species did not have its
individual energy of the Holy Spirit, there would be only one created species
and not many, according to Eunomius.
Eunomius
is here actually mimicking in his own way the biblical and patristic witness to
glorification Wherein each creature partakes and each saint communes with the
Logos who is present to each by indivisibly multiplying His uncreated glory
which is entirely, and not as part, in each. present to and in each, as taught
by Christ (John 14, 2-23) and experienced in Pentecost (Acts 2, 3-4) and which
bears in the Logos both the Father and the Holy Spirit. This means that there
are no universals in God and that God sustains not only species but every
single part of existence in all its multiple forms. Thus the individual is
never sacrificed by Christ for a supposedly common good. but at the same time
the common good is the good of each individual. As a result of the mystery of
the Ascension of Christ in His own proper glory and His return to His disciples
in the Spirit of glory in Pentecost, He is now all of Him present to and in
each in the states of' illumination and glorification (theosis).
For this reason each communicant of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy
Eucharist receives not a part of Christ, but the whole human nature of Christ
which since Pentecost multiplies itself indivisibly in each member of His Body.
Thus by partaking of the eucharistic bread, which is
one, and the cup, which is one, each member of the Body of Christ receives not
part but the Whole Christ and becomes what he already is, a temple (ναός) or a mansion (μονή)
of the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Logos Incarnate in common with the
other members of Christ's Body.
St. Ambrose of Milan
We
already note the presence of St. Jerome at the Second Ecumenical Council and his
agreement with St. Gregory of Nyssa. To the East Roman Patristic quotations we
will also add a Latin speaking West Roman Father, and indeed St. Ambrose
himself, who supposedly had supervised the baptism of Augustine. We had pointed
out elsewhere that the difference between the Roman Patristic tradition, East
and West, and the Franco-Latin tradition is exactly that between Ambrose, who
follows the Roman Orthodox Patristic tradition, East and West, and Augustine
who Platonized his own understanding of the Christian tradition and was
followed by his students and finally by the whole Carlovingian
Franco-Latin tradition which completely took over the Palatine School
established by Charlemagne. In sharp contrast to Augustine, Ambrose completely
rejects the core of the Platonic
tradition, i.e. the realm of pre-existing ideas of which the world is a copy. “…though
perchance our adversaries may have recourse to that theory of Plato, and place before Thee the ideas
supposed by philosophers, which, indeed, we know have been exploded by
philosophers themselves.” (De Fide IV, iv, 47.)
We
quote from Ambrose’s book De Fide which he wrote at the request of West Roman
Emperor Gratian. In sharp contrast to Augustine
Ambrose writes “He, therefore, Who said “This is My Son.” Said not, “This is a
creature of time,” nor “This being is of My creation, My making, My
servant," but “This is My Son, Whom ye see glorified.” This is the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, Who appeared in the bush (Ex.
iii,14), concerning Whom Moses saith, “He Who is hath
sent me.” It was not the Father Who spoke to Moses in the bush or in the
desert, but the Son. It was of this Moses that Stephen said, “This is He Who
was in the church, in the wilderness, with the Angel.”(Acts vii.38) This, then,
is He Who gave the Law, Who spake with Moses saying,
“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issaac, the God
of Jacob.” This, then, is the God of the patriarchs, this is the God of the
prophets.” (XIII, 83).
Those
who have reached glorification never taught that there is any similarity
between the created and uncreated and that one may express or conceive God. In
the light of this fact it should be clear enough that one may have the right to
doubt claims that Augustine had reached glorification at least while he was
writing his known works. In any case the reader is encouraged to study
carefully the texts of Augustine himself here reproduced to see for himself how
Augustine literally struggles to conceive God and to express God.
Also
the very idea that God brings into existence creatures in order to convey
messages, images and ideas and which He then returns to non existence, is
indeed comical and outlandish, especially when applied to such Biblical events
like Pentecost and the Transfiguration.
THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES’ CREED OF 381
We
call this "The World Council of Churches’ Creed of 381" since it
has no relation whatsoever to the theology of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical
Council who composed this Creed. Their Creed was their reaction to the philosophical
presuppositions of the heretical Arians, Macedonians and Eunomians.
These heretics used the
Church’s teachings within the context of solving philosophical problems posed
mostly by Aristotelians and Platonists. They were especially ridiculing the
claim that God created everything from nothing. This would make God a potential
creator who became perfect when He actually became creator. Paul of Samosata solved this philosophical problem by falling back
on the Church’s teaching that the nature or essence of God is one reality, but
His relations with His creation and His energies and actions are not by nature.
This in turn provoked the question of whether the existence of His Logos and His
Spirit were product of His will or nature. In contrast to such positions the
Fathers refused to follow such philosophers and consistently maintained the
position that there is no similarity whatsoever between the uncreated and the
created and that "It is impossible to express God and that it is even more
impossible to conceive Him."
Also these same Fathers of the
Roman Ecumenical Councils rejected happiness as the destiny of man because the
cure of the human personality is glorification. A glaring proof of the
difference between the Augustinian tradition of the Frankish Scholastics and
the tradition of Roman Ecumenical Councils is the facts that both Vaticanians and Protestants translate St. Paul to say
"If one is honored, the rest rejoice"
instead of "If one is glorified, the rest rejoice."(1 Cor. 12:26)
In sharp contrast to the
Franco-Latin Augustinian tradition the Fathers of all Ecumenical Councils
relied only on the cure of the sickness of religion at the center
of the human personality. What is sick in humans is their "spirit"
because distorted by partial communion with the uncreated glory of God which
saturates and governs creation.
The beginning of the
restoration of communion between the human spirit and God’s Spirit is the
purification and the illumination of the heart by unceasing prayer which may
lead one to glorification. One begins by acceptance faith during the stage of
purification of the heart. This becomes inner faith as unceasing prayer takes
possession of the heart on one’s way to glorification. Rather than repeat what
I had already developed on this subject for this Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue the
reader may turn to my study entitled "Church Synods and Civilization"[8] on this website.
However, this study has now
been complemented by my newer study in Greek entitled "Religion is a
Neurobiological Sickness and Orthodoxy is its Cure",[9] published by Koutloumousiou Monastery of Mount Athos. The thesis is very
simply. There is an electrical short circuit between the heart which pumps
blood and the spinal cord which circulates spinal fluid. The unceasing prayer
in the heart repairs this short circuit resulting in the cure of the phenomena
of phantaces which are the chief weapons of the devil
by which he causes deviations from the cure of the purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification. The chief of these phantaces is the belief that one can express and conceive
God. This is the very foundation of all idolatry, both non Christian and
Christian. For this reason most Christians today are correct when they say that
their Christianity is one of the many religions since all of them are products
of an electrical short circuit.
In any case I was invited to a
meeting dealing with this project in Rhodes, Greece 4-10 January 19988. I was
shocked by the fact that this project seemed unfamiliar with the fact that both
the Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and their heretical
opponents were concentrating on the identity of both the pre-incarnate and
incarnated Logos in both the Old and New Testaments. In my group I gave such
patristic examples I have given in Part II of this paper. The heretical Arians
and Eunomians argued that the Logos in both
Testaments was created and the Orthodox argued that He his uncreated and
consubstantial with the Father. Some Protestants reacted quite negatively. When
they realized that I did not expect them to personally accept such teachings,
but to accept them as part of a descriptive analysis of historical fact, this
they accepted. So I gave them some texts as examples. So they drew up minutes
and voted that a reference be made to this historical fact with references to
such texts.
But the final New Revised
Version of the WCC’s "Confessing the One
Faith" appeared in 1991 without any reference to the faith of the Fathers
of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils: that the Logos in the text of the
Creed of 381 is the Angel of the Lord Who appeared to Moses in the burning
bush.
It seems that certain
directors of the WCC deliberately choose two of five
candidates for Faith And Order to make sure that this position will not take
hold in the circles of the WCC. Two out of Five
candidates proposed by the Church of Greece were chosen by the directors of the
WCC to become members of Faith and Order, one for the
Standing Commission and the other for the Plenary. The one chosen for the
Plenary had been fighting against this identity of the Logos in the Creed of
381 with the Angel of the Lord Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. It
seems that the directors of the "Confessing the One Faith" project
were encouraged to got rid of this decision of Rhodes by this Greek Professor
advisor. If someone knows otherwise we would appreciate hearing about it.