THE SEVEN BOOKS
OF
JOHN CASSIAN
ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST
NESTORIUS.
Translation and Notes by Edgar C.S. Gibson
From: A Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series,
Volume 11
New York, 1894
Complete Contents.
Other version available: text [383K].
Preface and Books 1-4, text. [159K].
Books 5-7, text. [210K].
PREFACE
WHEN I had now finished the books of Spiritual Conferences, the merit
of which consists in the thoughts expressed rather than in the
language used (since my rude utterances were unequal to the deep
thoughts of the saints), I had contemplated and almost determined on
taking refuge in silence (as I was ashamed of having exposed my
ignorance) that I might as far as possible make up for my audacity in
speaking by modestly holding my tongue for the future. But you have
overcome my determination and purpose by your commendable earnestness
and most urgent affection, my dear Leo, my esteemed and highly
regarded friend, ornament that you are of the Roman Church and sacred
ministry,[1] as you drag me forth from
the obscurity of the silence on which I had determined, into a public
court which I may well dread, and oblige me to undertake new labours
while I am still blushing for my past ones. And though I was unequal
to lesser tasks, you compel me to match myself with greater ones. For
even in those trifling works, in which of our small ability we offered
some small offering to the Lord, I would never have attempted to do or
apply myself to anything unless I had been led to it by Episcopal
command. And so through you there has been an increase of importance
both of our subject and of our language. For whereas before we spoke,
when bidden, of the business of the Lord, you now require us to speak
of the actual Incarnation and glory of the Lord Himself. And so we
who were formerly brought as it were into the holy place of the temple
by priestly hands, now penetrate under your guidance and protection,
so to speak, into the holy of holies. Great is the honour but most
perilous the undertaking,[2] because the
prize of the holy sanctuary and the divine reward can only be secured
by a victory over our foe. And so your require and charge us to raise
our feeble hands against a fresh heresy and a new enemy of the
faith,[3] and that we should take our
stand, so to speak, against the awful open-mouthed gapings of the
deadly serpent, that at my summons the power of prophecy and the
divine force of the gospel word may destroy the dragon now rising up
with sinuous course against the Churches of God. I obey your
entreaty: I yield to your command: for I had rather trust in my own
matters to you than to myself, especially as the love of Jesus Christ
my Lord commands me this as well as you, for He Himself gives me this
charge in your person. For in this matter you are more concerned than
I am, as your judgment stands in peril rather than my duty. For in my
case, whether I prove equal to what you have commanded me or no, the
very fact of my obedience and humility will be in some degree an
excuse for me; if indeed I might not urge that there is more value in
my obedience, if there is less that I can do. For we easily comply
with any one's orders, out of our abundance: but his is a great and
wonderful work, whose desires exceed his powers. Yours then is this
work and business, and yours it is to be ashamed of it. Pray and
intreat that your choice may not be discredited by my clumsiness; and
that, supposing we do not answer the expectations which you have
formed of us, you may not seem to have been wrong in commanding out of
an ill-considered determination, while I was right in yielding, owing
to the claims of obedience.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
The heresy compared to the hydra of the poets.[4]
THE tales of poets tell us that of old the hydra when its heads were
cut off gained by its injuries, and sprang up more abundantly: so that
owing to a miracle of a strange and unheard-of kind, its loss proved a
kind of gain to the monster which was thus increased by death, while
that extraordinary fecundity doubled everything which the knife of the
executioner cut off, until the man who was eagerly seeking its
destruction, toiling and sweating, and finding his efforts so often
baffled by useless labours, added to the courage of battle the arts of
craft, and by the application of fire, as they tell us, cut off with a
fiery sword the manifold offspring of that monstrous body; and so when
the inward parts were thus burnt, by cauterizing the rebellious
throbbings of that ghastly fecundity, at length those prodigious
births were brought to an end. Thus also heresies in the churches
bear some likeness to that hydra which the poets' imagination
invented; for they too hiss against us with deadly tongues;
and they too cast forth their deadly poison, and spring up
again when their heads are cut off. But because the medicine should
not be wanting when the disease revives, and because the remedy should
be the more speedy as the sickness is the more dangerous, our Lord God
is able to bring to pass that that may be a truth in the church's
warfare, which Gentile fictions imagined of the death of the hydra,
and that the fiery sword of the Holy Spirit may cauterize the inward
parts of that most dangerous birth, in the new heresy to be put down,
so that at last its monstrous fecundity may cease to answer to its
dying throbs.
CHAPTER II.
Description of the different heretical monsters
which spring from one another.
FOR these shoots of an unnatural seed are no new thing in the
churches. The harvest of the Lord's field has always had to put up
with burrs and briars, and in it the shoots of choking tares have
constantly sprung up. For hence have arisen the Ebionites,
Sabellians, Arians, as well as Eunomians and Macedonians, and
Photinians and Apollinarians, and all the other tares of the churches,
and thistles which destroy the fruits of good faith. And of these the
earliest was Ebion,[5] who while
over-anxious about asserting our Lord's humanity[6] robbed it of its union with Divinity.
But after him the schism of Sabellius burst forth out of reaction
against the above mentioned heresy, and as he declared that there was
no distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he impiously
confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to
distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity. Next after him whom we
have mentioned there followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity,
which, in order to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred
Persons, declared that there were different and dissimilar substances
in the Trinity. But after him in time though like him in wickedness
came Eunomius, who, though allowing that the Persons of the Holy
Trinity were divine and like[7] each
other, yet insisted that they were separate from each other; and so
while admitting their likeness denied their equality. Macedonius also
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost with unpardonable wickedness, while
allowing that the Father and the Son were of one substance, termed the
Holy Ghost a creature, and so sinned against the entire Divinity,
because no injury can be offered to anything in the Trinity without
affecting the entire Trinity. But Photinus, though allowing that
Jesus who was born of the Virgin was God, yet erred in his notion that
His Godhead began with the beginning of His manhood;[8] while Apollinaris through inaccurately
conceiving the union of God and man wrongly believed that He was
without a human soul. For it is as bad an error to add to our Lord
Jesus Christ what does not belong to Him as to rob Him of that which
is His. For where He is spoken of otherwise than as He is--even though
it seems to add to His glory--yet it is an offence. And so one after
another out of reaction against heresies they give rise to heresies,
and all teach things different from each other, but equally opposed to
the faith. And just lately also, i.e., in our own days, we saw a most
poisonous heresy spring up from the greatest city of the
Belgæ,[9] and though there was no
doubt about its error, yet there was a doubt about its name, because
it arose with a fresh head from the old stock of the Ebionites, and so
it is still a question whether it ought to be called old or new. For
it was new as far as its upholders were concerned; but old in the
character of its errors. Indeed it blasphemously taught that our Lord
Jesus Christ was born as a mere man, and maintained that the fact that
He afterwards obtained the glory and power of the Godhead resulted
from His human worth and not from His Divine nature; and by this it
taught that He hd not always His Divinity by the right of His very own
Divine nature which belonged to Him, but that He obtained it
afterwards as a reward for His labours and sufferings. Whereas then
it blasphemously taught that our Lord and Saviour was not God at His
birth, but was subsequently taken into the Godhead, it was indeed
bordering on this heresy which has now sprung up, and is as it were
its first cousin and akin to it, and, harmonizing both with Ebionism
and these new ones, came in point of time between them, and was linked
with them both in point of wickedness. And although there are some
others like those which we have mentioned yet it would take too long
to describe them all. Nor have we now undertaken to enumerate those
that are dead and gone, but to refute those which are novel.
CHAPTER III.
He describes the pestilent error of the
Pelagian.
AT any rate we think that this fact ought not to be omitted, which was
special and peculiar to that heresy mentioned above which sprang from
the error of Pelagius; viz., that in saying that Jesus Christ had
lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so
far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.
For they imagined that it followed that if Jesus Christ being a mere
man was without sin, all men also could without the help of God be
whatever He as a mere man without participating in the Godhead, could
be. And so they made out that there was no difference between any man
and our Lord Jesus Christ, as any man could by effort and striving
obtain just the same as Christ had obtained by His earnestness and
efforts. Whence it resulted that they broke out into a more grievous
and unnatural madness, and said that our Lord Jesus Christ had come
into this world not to bring redemption to mankind but to give an
example of good works, to wit, that men, by following His teaching,
and by walking along the same path of virtue, might arrive at the same
reward of virtue: thus destroying, as far as they could, all the good
of His sacred advent and all the grace of Divine redemption, as they
declared that men could by their own lives obtain just that which God
had wrought by dying for man's salvation. They added as well that our
Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God after
His Resurrection, tracing the former to the mystery of His anointing,
the latter to the merits of His Passion. Whence this new author[10] of a heresy that is not new, who
declares that our Lord and Saviour was born a mere man, observes that
he says exactly the same thing which the Pelagians said before him,
and allows that it follows from his error that as he asserts that our
Lord Jesus Christ lived as a mere man entirely without sin, so he must
maintain in his blasphemy that all men can of themselves be without
sin, nor would he admit that our Lord's redemption was a thing needful
for His example, since men can (as they say) reach the heavenly
kingdom by their own exertions. Nor is there any doubt about this, as
the thing itself shows us. For hence it comes that he encourages the
complaints of the Pelagians by his intervention, and introduces their
case into his writings, because he cleverly or (to speak more truly)
cunningly patronizes them and by his wicked liking for them recommends
their mischievous teaching which is akin to his own, for he is well
aware that he is of the same opinion and of the same spirit, and
therefore is distressed that a heresy akin to his own has been cast
out of the church, as he knows that it is entirely allied to his own
in wickedness.
CHAPTER IV.
Leporius together with some others recants his
Pelagianism.
BUT still as those who were the outcome of this stock of pestilent
thorns have already by the Divine help and goodness been healed, we
should also now pray to our Lord God that as in some points that older
heresy and this new one are akin to each other, He would grant a like
happy ending to those which had a like bad beginning. For Leporius,
then a monk, now a presbyter, who followed the teaching or rather the
evil deeds of Pelagius, as we said above, and was among the earliest
and greatest champions of the aforesaid heresy in Gaul, was admonished
by us and corrected by God, and so nobly condemned his former
erroneous persuasion that his amendment was almost as much a matter
for congratulation as is the unimpaired faith of many. For it is the
best thing never to fall into error: the second best thing to make a
good repudiation of it. He then coming to himself confessed his
mistake with grief but without shame not only in Africa, where he was
then and is now,[11] but also gave to
all the cities of Gaul penitent letters containing his confession and
grief; in order that his return to the faith might be made known where
his deviation from it had been first published, and that those who had
formerly been witnesses of his error might also afterwards be
witnesses of his amendment.
CHAPTER V.
By the case of Leporius he establishes the fact
that an open sin ought to be expiated by an open confession; and also
teaches from his words what is the right view to be held on the
Incarnation.
AND from his confession or rather lamentation we have thought it well
to quote some part, for two reasons: that their recantation might be a
testimony to us, and an example to those who are weak, and that they
might not be ashamed to follow in their amendment, the men whom they
were not ashamed to follow in their error; and that they might be
cured by a like remedy as they suffered from a like disease. He then
acknowledging the perverseness of his views, and seeing the light of
faith, wrote to the Gallican Bishops, and thus began:[12] "I scarcely know, O my most
venerable lords and blessed priests, what first to accuse myself of,
and what first to excuse myself for. Clumsiness and pride and foolish
ignorance together with wrong notions, zeal combined with
indiscretion, and (to speak truly) a weak faith which was gradually
failing, all these were admitted by me and flourished to such an
extent that I am ashamed of having yielded to such and so many sins,
while at the same time I am profoundly thankful for having been able
to cast them out of my soul." And after a little he adds:
"If then, not understanding this power of God, and wise in our
conceits and opinions, from fear lest God should seem to act a part
that was beneath Him, we suppose that a man was born in conjunction
with God, in such a way that we ascribe to God alone what belongs to
God separately, and attribute to man alone what belongs to man
separately, we clearly add a fourth Person to the Trinity and out of
the one God the Son begin to make not one but two Christs; from which
may our Lord and God Jesus Christ Himself preserve us. Therefore we
confess that our Lord and God Jesus Christ the only Son of God, who
for His own sake[13] was begotten of
the Father before all worlds, when in time He was for our sakes: made
man of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary, was God at His birth;
and while we confess the two substances of the flesh and the Word,[14] we always acknowledge with pious
belief and faith one and the same Person to be indivisibly God and
man; and we say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all
that belonged to God was given to man, as all that belonged to man was
joined to God.[15] And in this sense
`the Word was made flesh:'[16] not that
He began by any conversion or change to be what He was not, but that
by the Divine `economy' the Word of the Father never left the
Father,[17] and yet vouchsafed to
become truly man, and the Only Begotten was incarnate through that
hidden mystery which He alone understands (for it is ours to
believe: His to understand). And thus God `the
Word' Himself receiving everything that belongs to man, is made man,
and the manhood[18] which is assumed,
receiving everything that belongs to God cannot but be God; but
whereas He is said to be incarnate and unmixed, we must not hold that
there is any diminution of His substance: for God knows how to
communicate Himself without suffering any corruption, and yet truly to
communicate Himself. He knows how to receive into Himself without
Himself being increased thereby, just as He knows how to impart
Himself in such a way as Himself to suffer no loss. We should not
then in our feeble minds make guesses, in accordance with visible
proofs and experiments, from the case of creatures which are equal,
and which mutually enter into each other, nor think that God and man
are mixed together, and that out of such a fusion of flesh and the
Word (i.e., the Godhead and manhood) some sort of body is produced.
God forbid that we should imagine that the two natures being in a way
moulded together should become one substance. For a mixture of this
sort is destructive of both parts. For God, who contains and is not
Himself contained, who enters into things and is not Himself entered
into, who fills things and is not Himself filled, who is everywhere at
once in His completeness and is diffused everywhere, communicates
Himself graciously to human nature by the infusion of His power."
And after a little: "Therefore the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, is truly born for us of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin
Mary. And so in the two natures the Word and Flesh become one, so
that while each substance continues naturally perfect in itself, what
is Divine imparteth without suffering any loss, to the humanity, and
what is human participates in the Divine; nor is there one person God,
and another person man, but the same person is God who is also man:
and again the man who is also God is called and indeed is Jesus Christ
the only Son of God; and so we must always take care and believe so as
not to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Very God (whom
we confess as existing ever with the Father and equal to the Father
before all worlds) became from the moment when He took flesh the
God-man. Nor may we imagine that gradually as time went on He became
God, and that He was in one condition before the resurrection and in
another after it, but that He was always of the same fulness and
power." And again a little later on: "But because the Word
of God[19] vouchsafed to come down upon
manhood by assuming manhood, and manhood was taken up into the Word by
being assumed by God, God the Word in His completeness became complete
man. For it was not God the Father who was made man, nor the Holy
Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must hold that
there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and
without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can
never be divided, existing in two natures[20] (who was also spoken of as a
"giant"[21]) in the days of
His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to man, and ever truly
had as His own what belongs to God: since even though[22] He was crucified in weakness, yet He
liveth by the power of God."
CHAPTER VI.
The united doctrine of the Catholics is to be
received as the orthodox faith.
THIS confession of his therefore, which was the faith of all Catholics
was approved of by all the Bishops of Africa,[23] whence he wrote, and by all those of
Gaul, to whom he wrote. Nor has there ever been anyone who quarrelled
with this faith, without being guilty of unbelief: for to deny what is
right and proved is to confess what is wrong. The agreement of all
ought then to be in itself already sufficient to confute heresy: for
the authority of all shows undoubted truth, and a perfect reason
results where no one disputes it: so that if a man endeavours to hold
opinions contrary to these, we should in the first instance rather
condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions, for one who
impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own condemnation,
and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all, is not even
given a hearing. For when the truth has once for all been established
by all men, whatever arises contrary to it is by this very fact to be
recognized at once as falsehood, because it differs from the truth.
And thus it is agreed that this alone is sufficient to condemn a man;
viz., that he differs from the judgment of truth. But still as an
explanation of a system does no harm to the system, and truth always
shines brighter when thoroughly ventilated, and as it is better that
those who are wrong should be set right by discussion rather than
condemned by severe censures, we should cure, as far as we can with
the Divine assistance, this old heresy appearing in the persons of new
heretics, that when through God's mercy they have recovered their
health, their cure may bear testimony to our holy faith instead of
their condemnation proving an instance of just severity. Only may the
Truth indeed be present at our discussion and discourse concerning it,
and assist our human weakness with that goodness with which God
vouchsafed to come to men, as for this purpose above all He willed to
be born on earth and among men; viz., that there might be no more room
for falsehood.
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
How the errors of later heretics have been
condemned and refuted in the persons of their authors and
originators.
AS we began by setting down in the first book some things by which we
showed that our new heretic is but an offshoot from ancient stocks of
heresy, the due condemnation of the earlier heretics ought to be
enough to secure a sentence of due condemnation for him. For as he
has the same roots and grows up out of the same fallow[24] he has already been amply condemned in
the persons of his predecessors, especially as those who went wrong
immediately before these men very properly condemned the very thing
which these men are now asserting,[25]
so that the examples of their own party ought to be amply sufficient
for them in both directions; viz., that of those who were restored and
that of those who were condemned. For if they are capable of
amendment they have their remedy set forth in the correction of their
own party. If they are incapable of it they receive their sentence in
the condemnation of their own folk. But that we may not be thought to
have prejudged the case against them instead of fairly judging it, we
will produce their actual pestilent assertions, or rather I should say
their blasphemous folly: taking "above all the shield of faith,
and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God,"[26] that when the head of the old serpent
rises once more, the same sword of the Divine Word which formerly
severed it in the case of those ancient dragons may even now cut it
off in the persons of these new serpents. For since the error of these
is the same as that of those former ones, the decapitation of those
ought to be counted as the decapitation of these; and as the serpents
revive and emit pestilent blasts against the Lord's church, and cause
some to fail through their hissing, we must on account of these new
diseases add a fresh remedy to those older cures, so that even if what
has already been done prove insufficient to heal[27] the malady, what we are now doing may
be adequate to restore those who are suffering from it.
CHAPTER II.
Proof that the Virgin Mother of God was not only
Christotocos but also Theotocos, and that Christ is truly God.
AND so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was
born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ
ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but
Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God.[28] For no one, you say, brings forth
what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument
whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal
minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for
by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later
on.[29] In the meanwhile we will now
prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the
Mother of God. Hear then how the angel of God speaks to the shepherds
of the birth of God. "There is born," he says, "to you
this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the
Lord."[30] In order that you may
not take Christ for a mere man, he adds the name of Lord and Saviour,
on purpose that you may have no doubt that He whom you acknowledge as
Saviour is God, and that (as the office of saving belongs only to
Divine power) you may not question that He is of Divine power, in whom
you have learnt that the power to save resides. But perhaps this is
not enough to convince your unbelief, as the angel of the Lord termed
Him Lord and Saviour rather than God or the Son of God, as you
certainly most wickedly deny Him to be God, whom you acknowledge to be
Saviour. Hear then what the archangel Gabriel announces to the Virgin
Mary. "The Holy Ghost," he says, "shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God."[31] Do you see how,
when he is going to point out the nativity of God, he first speaks of
a work of Divinity. For "the Holy Ghost," he says,
"shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee." Admirably did the angel speak, and explain the
majesty of the Divine work by the Divine character of his words. For
the Holy Ghost sanctified the Virgin's womb, and breathed into it by
the power of His Divinity, and thus imparted and communicated Himself
to human nature; and made His own what was before foreign to Him,
taking it to Himself by His own power and majesty.[32] And lest the weakness of human nature
should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity the power of the
Most High strengthened the ever to be honoured Virgin, so that it
supported her bodily weakness by embracing it with overshadowing
protection, and human weakness was not insufficient for the
consummation of the ineffable mystery of the holy conception, since it
was supported by the Divine overshadowing. "Therefore," he
says, "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee." If only a mere man was to be
born of a pure virgin why should there be such careful mention of the
Divine Advent? Why such intervention of Divinity itself? Certainly
if only a man was to be born from man, and flesh from flesh, a command
alone might have done it, or the Divine will. For if the will of God
alone, and His command sufficed to fashion the heavens, form the
earth, create the sea, thrones, and seats, and angels, and archangels,
and principalities, and powers, and in a word to create all the armies
of heaven, and those countless thousands of thousands of the Divine
hosts ("For He spake and they were made, He commanded and they
were created"[33]), why was it
that that was insufficient for the creation of (according to
you) a single man, which was sufficient for the production of all
things divine, and that the power and majesty of God did not entrust
that with the birth of a single infant, which had availed to fashion
all things earthly and heavenly? But certainly the reason why all
those works were performed by the command of God, but the nativity was
only accomplished by His coming was because God could not be conceived
by man unless He allowed it, nor be born unless He Himself entered in;
and therefore the archangel pointed out that the sacred majesty would
come upon the Virgin, I mean that as so great an event could not be
brought about by human appointment, he announced that there would be
present at the conception the glory of Him who was to be born.[34] And so the Word, the Son, descended:
the majesty of the Holy Ghost was present: the power of the Father was
overshadowing; that in the mystery of the holy conception the whole
Trinity might cooperate. "Therefore," he says, "also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God." Admirably does he add "Therefore," in order to
show that this would therefore follow because that
had gone before; and that because God had come upon her at the
conception therefore God would be present at the birth. And
when the maiden understood not, he gave a reason for this great thing,
saying: "Because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and
because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of
God;" that is to say: That thou mayest not be ignorant of the
provision for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret,
the majesty of God shall therefore come upon thee completely; because
the Son of God shall be born of thee. What further doubt can there be
about this? or what is there further to be said? He said that God
would come upon her; that the Son of God would be born. Ask now, if
you like, how the Son of God can help being God, or how she who
brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of God?
This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply
sufficient for you.
CHAPTER III.
Follows up the same argument with passages from the
Old Testament.
BUT as there is an abundant supply of witnesses to the holy nativity;
viz., all that has been on this account written, to hear witness to
it, let us examine in some slight degree an announcement about God
even in the Old Testament, that you may know that the fact that the
birth of God was to be from a virgin was not only then announced when
it actually came to pass, but had been foretold from the very
beginning of the world, that, as the event to be brought about was
ineffable, incredulity of the fact when actually present might be
removed by its having been previously announced while still future.
And so the prophet Isaiah says: "Behold a virgin shall conceive
and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is
interpreted God with us."[35]
What room is there here for doubt, you incredulous person?[36] The prophet said that a virgin should
conceive: a virgin has conceived: that a Son should be born:
a Son has been born: that He Should be called God: He
is called God. For He is called by that name as being of
that nature. Therefore when the Spirit of God said that He should be
called God, He proved that He is without the Spirit of God who makes
himself a stranger to all fellowship with the Divine title.
"Behold then," he says, "a virgin shall conceive and
bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is
interpreted God with us." But here is a point on which it is
possible that your shuffling incredulity may fasten; viz., by saying
that this which the prophet declared He should be called referred not
to the glory of His Divinity, but to the name by which He should be
addressed. But what are we to do because Christ is never spoken of by
this name in the gospels, though the Spirit of God cannot be said to
have spoken falsely through the prophet? How is it then? Surely that
we should understand that that prophecy then foretold the name of His
Divine nature and not of His humanity. For since in His manhood
united to the Godhead[37] He received
another name in the gospel, it is certainly clear that this
name belonged to His humanity, that to His Divinity. But let
us proceed further and summon other true witnesses to establish the
truth: For where we are speaking about the Godhead, the Divinity
cannot be better established than by His own witnesses. So then the
same prophet says elsewhere: "For unto us a Son is born: unto us
a child is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and
His name shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace."[38] Just as above the prophet had
expressly said that He should be called Emmanuel, so here he says that
He should be called "the angel of great counsel, and God the
mighty, and the Father of the world to come and the prince of
peace" (although we certainly never read that He was called by
these names in the gospel): of course that we may understand that
these are not terms belonging to His human, but to His Divine nature;
and that the name used in the gospel belonged to the manhood which He
took upon Him,[39] and this one to His
innate power. And because God was to be born in human form, these
names were so distributed in the sacred economy, that to the manhood a
human name was given and to the Divinity a Divine one. Therefore he
says: "He shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the
mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of peace."
Not, O heretic, whoever you may be, not that here the prophet, full as
he was of the Holy Spirit, followed your example and compared Him who
was born to a molten image and a figure fashioned without sense.[40] For "a Son," he says,
"is born to us, a Child is given to us; and the government shall
be upon his shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of great
counsel, God the mighty." And that you may not imagine Him whom
He announced as God[41] to be other
than Him who was born in the flesh, he adds a term referring to His
birth, saying: "A child is born to us: a son is given to
us." Do you see how many titles the prophet used to make clear
the reality of His birth in the body? for he called Him both Son and
child on purpose that the manner of the child which was born might be
more clearly shown by a name referring to His infancy; and the Holy
Spirit foreseeing without doubt this perversity of blasphemous
heretics, showed to the whole world that it was God who was born, by
the very terms and words used; that even if a heretic was determined
to utter blasphemy, he might not find any loophole for his blasphemy.
Therefore he says: "A Son is born to us; a child is given to us;
and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be
called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the
world to come, the prince of peace." He teaches that this child
which was born is both prince of peace and Father of the world to come
and God the mighty. What room is there then for shuffling? This
child which is born cannot be severed from God who is born in Him, for
he called Him, whom he spoke of as born, Father of the world to come;
Him whom he called a child, he foretold as God the mighty. What is
it, O heretic? Whither will you betake yourself? Every place is
hedged and shut in: there is no possibility of getting out of it.
There is nothing for it but that you should at length be obliged to
confess the mistake which you would not understand. But not
content with these passages which are indeed enough let us inquire
what the Holy Ghost said through another prophet. "Shall a
man," says he, "pierce his God, for you are piercing
me?"[42] In order that the
subject of the prophecy might be still clearer the prophet foretells
what he proclaimed of the Lord's passion as if from the mouth of Him
of whom he was speaking. "Shall a man pierce his God, for you
are piercing me?" Does not our Lord God, I ask, seem to have
said this when He was led to the Cross? Why indeed do you not
acknowledge Me as your Redeemer? Why are ye ignorant of God clothed
in flesh for you? Are you preparing death for your Saviour? Are yon
leading forth to death the Author of life? I am your God whom ye are
lifting up: your God whom ye are crucifying. What mistake, I ask, is
here or what madness is it? "Shall a man pierce his God, for you
are piercing me?" Do you see how exactly the words describe what
was actually done? Could you ask for anything more express or
clearer? Do you see how sacred testimonies follow our Incarnate Lord
Jesus Christ from the very cradle to the Cross which He bore, as here
you can see that He whom elsewhere you read of as God when born in the
flesh was God when pierced on the cross? And so there, where His
birth was treated of, He is spoken of by the prophet as God: and here
where His crucifixion is concerned, He is most clearly named God; that
the taking upon Him of manhood might not in any point prejudice
dignity of His Divinity, nor the humiliation of His body and the shame
of the passion affect the glory of His majesty; for His condescension
to so lowly a birth and His generous goodness in enduring his passion
ought to increase our love and devotion to Him; since it is certainly
a great and monstrous sin if, the more He lavishes love upon us, the
less He is honoured by us.
CHAPTER IV.
He produces testimonies to the same doctrine from
the Apostle Paul.
BUT passing over these things which cannot possibly be unfolded
because there would be no limit to the telling of them, as the
blessings which he gives are without stint, it is time for us to
consult the Apostle Paul, the stoutest and clearest witness to Him,
for he can tell us everything about God in the most trustworthy way
because God always spoke from his breast. He then, the chosen teacher
of the nations, who was sent to destroy the errors of Gentile
superstition, bears his witness in the following way to the grace and
coming of our Lord God: "The grace," he says, "of God
and our Saviour appeared unto all men, instructing us that denying
ungodliness and worldly desires we should live soberly and justly and
godly in this world, looking for the blessed hope and coming of the
glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."[43] He says that "there appeared the
grace of God our Saviour." Admirably does he use a word suited to
show the arrival of a new grace and birth; for by saying "there
appeared," he indicated the approach of a new grace and birth,
for thenceforward the gift of a new grace began to appear, from the
moment when God appeared as born in the world. Thus by using the
right word, and one exactly suitable, he shows the light of this new
grace almost as if he pointed to it with his finger. For that is most
properly said to appear, which is shown by sudden light
manifesting it. Just as we read in the gospel that the star
appeared to the wise men in the East:[44] and in Exodus: "There
appeared," he says, "to Moses an angel in a flame
of fire in the bush:"[45] for in
all these and in the case of other visions in the Holy Scripture,
Scripture determined that this word in particular should be used, that
it might speak of that as "appearing," which shone forth
with unwonted light. So then the Apostle also, well knowing the
coming of the heavenly grace, which appeared at the approach of the
holy nativity, indicated it by using a term applied to a bright
appearance; expressly in order to say that it appeared, as it
shone with the splendour of a new light. "There appeared"
then "the grace of God our Saviour." Surely you cannot
raise any quibble about the ambiguity of the names in this place, so
as to say that "Christ" is one and "God" another,
or to divide "the Saviour" from the glory of His name, and
separate "the Lord" from the Divinity? Lo, here the
vessel[46] of God speaks from God, and
testifies by the clearest statement that the grace of God appeared
from Mary. And in order that you may not deny that God appeared from
Mary, he at once adds the name of Saviour, on purpose that you may
believe that He who is born of Mary is God, whom you cannot deny to
have been born a Saviour, in accordance with this passage: "For
to you is born to-day a Saviour."[47] O excellent teacher of the Gentiles
truly given by God to them, for he knew that this wild heretical folly
would arise, which would turn to controversial uses the names of God,
and would not hesitate to slander God from His own titles; and so just
in order that the heretic might not separate the title of Saviour from
the Divinity he put first the name of God, that the name of God
standing first might claim as His all the names which followed, and
that no one might imagine that in what followed Christ was spoken of
as a mere man, as by the very first word used he had taught that He
was God. "Looking," says the same Apostle, "for the
blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ." Certainly that teacher of divine wisdom saw that
plain and simple teaching would not in itself be sufficient to meet
the crafty wiles of the devil's cunning, unless he fortified the holy
preaching of the faith with a protection of extreme care. And so
although he had used the name of God the Saviour up above, he here
adds "Jesus Christ," in case you might think that the mere
name of Saviour was not enough to indicate to you our Lord Jesus
Christ, and might fail to understand that the God, whom you
acknowledge as God the Saviour, is the same Jesus Christ. What then
does he say? He says: "Looking for the blessed hope and coming
of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Nothing is here wanting as regards the titles of our Lord and you see
here God, and the Saviour, and Jesus, and Christ. But when you see
all these, you see that they all belong to God. For you have heard of
Him as God, but as Saviour as well. You have heard of Him as God, but
as Jesus as well. You have heard of Him as God, but as Christ as
well. That which the Divinity has joined and united together cannot
be separated by this diversity of titles; for whichever you may seek
for of them all, you will find it there. The Saviour is God, Jesus is
God, Christ is God. In all of this which you hear, though the titles
used are many, yet they belong to one Person in power. For whereas
the Saviour is God, and Jesus is God, and Christ is God, it is easy to
see that all these, though different appellations, are united as
regards the Majesty. And when you hear quite plainly that one and the
same Person is called God in each case, you can surely clearly see
that in all these cases there is but one God spoken of. And so you
cannot any longer seek to make out a distinction of power from the
different names given to the Lord, or to make a difference of Person
owing to variety of titles. You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary,
but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was. You cannot say
that Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies
that God was. You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not;
for an Apostle supports the fact that God was. There is no way of
escape for you. Whichever of the titles of the Lord you may take, He
is God, of whom you speak. You have nothing to say: nothing to
assert: nothing to invent in your wicked falsehood. You can in
impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to deny in the
matter of your blasphemy.
CHAPTER V.
From the gifts of Divine grace which we receive
through Christ he infers that He is truly God.
ALTHOUGH we began to speak some time back on this Divine grace of our
Lord and Saviour, I want to say somewhat more on the same subject from
the Holy Scriptures. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that the
Apostle James[48] thus refuted those
who thought that when they received the gospel they ought still to
bear the yoke of the old Law: "Why," said he, "do ye
tempt God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither
our fathers nor we have been able to bear. But by the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved in like manner as they
also."[49] The Apostle certainly
speaks of the gift of this grace as given by Jesus Christ. Answer me
now, if you please: do you think that this grace which is given for
the salvation of all men, is given by man or by God? If you say, By
man, Paul, God's own vessel, will cry out against you, saying:
"There appeared the grace of God our Saviour."[50] He teaches that this grace is the
result of a Divine gift, and not of human weakness. And even if the
sacred testimony was not sufficient, the truth of the matter itself
would bear its witness, because fragile earthly things cannot possibly
furnish a thing of lasting and immortal value; nor can anyone give to
another that in which he himself is lacking, nor supply a sufficiency
of that, from the want of which he admits that he himself is
suffering. You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from
God. It is God then who has given it. But it has been given by our
Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if He
be, as He certainly is, God: then she who bore God is Theotocos, i.e.,
the mother of God. Unless perhaps you want to take refuge in so
utterly absurd and blasphemous a contradiction as to deny that she
from whom God was born is the mother of God, while you cannot deny
that He who was born is God. But, however, let us see what the gospel
of God thinks about this same grace of our Lord: "Grace and
truth," it says, "came by Jesus Christ."[51] If Christ is a mere man, how did
these come by Christ? Whence was there in Him Divine power if, as you
say, there was in Him only the nature of man? Whence comes heavenly
largesse, if His is earthly poverty? For no one can give what he has
not already. As then Christ gave Divine grace, He already had that
which He gave. Nor can anyone endure a diversity of things that are
so utterly different from each other, as at one and the same time to
suffer the wants of a poor man, and also to show the munificence of a
bounteous one. And so the Apostle Paul, knowing that all the
treasures of heavenly riches are found in Christ, rightly writes to
the Churches: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you."[52] For though he had
already often enough taught that God is the same as Christ, and that
all the glory of Deity resides in Him, and that all the fulness of the
Godhead dwelleth in Him bodily, yet here he is certainly right in
praying for the grace of Christ alone, without adding the word God:
for while he had often taught that the grace of God is the same as the
grace of Christ, he now most perfectly prays only for the grace of
Christ, for he knows that in the grace of Christ is contained the
whole grace of God. Therefore he says: "The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you." If Jesus Christ was a mere man, then
in his wish that the grace of Christ might be given to the Churches he
was wishing that the grace of a man might be given; and by saying:
"The grace of Christ be with you" he meant: the grace of a
man be with you, the grace of flesh be with you, the grace of bodily
weakness, the grace of human frailty! Or why did he ever even mention
the word grace, if his wish was for the grace of a man? For there was
no reason for wishing, if that was not in existence which was wished
for; nor ought he to have prayed that there might be bestowed on them
the grace of one who, according to you, did not possess the reality of
that grace for which he was wishing. And so you see that it is
utterly absurd and ridiculous--or rather not a thing to laugh at but
to cry over, for what is a matter for laughter to some frivolous
persons becomes a matter for crying to pious and faithful souls, for
they shed tears of charity for the folly of your unbelief, and weep
pious tears at the folly of another's impiety. Let us then recover
ourselves for a while and take our breath, for this idea is not only
without wisdom but also without the Spirit, as it is certainly wanting
in spiritual wisdom and has nothing to do with the Spirit of
salvation.
CHAPTER VI.
That the power of bestowing Divine grace did not
come to Christ in the course of time, but was innate in Him from His
very birth.
BUT perhaps you will say that this grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, of
which the Apostle writes, was not born with Him, but was afterwards
infused into Him by the descent of Divinity upon Him, since you say
that the man Jesus Christ our Lord (whom you call a mere man) was not
born with God, but afterwards was assumed by God:[53] and that through this grace was given
to the man at the same time that Divinity was given to Him. Nor do we
say anything else than that Divine grace descended with the Divinity,
for the Divine grace of God is in a way a bestowal of actual Divinity
and a gift of a liberal supply of graces. Perhaps then it may be
thought that the difference between us is one of time rather than of
what is essential, since the Divinity which we say was born with Jesus
Christ you say was afterwards infused into Him. But the fact is that
if you deny that Divinity was born with the Lord you cannot afterwards
make a confession according to the faith; for it is an impossibility
for one and the same thing to be partly impious and also to turn out
partly pious, and for the same thing partly to belong to faith and
partly to misbelief. To begin with then I ask you this: Do you say
that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary is only
the Son of man, or that He is the Son of God as well? For we, I mean
all who hold the Catholic faith, all of us, I say, believe and are
sure and know and confess that He is both, i.e., that He is Son of man
because born of a woman and Son of God because conceived of Divinity.
Do you then admit that He is both, i.e., Son of God and Son of man, or
do you say that He is Son of man only? If Son of man only then there
cry out against you apostles and prophets, aye and the Holy Ghost
Himself, by whom the conception was brought about. That most
shameless mouth of yours is stopped by all the witnesses of the Divine
decrees: it is stopped by sacred writings and holy witnesses: aye and
it is stopped by the very gospel of God as if by a Divine hand. And
that mighty Gabriel who in the case of Zacharias restrained the voice
of unbelief by the power of his word, much more strongly condemned in
your case the voice of blasphemy and sin, by his own lips, saying to
the Virgin Mary, the mother of God: "The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God."[54] Do
you see how Jesus Christ is first proclaimed to be the Son of God that
according to the flesh He might become the Son of man? For when the
Virgin Mary was to bring forth the Lord she conceived owing to the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon her and the cooperation of the power
of the Most High. And from this you can see that the origin of our
Lord and Saviour must come from thence, whence His conception came;
and since He was born owing to the descent of the fulness of Divinity
in Its completeness upon the Virgin, He could not be the Son of man
unless He had first been the Son of God; and so the angel when sent to
announce His nativity and sacred birth, when he had already spoken of
the mystery of His conception added a word expressive of His birth,
saying: "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God [i.e., He shall be called the Son
of Him from whom He was begotten].[55]
Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God, because He was begotten of
God and conceived of God. But if He is the Son of God, then most
certainly He is God: but if He is God, then He is not lacking in the
grace of God. Nor indeed was He ever lacking in that of which He is
Himself the maker. For grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
How in Christ the Divinity, Majesty, Might and
Power have existed in perfection from eternity, and will
continue.
THEREFORE all grace, power, might, Divinity, aye, and the fulness of
actual Divinity and glory have ever existed together with Him and in
Him, whether in heaven or in earth or in the womb or at His birth.
Nothing that is proper to God was ever wanting to God. For the
Godhead was ever present with God, no where and at no time severed
from Him. For everywhere God is present in His completeness and in
His perfection. He suffers no division or change or diminution; for
nothing can be either added to God or taken away from Him, for He is
subject to no diminution of Divinity, as to no increase of It. He was
the same Person then on earth who was also in heaven: the same Person
in His low estate who was also in the highest: the same Person in the
littleness of manhood as in the glory of the Godhead. And so the
Apostle was right in speaking of the grace of Christ when He meant the
grace of God. For Christ was everything that God is. At the very
time of His conception as man there came all the power of God, all the
fulness of the Godhead; for thence came all the perfection of the
Godhead, whence was His origin. Nor was that Human nature of His[56] ever without the Deity as it received
from Deity the very fact of its existence. And so, to begin with,
whether you like it or no, you cannot deny this; viz., that the Lord
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, especially as the archangel declares
in the gospels: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God." But when this is established
then remember that whatever you read of Christ you read of the Son of
God: whatever you read of the Lord or Jesus belongs to the Son of God.
And so when you recognize a title of Divinity in all these terms which
you hear uttered, as you see that in each case you ought to understand
that the Son of God is meant, prove to me, if you like, how you can
separate the Godhead from the Son of God.
BOOK III.
CHAPTER I.
That Christ, who is God and man in the unity of
Person, sprang from Israel and the Virgin Mary according to the
flesh.
THAT divine teacher of the Churches when in writing to the Romans he
was reproving or rather lamenting the unbelief of the Jews, i.e., of
his own brethren, made use of these words: "I wished
myself," said he, "to be accursed from Christ, for my
brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are
Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the
glory, and the testaments, and the giving of the law, and the service
of God, and the promises: whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for
ever."[57] O, the love of that
most faithful Apostle, and most kindly kinsman! who in his infinite
charity wished to die--as a kinsman for his relations, and as a master
for his disciples. And what then was the reason why he wished to die?
Only one; viz., that they might live. But in what did their life
consist? Simply in this, as he himself says, that they might
recognize a Divine Christ born according to the flesh, of their own
flesh. And therefore the Apostle grieved the more, because those who
ought to have loved Him the more as sprung from their own stock,
failed to understand that He was born of Israel. "Of whom,"
said he, "is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all
things, God blessed for ever." Clearly he lays down that from
them according to the flesh, was born that Christ who is over all, God
blessed for ever. You certainly cannot deny that Christ was born from
them according to the flesh. But the same Person, who was born from
them, is God. How can you get round this? How can you shuffle out of
it? The Apostle says that Christ who was born of Israel according to
the flesh, is God. Teach us, if you can, at what time He did not
exist. "Of whom," he says, "is Christ according to the
flesh, who is over all, God." You see that because the Apostle
has united and joined together these, "God" cannot possibly
be separated from "Christ." For just as the Apostle
declares that Christ is of them, so he asserts that God is in Christ.
You must either deny both of these statements, or you must accept
both. Christ is said to be born of them according to the flesh: but
the same Person is declared by the Apostle to be "God in
Christ." Whence also he says elsewhere: "For God was in
Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."[58] It is absolutely impossible to
separate one from the other. Either deny that Christ sprang from
them, or admit that there was born of the virgin God in Christ,
"who is," as he says, "over all, God blessed for
ever."
CHAPTER II.
The title of God is given in one sense to Christ,
and in another to men.
THE name of God would for the faithful be amply sufficient to denote
the glory of His Divinity, but by adding "over all, God
blessed," he excludes a blasphemous and perverse interpretation
of it, for fear that some evil-disposed person to depreciate His
absolute Divinity might quote the fact that the word God is sometimes
applied by grace in the Divine economy temporarily to men, and thus
apply it to God by unworthy comparisons, as where God says to Moses:
"I have given thee as a God to Pharaoh,"[59] or in this passage: "I said ye
are Gods,"[60] where it clearly
has the force of a title given by condescension. For as it says
"I said," it is not a name showing power, so much as a title
given by the speaker. But that passage also, where it says: "I
have given thee as a God to Pharaoh," shows the power of the
giver rather than the Divinity of him who receives the title. For
when it says: "I have given," it thereby certainly indicates
the power of God, who gave, and not the Divine nature, in the person
of the recipient. But when it is said of our God and Lord Jesus
Christ, "who is over all, God blessed for ever," the fact is
at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the
name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does
not denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His
nature.
CHAPTER III.
He explains the apostle's saying: "If from
henceforth we know no man according to the flesh," etc.
AND so the same Apostle says: "From henceforth we know no man
according to the flesh, and if we have known Christ according to the
flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer."[61] Admirably consistent are all the
writings of the sacred word with each other, and in every portion of
them: even where they do not correspond in the form of the
words, yet they agree in the drift and substance. As where he says:
"And if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we
know Him so no longer." For the witness of the passage before us
confirms that quoted above, in which he said: "Of whom is Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever."
For there he writes: "Of whom is Christ according to the
flesh;" and here: "if we have known Christ according to the
flesh." There: "who is over all, God blessed for
ever;" and here: "yet now we no longer know Christ according
to the flesh." The look of the words is different, but their
force and drift is the same. For it is the same Person whom he there
declares to be God over all born according to the flesh, whom he here
asserts that he no longer knows according to the flesh. And plainly
for this reason; viz., because Him whom he had known as born in the
flesh, he acknowledges as God for ever; and therefore says that he
knows him not after the flesh, because He is over all, God blessed for
ever; and the phrase there: "who is over all God," answers
to this: "we no longer know Christ according to the flesh;"
and this phrase: "we no longer know Christ according to the
flesh" implies this: "who is God blessed for ever."[62] The declaration of Apostolic teaching
then somehow rises, as it were to greater heights, and though it is
self-consistent throughout, yet it supports the mystery of the perfect
faith, with a still more express statement, and says: "And though
we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no
longer," i.e., as formerly we knew Him as man as well as God, yet
now only as God. For when the frailty of flesh comes to an end, we no
longer know anything in Him except the power of Divinity, for all that
is in Him is the power of Divine Majesty, where the weakness of human
infirmity has ceased to exist. In this passage then he has thoroughly
expounded the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and of His perfect
Divinity. For where he says: "And if we have known Christ
according to the flesh," he speaks of the mystery of God born in
flesh. But by adding "yet now we know Him so no longer," he
manifests His power when weakness is laid aside. And thus that
knowledge of the flesh has to do with His humanity, and that
ignorance, with the glory of His Divinity. For to say "we have
known Christ according to the flesh:" means "as long as that
which was known, existed. Now we no longer know it, after it has
ceased to exist. For the nature of flesh has been transformed into a
spiritual substance: and that which formerly belonged to the manhood,
has all become God's. And therefore we no longer know Christ
according to the flesh, because when bodily infirmity has been
absorbed by Divine Majesty,[63] nothing
remains in that Sacred Body, from which weakness of the flesh can be
known in it. And thus whatever had formerly belonged to a twofold
substance, has become attached to a single Power. Since there is no
sort of doubt that Christ, who was crucified through human weakness
lives entirely through the glory of His Divinity.
CHAPTER IV.
From the Epistle to the Galatians he brings forward
a passage to show that the weakness of the flesh in Christ was
absorbed by His Divinity.
THE Apostle indeed declares this in the whole body of his writings,
and admirably says in writing to the Galatians: "Paul an Apostle
not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Father."[64] You see how
thoroughly consistent he is with himself in the former and the present
passage. For there he says: "Now we no longer know Christ
according to the flesh." Here he says: "Not of men, neither
by man, but by Jesus Christ." It is clear that his doctrine is
the same here as in the former passage. For where he says that he is
not sent by man, he implies: "We have not known Christ according
to the flesh:" and so I am "not sent by man" but
"by Christ;"[65] for if I am
sent by Christ, I am not sent by man but by God. For there is no
longer room for the name of man, in Him whom Divinity claims entirely
for itself. And so when he had said that he was sent "not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," he rightly added:
"And God the Father," thus showing that he was sent by God
the Father and God the Son; in whom owing to the mystery of the sacred
and ineffable generation there are two Persons (He who begets, and He
who is begotten), but there is but one single Power of God who is the
sender. And so in saying that he was sent by God the Father and God
the Son, he shows that the Persons are two in number, but he also
teaches that their Power is One in sending.
CHAPTER V.
As it is blasphemy to pare away the Divinity of
Christ, so also is it blasphemous to deny that He is true man.
BUT he says "by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him
from the dead." That renowned and admirable teacher, knowing
that our Lord Jesus Christ must be preached as true man, as well as
true God, always declares the glory of the Divine in Him, in such a
way as not to lose hold of the confession of the Incarnation: plainly
excluding the phantasm of Marcion, by a real Incarnation, and the
poverty of the Ebionite, by Divinity: lest through one or other of
these wicked blasphemies it might be believed that our Lord Jesus
Christ was either altogether man without God, or God without man.
Excellently then did the Apostle, when declaring that He was sent by
God the Son as well as by God the Father, add at once a confession of
the Lord's Incarnation, by saying: "Who raised Him from the
dead:" clearly teaching that it was a real body of the Incarnate
God, which was raised from the dead: in accordance with this:
"And though we have known Christ according to the flesh,"
excellently adding: "Yet now we know Him so no longer." For
he says that he knows this in Him according to the flesh; viz., that
He was raised from the dead; but that he knows Him no longer according
to the flesh inasmuch as when the weakness of the flesh is at an end,
he knows that He exists in the Power of God only. Surely he is a
faithful and satisfactory witness of our Lord's Divinity which had to
be proclaimed, who at his first call was smitten from heaven itself,
and did not merely believe in his heart the glory of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who was raised from the dead, but actually established its
truth by the evidence of his bodily eyes.
CHAPTER VI.
He shows from the appearance of Christ vouchsafed
to the Apostle when persecuting the Church, the existence of both
natures in Him.
WHEREFORE also, when arguing before King Agrippa and others of the
world's judges, he speaks as follows: "When I was going to
Damascus with authority and permission of the chief priests, at
midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven above the
brightness of the sun, shining round about me and all those that were
with me. And when we were all fallen down to the ground, I heard a
voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said,
Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth,
whom thou persecutest."[66] You
see how truly the Apostle said that he no longer knew according to the
flesh one whom he had seen in such splendour and majesty. For when as
he lay prostrate he saw the splendour of that divine light which he
was unable to endure, there followed this voice: "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" And when he asked who it might be, the
Lord answers and clearly points out His Personality: "I am Jesus
of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." Now then, you heretic, I
ask you, I summon you. Do you believe what the Apostle says of
himself, or do you not believe it? Or if you think that unimportant,
do you believe what the Lord says of Himself or do you not believe it?
If you do believe it, there is an end of the matter: for you cannot
help believing what we believe. For we, like the Apostle, even if we
have known Christ according to the flesh, yet know Him so no longer.
We do not heap insults on Christ. We do not
separate the flesh from the Divinity; and all that is in Christ
we believe is in God. If then you believe the same that we
believe you must acknowledge the same mysteries of the faith. But if
you differ from us, if you refuse to believe the Churches, the
Apostle, aye and God's own testimony about Himself, show us in this
vision which the Apostle saw, how much is flesh, and how much God.
For I cannot here separate one from the other. I see the ineffable
light, I see the inexpressible splendour, I see the radiance that
human weakness cannot endure, and beyond what mortal eyes can bear,
the glory of God shining with inconceivable light.[67] What room is there here for division
and separation? In the voice we hear Jesus, in the majesty we see
God. How can we help believing that in one and the same (Personal)
substance God and Jesus exist. But I should like to have a few more
words with you on this subject. Tell me, I pray you, if there
appeared to you in your present persecution of the Catholic faith that
same vision which then appeared to the Apostle in his ignorance, if
when you were not expecting it and were off your guard, that radiance
shone round about you, and the glory of that boundless light smote you
in your terror and confusion, and you lay prostrate in darkness of
body and soul; which the unlimited and indescribable terror of your
heart increased,[68]--tell me, I
intreat you; When the dread of immediate death was pressing on you,
and the terror of the glory that threatened you from above, weighed
you down, and you heard as well in your bewilderment of mind those
words which your sin so well deserves: "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" and to your inquiry who it was the answer
was given from heaven: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou
persecutest," what would you say? "I do not know, I do not
yet fully believe. I want to think over it with myself a little
longer, who I think that Thou art, who speakest from heaven, who
overwhelmest me with the brightness of Thy Divinity: whose voice I
hear and whose splendour I cannot bear. I must consider of this
matter, whether I ought to believe Thee or not: whether Thou art
Christ or God. If Thou art God alone whether it is in Christ. If
Thou art Christ alone, whether it is in God. I want this distinction
to be carefully observed, and thoroughly considered what we should
believe that Thou art, and what we should judge Thee to be. For I
don't want any of my offices to be wasted. As if I were to regard
Thee as a man, and yet pay to Thee some Divine honours." If then
you were lying on the ground, as the Apostle Paul was then lying, and
overwhelmed with the brightness of the Divine light, were at your last
gasp, perhaps you would say this, and prate with all this silly
chattering. But what shall we make of the fact that another course
commended itself to the Apostle; and when he had fallen down,
trembling and half dead, he did not think that he ought any longer to
conceal his belief, or to deliberate it was enough for him that he was
taught by inexpressible arguments to know that He whom he had
ignorantly fancied to be a man, was God. He did not conceal his
belief, he made no delay. He did not any longer protract his
erroneous ideas by deliberating and disbelieving, but as soon as he
heard from heaven the name of Jesus his Lord, he replied in a voice,
subdued like that of a servant, tremulous like that of one scourged,
and full of fervour like that of one converted, "What shall I do,
Lord?" And so at once for his ready and earnest faith, it was
granted to him that He should never be without His presence whom he
had faithfully believed: and that He, to whom he had passed in heart,
should Himself pass into his heart: as the Apostle himself says of
himself: "Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in
me?"[69]
CHAPTER VII.
He shows once more by other passages of the Apostle
that Christ is God.
I WANT you to tell me, you heretic, whether in this passage He who, as
the Apostle tells us, speaks in him, is man or God. If He is man, how
can another's body speak in his heart? If God, then Christ is not a
man but God; for since Christ spoke in the Apostle, and only God could
speak in him, therefore a Divine Christ spoke in him. And so you see
that there is nothing to be said here, that no division or separation
can be made between Christ and God: because complete Divinity was in
Christ, and Christ was completely in God. No division or severing of
the two can here be admitted. There is only one simple, pious, and
sound confession to be made; viz., to adore, love, and worship Christ
as God. But do you want to understand more fully and thoroughly that
there is no separation to be made between God and Christ, and that we
must hold that God is altogether one with Christ? Hear what the
Apostle says to the Corinthians: "For we must all be manifested
before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be
good or evil."[70] But in another
passage, in writing to the Romans he says: "We shall all stand
before the judgment seat of God: for it is written: As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess
to God."[71] You see then that
the judgment seat of God is the same as that of Christ; understand
then without any doubt that Christ is God; and when you see that the
substance of God and Christ is altogether inseparable, admit also that
the Person cannot be severed. Unless forsooth because the Apostle in
one Epistle said that we should be manifested before the judgment seat
of Christ, and in another before that of God, you invent two judgment
seats, and fancy that some will be judged by Christ and others by God.
But this is foolish and wild, and madder than a madman's utterances.
Acknowledge then the Lord of all, the God of the universe, acknowledge
the judgment seat of God in the judgment seat of Christ. Love life,
love your salvation, love Him by whom you were created. Fear Him by
whom you are to be judged. For whether you will or no, you have to be
manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, and laying aside wicked
blasphemy and the childish talk of unbelieving words, though you think
that the judgment seat of God is different from that of Christ, you
will come before the judgment seat of Christ, and will find by
evidence that there is no gainsaying, that the judgment seat of God is
indeed the same as that of Christ, and that in Christ the Son of God,
there is all the glory of God the Son, and the power of God the
Father. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as they honour
the Father."[72] For whoever
denies the Father denies the Son also. "Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son, hath
the Father also."[73] And so you
should learn that the glory of the Father and the Son is inseparable,
and their majesty is inseparable also and that the Son cannot be
honoured without the Father, nor the Father without the Son. But no
man can honour God and the Son of God except in Christ the
only-begotten Son of God. For it is impossible for a man to have the
Spirit of God who is to be honoured except in the Spirit of Christ, as
the Apostle says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man
have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."[74] And again: "Who shall lay
anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus who died, yea rather
who rose again."[75] You see then
now, even against your will, that there is absolutely no difference
between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, or between the
judgment of God and the judgment of Christ. Choose then which you
will--for one of the two must happen--either acknowledge in faith that
Christ is God, or admit that God is in Christ at your condemnation.
CHAPTER VIII.
When confessing the Divinity of Christ we ought not
to pass over in silence the confession of the cross.
BUT let us see what else follows. In writing to the church of
Corinth, he whom we spoke of above, the instructor of all the churches
viz. Paul, speaks thus: "The Jews," says he, "seek
signs, and the Greeks ask for wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified,
to the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Gentiles foolishness: but to
them that are saved, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God."[76] O most
powerful teacher of the faith, who even in this passage, when teaching
the Church thought it not enough to speak of Christ as God without
adding that He was crucified on purpose that for the sake of the open
and solid teaching of the faith he might proclaim Him, whom he called
the crucified, to be the wisdom of God. He then employed no subtilty
or circumlocution, nor did he when he preached the gospel of the Lord
blush at the mention of the cross of Christ. And though it was a
stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles to hear
of God as born, God in bodily form, God suffering, God crucified, yet
he did not weaken the force of his pious utterance because of the
wickedness of the offence of the Jews: nor did he lessen the vigour of
his faith because of the unbelief and the foolishness of others: but
openly, persistently, and boldly proclaimed that He, whom a mother[77] had borne, whom men had slain, the
spear had pierced, the cross had stretched--was "the power and
wisdom of God, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles
foolishness." But still that which was to some a stumbling-block
and foolishness, was to others the power and wisdom of God. For as
the persons differed, so was there a difference of their thoughts: and
what a man who was void of sound understanding, and incapable of true
good, foolishly denied in unbelief, that a wise faith could feel in
its inmost soul to be holy and life giving.
CHAPTER IX.
How the Apostle's preaching was rejected by Jews
and Gentiles because it confessed that the crucified Christ was
God.
TELL me then, you heretic, you enemy of all men, but of yourself above
all--to whom the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is an offence as with
the Jews, and foolishness as with the Gentiles, you who reject the
mysteries of true salvation, with the stumbling of the former, and are
foolish with the stubbornness of the others, why was the preaching of
the Apostle Paul foolishness to the pagans, and a stumbling-block to
the Jews? Surely it would never have offended men, if he had taught
that Christ was, as you maintain He is, a mere man? For who would
think that His birth, passion, cross, and death were incredible or a
difficulty? Or what would there have been novel or strange about the
preaching of Paul, if he had said that a merely human Christ suffered
that which human nature daily endures among men everywhere? But it
was surely this that the foolishness of the Gentiles could not
receive, and the unbelief of the Jews rejected; viz., that the Apostle
declared that Christ whom they, like you, fancied to be a mere man,
was God. This it certainly was which the thoughts of these wicked men
rejected, which the ears of the faithless could not endure; viz., that
the birth of God should be proclaimed in the man Jesus Christ, that
the passion of God should be asserted, and the cross of God
proclaimed. This it was which was a difficulty: this was what was
incredible; for that was incredible to the hearing of men, which had
never been heard of as happening to the Divine nature. And so you are
quite secure, with such an announcement and teaching as yours, that
your preaching will never be either foolishness to the Gentiles or a
stumbling-block to the Jews. You will never be crucified with Peter by
Jews and Gentiles, nor stoned with James, nor beheaded with Paul. For
there is nothing in your preaching to offend them. You maintain that
a mere man was born, a mere man suffered. You need not be afraid of
their troubling you with persecution, for you are helping them by your
preaching.
CHAPTER X.
How the apostle maintains that Christ is the power
of God and the wisdom of God.
BUT let us see something more on the subject. Christ then, according
to the Apostle, is the power of God and the wisdom of God. What have
you to say to this? How can you get out of it? There is no place for
you to escape and fly to. Christ is the wisdom of God and the power
of God. He, I say, whom the Jews attacked, the Gentiles mocked, whom
you yourself together with them are persecuting,--He, I say, who is
foolishness to the heathen, and a stumbling-block to the Jews, and
both to you, He, I say, is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
What is there that you can do? Shut your ears, forsooth, so as not to
hear? This the Jews did also when the Apostle was preaching. Do what
you will, Christ is in heaven, and in God, and with Him, and in Him in
the heavens above in whom also He was here below: you can no longer
persecute Him with the Jews. But you do the one thing that you can.
You persecute Him in the faith, you persecute Him in the church, you
persecute Him with the arms of a wicked belief, you persecute Him with
the sword of false doctrine. Perhaps you do rather more than the Jews
of old did. You now persecute Christ, after ever those who did
persecute Him, have believed. But perhaps you think that the sin is
less because you can no longer lay hands on Him. No less grievous, I
tell you, no less grievous to Him is that persecution, in which sinful
men persecute Him in the persons of His followers. But the mention of
the Lord's cross offends you. It always offended the Jews as well.
You shudder at hearing that God suffered: the Gentiles in their error
mocked at this also. I ask you then, in what point do you differ from
them, since you both agree in this frowardness? But for my part I not
only do not water down this preaching of the holy cross, this
preaching of the Lord's passion, but as far as my wishes and powers go
I emphasise it. For I will declare that He who was crucified is not
only the power and wisdom of God, than which there is nothing greater,
but actually Lord of absolute Divinity and glory. And this the
rather, because this assertion of mine is the doctrine of God, as the
Apostle says: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect: but
the wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world who are
brought to nought: but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery,
which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: which none of the
princes of this world knew: for if they had known it, they would never
have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written: that eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of
man, what God hath prepared for them that love Him."[78] You see what great matters the
Apostle's discourse comprises in how small a compass. He says that he
speaks wisdom, but a wisdom which only those that are perfect can
know, and which the prudent of this world cannot know. For he says
that this is the wisdom of God, which is hidden in a Divine mystery,
and predestined before all worlds for the glory of the saints: and
that therefore it is only known to those who savour of God; while the
princes of this world are utterly ignorant of it. But he adds the
reason, to establish both points that he had mentioned, saying:
"For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the
Lord of glory. But it is written, that eye hath not seen, nor ear
hath heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what God
hath prepared for them that love Him." You see then how the
wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, and predestined before all worlds,
was unknown to those who crucified the Lord of glory, and known by
those who received it. And well does he say that the wisdom of God
was hidden in a mystery, for never yet could the eye of any man see,
or the ear hear, or the heart imagine this; viz., that the Lord of
glory should be born of a virgin and come in the flesh, and suffer all
kinds of punishment, and shameful passion. But with regard to these
gifts of God, as there is no one who--since they were hidden in a
mystery--could ever of himself understand them, so blessed is he who
has grasped them when they are revealed. Thus all who have failed to
grasp them must be reckoned among the princes of this world, and those
who have grasped them among God's wise ones. He then does not grasp
it who denies God born in the flesh; therefore you also do not grasp
it, as you deny this. But do what you will, deny as impiously as you
like, we the rather believe the Apostle. But why should I say the
Apostle? the rather do we believe God. For through the Apostle we
believe Him, whom we know to have spoken by the Apostle. The Divine
word says that the Lord of glory was crucified by the princes of the
world. You deny it. They also who crucified Him denied that it was
God whom they were crucifying. They then who confess Him have their
portion with the Apostle who confessed Him. You are sure to have your
lot with His persecutors. What is there then that can be replied to
this? The Apostle says that the Lord of glory was crucified. Alter
this if you can. Separate now, if you please, Jesus from God. At
least you cannot deny that Christ was crucified by the Jews. But it
was the Lord of glory who was crucified. Therefore you must either
deny that Christ was nailed to the cross, or you must admit that God
was nailed to it.
CHAPTER XI.
He supports the same doctrine by proofs from the
gospel.
BUT perhaps it is a difficulty to you that all this time I am chiefly
using the witness of the Apostle Paul alone. He is good enough for
me, whom God chose, nor do I blush to call as the witness to my faith,
the man whom God willed to be the teacher of the whole world. But to
yield to your wishes, as perhaps you fancy that I have no other proofs
to use, hear the perfect mystery of man's salvation and eternal bliss,
which Martha proclaims in the gospel. For what does she say? "Of
a truth, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God, who art come into this world."[79] Learn the true faith from a woman.
Learn the confession of eternal hope. Yet you have a splendid
consolation: you need not blush to be taught the mystery of salvation
by her, whose testimony God did not refuse to accept.
CHAPTER XII.
He proves from the renowned confession of the
blessed Peter that Christ is God.
BUT if you prefer the authority of a greater person (although you
ought not to slight the authority of any one of either sex, on whom
the confession of the mystery confers weight--for whatever may be a
person's condition, or however humble his position, yet the value of
his faith is not thereby diminished) let us interrogate no beginner or
untaught schoolboy, nor a woman whose faith might perhaps appear to be
but rudimentary; but that greatest of disciples among disciples, and
of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman
Church, and held the chief place[80] in
the priesthood as he did in the faith. Tell us then, tell us, we
pray, O Peter, thou chief of Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought
to believe in God. For it is right that you should teach us, as you
were taught by the Lord, and that you should open to us the gate, of
which you received the key. Shut out all those who try to overthrow
the heavenly house: and those who are endeavouring to enter by secret
holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter the
gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches
is revealed by you. Tell us then how we ought to believe in Jesus
Christ and to confess our common Lord. You will surely reply without
hesitation: "Why do you consult me as to the way in which the
Lord should be confessed, when you have before you my own confession
of Him? Read the gospel, and you will not want me myself, when you
have got my confession. Nay, you have got me myself when you have my
confession; for though I have no weight apart from my
confession, yet the actual confession adds weight to my person."
Tell us then, O Evangelist, tell us the confession: tell us the faith
of the chief Apostle: did he confess that Jesus was only a man, or
God? did he say that there was nothing but flesh in Him, or did he
proclaim Him the Son of God? When then the Lord Jesus Christ asked
whom the disciples believed and confessed Him to be, Peter, the first
of the Apostles, replied--one in the name of all--for the answer of
one was to the same effect as the faith of them all. But it was
fitting that he should first give the answer, that the order of the
answer might correspond to the degree of honour: and that he might
outstrip them in confession, as he outstripped them in age. What then
does he say? "Thou art," he says, "the Christ the Son
of the living God."[81] I am
obliged, you heretic, to make use of a plain and simple question to
confute you. Tell me, I pray, who was He, to whom Peter gave that
answer? You cannot deny that it was the Christ. I ask then, what do
you call Christ? man or God? Man certainly without any doubt: for
hence springs the whole of your heresy, because you deny that Christ
is the Son of God. And so too you say that Mary is Christotocos, but
not Theotocos, because she was the mother of Christ, not of God.
Therefore you maintain, that Christ is only a man, and not God, and so
that He is the Son of man not of God. What then does Peter reply to
this? "Thou art," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the
living God." That Christ whom you declare to be only the Son of
man, he testifies to be the Son of God. Whom would you like us to
believe? you or Peter? I imagine that you are not so shameless as to
venture to prefer your own opinion to that of the first of the
Apostles. And yet what is there that you would not venture on? or how
can you help scorning the Apostle, if you can deny God? "Thou
art then," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Is there anything puzzling or obscure in this? It is
nothing but a plain and open confession: he proclaims Christ to be the
Son of God. Perhaps you will deny that the words were spoken: but the
Evangelist testifies that they were. Or do you say that the Apostle
told a lie? But it is an awful lie to accuse an Apostle of lying. Or
perhaps you will maintain that the words were spoken of some other
Christ? But this is a novel kind of monstrous fabrication. What then
is left for you? One thing indeed; viz., that since what is written is
read, and what is read is true, you should finally be driven by force
and compulsion (as you cannot assert its falsehood) to desist from
impugning its truth.
CHAPTER XIII.
The confession of the blessed Peter receives a
testimony to its truth from Christ Himself.
BUT still, as I have made use of the testimony of the chief Apostle,
in which he openly confessed the Lord Jesus Christ as God, let us see
how He whom he confessed approved of his confession; for of far more
value than the Apostle's words is the fact that God Himself commended
his utterance. When then the Apostle said: "Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God," what was the answer of our Lord and
Saviour? "Blessed art thou," said He, "Simon Barjonah,
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but the Spirit of
My Father which is in heaven." If you do not like to use the
testimony of the Apostle use that of God. For by commending what was
said God added His own authority to the Apostle's utterance, so that
although the utterance came from the lips of the Apostle, yet God who
approved of it made it His own. "Blessed art thou," said
He, "Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but the Spirit of My Father which is in heaven." Thus
in the words of the Apostle you have the testimony of the Holy Spirit
and of the Son who was present and of God the Father. What more can
you want, or what comes up to this? The Son commended: the Father was
present: the Holy Ghost revealed. The utterance of the Apostle thus
gives the testimony of the entire Godhead: for this utterance must
necessarily have the authority of Him from whose prompting it
proceeds. "Blessed then art thou," said He, "Simon
Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but the
Spirit of My Father which is in heaven." If then flesh and blood
did not reveal this to Peter or inspire him, you must at last see who
inspires you. If the Spirit of God taught him who confessed that
Christ was God, you see how you are taught by the spirit of the devil
if you can deny it.
CHAPTER XIV.
How the confession of the blessed Peter is the
faith of the whole Church.
BUT what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord's,
with which He commends Peter? "And I," said He, "say
unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My
Church." Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the
Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not
hold the faith of the Church. "And to thee," saith the
Lord, "I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven." This
faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly
kingdom. See what awaits you. You cannot enter the gate to which
this key belongs, if you have denied the faith of this key. "And
the gate," He adds, "of hell shall not prevail against
thee." The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief
of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely
is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God.
"Whatsoever," He proceeds, "thou shalt bind on earth,
shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
shalt be loosed also in heaven." The perfect faith of the
Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind
or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then,
who come against the Apostle's faith, as you see that already you are
bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are
bound also in heaven. But it would take too long to go into details
which are so numerous as to make a long and wearisome story, even if
they are related with brevity and conciseness.
CHAPTER XV.
St. Thomas also confessed the same faith as Peter
after the Lord's resurrection.
BUT I want still to add one more testimony from an Apostle for you:
that you may see how what followed after the passion corresponded with
what went before it. When then the Lord appeared in the midst of His
disciples when the doors were shut, and wished to make clear to the
Apostles the reality of His body, when the Apostle Thomas felt His
flesh and handled His side and examined His wounds--what was it that
he declared, when he was convinced of the reality of the body shown to
him? "My Lord," he said, "and my God."[82] Did he say what you say, that it was
a man and not God? Christ and not Divinity? He surely touched the
body of his Lord and answered that He was God. Did he make any
separation between man and God? or did he call that flesh Theotocos,
to use your expression, i.e., that which received Divinity? or did he,
after the fashion of your blasphemy, declare that He whom he touched
was to be honoured not for His own sake, but for the sake of Him whom
He had received into Himself? But perhaps God's Apostle knew nothing
of that subtle separation of yours, and had no experience of the fine
distinctions of your judgment, as he was a rude countryman, ignorant
of the dialectic art, and of the method of philosophic disputation;
for whom the Lord's teaching was amply sufficient, and as he was one
who knew nothing whatever except what he learnt from the instruction
of the Lord! And so his words contain heavenly doctrine; his faith is
a Divine lesson. He had never learnt to separate, as you do, the Lord
from His body: and had no idea how to rend God asunder from Himself.
He was holy, straightforward, upright: filled with practical
innocence, unalloyed faith, and pure knowledge: having a simple
understanding joined with prudence, a wisdom entirely free from all
evil, together with perfect simplicity: ignorant of any corruption,
and free from all heretical perversity, and as one who had experienced
in himself the force of the Divine lesson, he held fast everything
which he had learnt. And so he--countryman and ignorant fellow as you
fancy him--shuts you up with a brief answer, and destroys your
position with a few words of his. What then did the Apostle Thomas
touch when he drew near to handle his God? Certainly it was Christ
without any doubt. But what did he exclaim? "My Lord," he
said, "and my God." Now, if you can, separate Christ from
God, and change this saying, if you are able to. Make use of all
dialectic art--all the prudence of this world, and that foolish wisdom
which consists in wordy subtlety. Turn yourself about in every
direction, and draw in your horns. Do whatever you can with ingenuity
and art. Say what you like, and do what you like; you cannot possibly
get out of this without confessing that what the Apostle touched was
God. And indeed, if the thing can possibly be done, perhaps you will
want to alter the statement of the gospel story, so that we may not
read that the Apostle Thomas touched the body of the Lord, or that he
called Christ Lord and God. But it is absolutely impossible to alter
what is written in the gospel of God. For "heaven and earth
shall pass away, but the words" of God "shall not pass
away."[83] For lo, even now he
who then bore his witness, the Apostle Thomas, proclaims to you:
"Jesus whom I touched is God. It is God whose limbs I handled.
I did not feel what was incorporeal, not handle what was intangible: I
touched not a Spirit with my hand, so that it might be believed that I
said of it alone `It is God.' For `a spirit,' as my Lord Himself
said, `hath not flesh and bones.'[84]
I touched the body of my Lord. I handled flesh and bones. I put my
fingers into the prints of the wounds: and I declared of Christ my
Lord, whom I had handled: `My Lord and my God.' For I know not how to
make a separation between Christ and God, and I cannot insert
blasphemous distinctions between Jesus and God, or rend my Lord
asunder from Himself. Away from me, whoever is of a different
opinion, and whoever says anything different. I know not that Christ
is other than God. This faith I held together with my fellow
apostles: this I delivered to the Churches: this I preached to the
Gentiles: this I proclaim to thee also, Christ is God, Christ is God.
A sound mind imagines nothing else: a sound faith says nothing else.
The Deity cannot be parted from Itself. And since whatever is Christ
is God, there can be found in God none other but God."
CHAPTER XVI.
He brings forward the witness of God the Father to
the Divinity of the Son.
WHAT do you say now, you heretic? Are these evidences of the faith,
aye and of all your unbelief, enough for you: or would you like some
more to be added to them? but what can be added after Prophets and
Apostles? unless perhaps--as the Jews once demanded--you too might ask
for a sign to be given you from heaven? But if you ask this; we must
give you the same answer which was formerly given to them: "An
evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. And no sign
shall be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah."[85] And indeed this sign would be enough
for you as for the Jews who crucified Him, that you might be taught to
believe in the Lord God by this alone, through which even those who
had persecuted Him, came to believe. But as we have mentioned a sign
from heaven, I will show you a sign from heaven: and one of such a
character that even the devils have never gainsaid it: while,
constrained by the demands of truth, though they saw Jesus in bodily
form, they yet cried out that He was God, as indeed He was. What then
does the Evangelist say of the Lord Jesus Christ? "When He was
baptized," he says, "straightway He went up out of the
water. And lo, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit
descending like a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice from
heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased."[86] What do you say to
this, you heretic? Do you dislike the words spoken, or the Person of
the Speaker? The meaning of the utterance at any rate needs no
explanation: nor does the worth of the Speaker need the commendation
of words. It is God the Father who spoke. What He said is clear
enough. Surely you cannot make so shameless and blasphemous an
assertion as to say that God the Father is not to be believed
concerning the only begotten Son of God? "This," He then
says, "is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." But
perhaps you will try to maintain that this is madness, and that this
was said of the Word and not of Christ. Tell me then who was it who
was baptized? The Word or Christ? Flesh or Spirit? You cannot
possibly deny that it was Christ. That man then, born of man and of
God, conceived by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, and
by the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High, and thus the Son
of man and of God, He it was, as you cannot deny, who was baptized.
If then it was He who was baptized, it was He also who was named, for
certainly the Person who was baptized was the one named.
"This," said He, "is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased." Could anything be said with greater significance or
clearness? Christ was baptized. Christ went up out of the water.
When Christ was baptized the heavens were opened. For Christ's sake
the dove descended upon Christ, the Holy Spirit was present in a
bodily form. The Father addressed Christ. If you venture to deny
that this was spoken of Christ, the only thing is for you to maintain
that Christ was not baptized, that the Spirit did not descend, and
that the Father did not speak. But the truth itself is urgent and
weighs you down so that even if you will not confess it, yet you
cannot deny it. For what says the Evangelist? "When He was
baptized, straightway He went up out of the water." Who was
baptized? Most certainly Christ. "And behold," he says,
"the heavens were opened to Him." To where, forsooth, save
to Him who was baptized? Most certainly to Christ. "And He saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him."
Who saw? Christ indeed. Upon whom did It descend? Most certainly
upon Christ. "And a voice came from heaven, saying"--of
whom? Of Christ indeed: for what follows? "This is My beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." In order that it might be made
clear on whose account all this happened, there followed the voice,
saying: "This is My beloved Son," as if to say: This is He
on whose account all this took place. For this is My Son: on His
account the heavens were opened: on His account My Spirit came: on His
account My voice was heard. For this is My Son. In saying then
"This is My Son" whom did He so designate? Certainly Him
whom the dove touched. And whom did the dove touch? Christ indeed.
Therefore Christ is the Son of God. My promise is fulfilled, I fancy.
Do you see then now, O heretic, a sign given you from heaven; and not
one only, but many and special ones? For there is one in the opening
of heaven, another in the descent of the Spirit, a third in the voice
of the Father. All of which most clearly show that Christ is God, for
the laying open of the heavens indicates that He is God, and the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him supports His Divinity, and the
address of the Father confirms it. For heaven would not have been
opened except in honour of its Lord: nor would the Holy Ghost have
descended in a bodily form except upon the Son of God: nor would the
Father have declared Him to be the Son, had he not been truly such;
especially with such tokens of a Divine birth, as not merely to
confirm the truth of the right faith, but also to exclude the
wickedness of guilty and erroneous belief. For when the Father had
expressly and pointedly said with the inexpressible majesty of a
Divine utterance, "This is My Son," He added also what
follows--I mean, "My beloved, in whom I am well pleased."
As He had already declared Him by the prophet to be God the Mighty and
God the Great, so when He says here, "My beloved Son in whom I am
well pleased," He adds further to the name of His own Son the
title also of His beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased: that the
addition of the titles might denote the special properties of the
Divine nature; and that that might specially redound to the glory of
the Son of God, which had never happened to any man. And so just as
in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ these special and unique things
happened; viz., that the heavens were opened, that in the sight of all
God the Father touched Him in a sort of way, through the coming and
presence of the dove, and pointed almost with His finger to Him
saying, "This is My Son;" so this too is special and unique
in His case; viz., that He is specially beloved, and is specially
named as well-pleasing to the Father, in order that these special
accompaniments might mark the special import of His nature, and that
the special character of His names might support the special position
of the only begotten Son, which the honour of the signs previously
given had already confirmed. But here comes the end of this book.
For this saying of God the Father can neither be added to, nor
equalled by any words of men. For us God the Father Himself is a
sufficiently satisfactory witness concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
when He says "This is My Son." If you think that it is
possible for these utterances of God the Father to be gainsaid, then
you are forced to contradict Him, who by the clearest possible
announcement caused Him to be acknowledged as His Son by the whole
world.
BOOK IV.
CHAPTER I.
That Christ was before the Incarnation God from
everlasting.
AS we have finished three books with the most certain and the most
valuable witnesses, whose truth is substantiated not only by human but
also by Divine evidences, they would abundantly suffice to prove our
case by Divine authority, especially as the Divine authority of the
case itself would be enough for this. But still as the whole mass of
the sacred Scriptures is full of these evidences, and where there are
so many witnesses, there are so many opinions to be urged--nay where
Holy Scripture itself gives its witness so to speak with one Divine
mouth--we have thought it well to add some others still, not from any
need of confirmation, but because of the supply of material at our
disposal; so that anything which might be unnecessary for purposes of
defence, might be useful by way of ornamentation. Therefore since in
the earlier books we proved the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
while He was in the flesh by the evidence not only of prophets and
apostles, but of evangelists and angels as well, let us now show that
He who was born in the flesh was God even before His Incarnation; that
you may understand by the harmony and concord of the evidences from
the sacred Scriptures, that you ought to believe that at His birth in
the body He was both God and man, who before His birth was only God,
and that He who after He had been brought forth by the Virgin in the
body was God, was before His birth from the Virgin, God the Word.
Learn then first of all from the Apostle the teacher of the whole
world, that He who is without beginning, God, the Son of God, became
the Son of man at the end of the world, i.e., in the fulness of the
times. For he says: "But when the fulness of the times was come,
God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."[87] Tell me then, before the Lord Jesus
Christ was born of His mother Mary, had God a Son or had He not? You
cannot deny that He had, for never yet was there either a son without
a father, or a father without a son: because as a son is so called
with reference to a father, so is a father so named with reference to
a son.
CHAPTER II.
He infers from what he has said that the Virgin
Mary gave birth to a Son who had pre-existed and was greater than she
herself was.
YOU see then that when the Apostle says that God sent His Son, it was
His own Son, to use the actual words of the Apostle, "His own
Son" that God sent. For, since He sent His own Son, it was not
some one else's Son that He sent, nor could He send Him at all if He
who was sent had no existence. He sent then, he says, "His own
Son, made of a woman." Therefore because He sent Him, He sent
one who existed: and because He sent His own, it certainly was not
another's but His own whom He sent. What then becomes of that
argument of yours drawn from this world's subtleties? No one ever yet
gave birth to one who had already existed before. For had not the
Lord a pre-existence before Mary? Was not the Son of God existent
before the daughter of man? In a word did not God Himself exist
before man--since certainly there is no man who is not from God. You
see then that I do not merely say that Mary gave birth to one who had
existed before her, not only, I say, one who had existed before her,
but one who was the author of her being, and that in giving birth to
her Creator, she became the mother of Him who gave her being: because
it was as simple for God to bring about birth for Himself as for man
and as easy for Him to arrange that He Himself should be born of
mankind, as that a man should be born. For the power of God is not
limited in regard to His own Person, as if what was allowable to Him
in the case of all others, was not allowable in His own case, and as
if He who in the Divine nature could do all things as God, was yet
unable in His own Person to become God in man. Setting aside then and
rejecting your foolish and feeble and dull arguments from earthly
things, we ought merely to put credence in straightforward evidence
and the naked truth, and to adapt our faith to those witnesses of God
alone, whom God sent, and in whose person He Himself, so to speak,
preached. For it is right to believe Him in a matter concerning
knowledge of Himself, as everything that we know of Him comes from Him
Himself, for God could not possibly be known of men, unless He Himself
gave us the knowledge of Himself. And so it is right that we should
believe everything of Him that we know, from whom comes everything
that we know, for if we do not believe Him from whom our knowledge
comes, the result will be that we shall know nothing at all, since we
refuse to believe Him, through whom our knowledge comes.
CHAPTER III.
He proves from the Epistle to the Romans the
eternal Divinity of Christ.
AND so as it is clear from the above testimony that God sent His own
Son, and that He who was ever the Son of God became the Son of man,
let us see whether the same Apostle gives any other testimony of the
same sort elsewhere, that the truth which is already clear enough in
itself, may be rendered still more clear by the light of a twofold
testimony. So then the same Apostle says: "God sent His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh."[88] You see that the Apostle certainly
did not use these words by chance or at random, as he repeated what he
had already said once--for indeed there could not be found in him
chance or want of consideration as the fulness of Divine counsel and
speech had taken up its abode in him. What then does he say?
"God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." He
says the same thing again and repeats it, saying, "God sent His
own Son." Oh renowned and excellent teacher! for knowing that in
this is contained the whole mystery[89]
of the Catholic faith, in order that it might be believed that the
Lord was born in the flesh and that the Son of God was sent into this
world, again and again he makes the same proclamation saying,
"God sent His own Son." Nor need we wonder that he who was
specially sent to preach the coming of God, made this announcement,
since even before the law, the giver of the law himself proclaimed it,
saying: "I beseech Thee, O Lord, provide another whom Thou mayest
send," or as it stands still more clearly in the Hebrew text:
"I beseech Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send."[90] It is clear that the holy prophet,
feeling in himself a yearning for the whole human race, prayed as it
were with the voices of all mankind to God the Father that He would
send as speedily as possible Him who was to be sent by the Father for
the redemption and salvation of all men, when he said, "I beseech
Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send." "God," he
therefore says, "sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh." Full well, when he says that He was sent in the flesh,
does he exclude for Him sin of the flesh: for he says "God sent
His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," in order that
we may know that though the flesh was truly taken, yet there was no
true sin, and that, as far as the body is concerned, we should
understand that there was reality; as far as sin is concerned, only
the likeness of sin. For though all flesh is sinful, yet He had flesh
without sin, and had in Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, while He
was in the flesh but He was free from what was truly sin, because He
was without sin: and therefore he says: "God sent His own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh."
CHAPTER IV.
He brings forward other testimonies to the same
view.
IF you would know how admirably the Apostle preached this, hear how
this utterance was put into his mouth; as if from the mouth of God
Himself, as the Lord says: "For God sent not His Son into the
world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through
Him."[91] For lo, as you see, the
Lord Himself affirms that He was sent by God the Father to save
mankind. But if you think that it ought to be shown still more
clearly, what Son God sent to save men,--though God's own and only
begotten can only be one, and when God is said to have sent His Son,
He is certainly shown to have sent His only begotten Son,--yet hear
the prophet David pointing out with the utmost clearness Him who was
sent for the salvation of Men. "He sent," said he,
"His Word and healed them."[92] Can you twist this so as to refer it
to the flesh as if you could say that a mere man was sent by God to
heal mankind? You certainly cannot, for the prophet David and all the
holy Scriptures would cry out against you, saying, "He sent His
Word and healed them." You see then, that the Word was sent to
heal men, for though healing was given through Christ, yet the Word of
God was in Christ, and healed all things through Christ: and so since
Christ and the Word were united in the mystery of the Incarnation,
Christ and the Word of God became one Son of God in either substance.
And when the Apostle John was anxious to state this clearly, he said
"God sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world."[93] Do you see how he joined together God
and man in an union that cannot be severed? For Christ who was born
of Mary is without the slightest doubt called Saviour, as it is said,
"For to you is born this day a Saviour, which is Christ the
Lord."[94] But here he calls the
very Word of God, which was sent, a Saviour, saying: "God sent
his Son to be the Saviour of the world."
CHAPTER V.
How in virtue of the hypostatic union of the two
natures in Christ the Word is rightly termed the Saviour, or incarnate
man, and the Son of God.
AND so it is clear that through the mystery of the Word of God joined
to man, the Word, which was sent to save men, can be termed Saviour,
and the Saviour, who was born in the flesh, can through union with the
Word be called the Son of God; and so through the indifferent use of
either title, since God is joined to man, whatever is God and man, can
be termed altogether God.[95] And so
the same Apostle well adds the words: "Whoever believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and the love of God is
perfected in him."[96] He tells
us that he believes, and declares that he is filled
with divine love, who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. But he
testifies that the Word of God is the Son of God, and thus means us
fully to understand that the only begotten Word of God, and Jesus
Christ the Son of God are one and the same Person. But do you want to
be told more fully that,--though Christ according to the flesh was
truly born as man of man,--yet in virtue of the ineffable unity of the
mystery, by which man was joined to God, there is no separation
between Christ and the Word? Hear the gospel of the Lord, or rather
hear the Lord Himself saying of Himself:[97] "This," says He, "is
life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom Thou hast sent."[98]
You heard above that the Word of God was sent to heal mankind: here
you are told that He who was sent is Jesus Christ. Separate this, if
you can,--though you see that so great is the unity of Christ and the
Word, that it was not merely that Christ was united with the Word, but
that in virtue of the actual unity [of Person] Christ may even be said
to be the Word.
CHAPTER VI.
That there is in Christ but one Hypostasis (i.e.,
Personal self).
BUT perhaps you think it a trifle to make this clear: not because it
fails in clearness, but because the obscurity of unbelief always
causes obscurity even in what is clear. Hear then how the Apostle
sums up in a few words this whole mystery of the Lord's unity [of
Person]. "Our one Lord Jesus Christ," he says, "by
whom are all things."[99] O good
Jesus, what weight there is in Thy words! For Thine they are, when
spoken of Thee by Thine own. See how much is embraced in the few
words of this saying of the Apostle's. "One Lord," says he,
"Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Did he make use of
any circumlocution in order to proclaim the truth of this great
mystery?[100] or did he make a long
story of that which he wanted us to grasp? "Our one Lord,"
he says, "Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." In a plain
and short phrase he taught the secret of this great mystery, through
this confidence by which he realized that in what refers to God his
statements had no need of lengthened arguments, and that the Divinity
added faith to his utterances. For the demonstration of facts is
enough to confirm what is said, whenever the proof rests on the
authority of the speaker. There is then, he says, "one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Notice how you read the
same thing of the Word of the Father, which you read of Christ. For
the gospel tells us that "All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made."[101] The Apostle says, "By Christ
are all things:" the gospel says, "By the Word are all
things." Do these sacred utterances contradict each other? Most
certainly not. But by Christ, by whom the Apostle said that all
things were created, and by the W