(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors. If you
find errors or omissions in the text, please notify [email protected].)


ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA

ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

AGAINST THE FOLLOWERS OF MACEDONIUS(1) (fragment)

[Translated by the Rev. William Moore, M.A., Rector of Appleton, Late
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.]


   IT may indeed be undignified to give any answer at all to the
statements that are foolish; we seem to be pointed that way by Solomon's
wise advice, "not to answer a fool according to his folly." But there is a
danger lest through our silence error may prevail over the truth, and so
the rotting sore(2) of this heresy may invade it, and make havoc of the
sound word of the faith. It has appeared to me, therefore, to be imperative
to answer, not indeed according to the folly of these men who offer
objections of such a description to our Religion, but for the correction of
their depraved ideas. For that advice quoted above from the Proverbs gives,
I think, the watchword not for silence,  but for the correction of those
who are displaying some act of folly; our answers, that is, are not to run
on the level of their foolish conceptions, but rather to overturn those
unthinking and deluded views as to doctrine.

   What then is the charge they bring against us? They accuse us of
profanity for entertaining lofty conceptions about the Holy Spirit. All
that we, in following the teachings of the Fathers, confess as to the
Spirit, they take in a sense of their own, and make it a handle against us,
to denounce us for profanity(3). We, for instance, confess that the Holy
Spirit is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no
difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion
can ascribe to a Divine nature. We confess that, save His being
contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy
Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture(4),
but that, while not to be confounded with the Father in being never
originated, nor with the Son in being the Only-begotten, and while to be
regarded separately in certain distinctive properties, He has in all else,
as I have just said, an exact identity(5) with them. But our opponents aver
that He is a stranger to any vital communion with the Father and the Son;
that by reason of an essential variation He is inferior to, and less than
they in every point; in power, in glory, in dignity, in fine in everything
that in word or thought we ascribe to Deity; that, in consequence, in their
glory He has no share, to equal honour with them He has no claim; and that,
as for power, He possesses only so much of it as is sufficient for the
partial activities assigned to Him; that with the creative force He is
quite disconnected.

   Such is the conception of Him that possesses them; and the logical
consequence of it is that the Spirit has in Himself none of those marks
which our devotion, in word or thought, ascribes to a Divine nature. What
then, shall be our way of arguing? We shall answer nothing new, nothing of
our own invention, though they challenge us to it; we shall fall back upon
the testimony in Holy Scripture about the Spirit, whence we learn that the
Holy Spirit is Divine, and is to be called so. Now, if they allow this, and
will not contradict the words of inspiration, then they, with all their
eagerness to fight with us, must tell us why they are for contending with
us, instead of with Scripture. We say nothing different from that which
Scripture says.--But in a Divine nature, as such, when once we have
believed in it, we can recognize no distinctions suggested either by the
Scripture teaching or by our own common sense; distinctions, that is, that
would divide that Divine and transcendent nature within itself by any
degrees of intensity and remission, so as to be altered from itself by
being more or less. Because we firmly believe that it is simple, uniform,
incomposite, because we see in it no complicity or composition of
dissimilars, therefore it is that, when once our minds have grasped the
idea of Deity, we accept by the implication of that very name the
perfection in it of every conceivable thing that befits the Deity. Deity,
in fact, exhibits perfection in every line in which the good can be found.
If it fails and comes short of perfection in any single point, in that
point the conception of Deity will be impaired, so that it cannot, therein,
be or be called Deity at all; for how could we apply that word to a thing
that is imperfect and deficient, and requiring an addition external to
itself?

   We can confirm our argument by material instances. Fire naturally
imparts the sense of heat to those who touch it, with all its component
parts(6); one part of it does not have the heat more intense, the other
less intense; but as long as it is fire at all, it exhibits an invariable
oneness with itself in an absolutely complete sameness of activity; if in
any part it gets cooled at all, in that part it can no longer be called
fire; for, with the change of its heat-giving activity into the reverse,
its name also is changed. It is the same with water, with air, with every
element that underlies the universe; there is one and the same description
of the element, in each case, admitting of no ideas of excess or defect;
water, for instance, cannot be called more or less water; as long as it
maintains an equal standard of witness, so long the term water will be
realized by it; but when once it is changed in the direction of the
opposite quality(7) the name to be applied to it must be changed also. The
yielding, buoyant, "nimble"(8) nature of the air, too, is to be seen in
every part of it; while what is dense, heavy, downward gravitating, sinks
out of the connotation of the very term "air." So Deity, as long as it
possesses perfection throughout all the properties that devotion(9) may
attach to it, by virtue of this perfection in everything good does not
belie its name; but if any one of those things that contribute to this idea
of perfection is subtracted from it, the name of Deity is falsified in that
particular, and does not apply to the subject any longer. It is equally
impossible to apply to a dry substance the name of water, to that whose
quality is a state of coolness the name of fire, to stiff and hard things
the name of air, and to call that thing Divine which does not at once imply
the idea of perfection; or rather the impossibility is greater in this last
case.

   If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not m name only, called Divine
both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what ground is left for those who
oppose the glory of the Spirit? He is Divine, and absolutely good, and
Omnipotent, and wise, and glorious, and eternal; He is everything of this
kind that can be named to raise our thoughts to the grandeur of His being.
The singleness of the subject of these properties testifies that He does
not possess them in a measure only, as if we could imagine that He was one
thing in His very substance, but became another by the presence of the
aforesaid qualities. That condition is peculiar(1) to those beings who have
been given a composite nature; whereas the Holy Spirit is single and simple
in every respect equally. This is allowed by all; the man who denies it
does not exist. If, then, there is but one simple and single definition of
His being, the good which He possesses is not an acquired good; but,
whatever He may be besides, He is Himself Goodness, and Wisdom, and Power,
and Sanctification, and Righteousness, and Everlastingness, and
Imperishability, and every name that is lofty, and elevating above other
names. What, then, is the state of mind that leads these men, who do not
fear the fearful sentence passed upon the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,
to maintain that such a Being does not possess glory? For they clearly put
that statement forward; that we ought not to believe that He should be
glorified: though I know not for what reason they judge it to be expedient
not to confess the true nature of that which is essentially glorious.

   For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is
delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore
He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in
working good  shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable
it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or
essential variation(2)! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame
burning on three torches(and we will suppose that the third flame is caused
by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the
end torch(3)), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded
that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the
direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all,
though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire
does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire,
though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of
these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy
Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?
Certainly, if there is in our conceptions of the Substance of the Spirit
anything that falls short of the Divine ideal, they do well in testifying
to His not possessing glory; but if the highness of His dignity is to be
perceived in every point, why do they grudge to make the confession of His
glory? As if any one after describing some one as a man, were to consider
it not safe to go on to say of him as well that he is reasoning, mortal, or
anything else that can be predicated of a man, and so were to cancel what
he had just allowed; for if he is not reasoning, he is not a man at all;
but if the latter is granted, how can there be any hesitation about the
conceptions already implied in "man"? So, with regard to the Spirit, if
when one calls Him Divine one speaks the truth, neither when one defines
Him to be worthy of honour, to be glorious, good, omnipotent, does one lie;
for all such conceptions are at once admitted with the idea of Deity. So
that they must accept one of two alternatives; either not to call Him
Divine at all, or to refrain from subtracting from His Deity any one of
those conceptions which are attributable to Deity. We must then, most
surely, comprehend along with each other these two thoughts, viz. the
Divine nature, and along with it a just idea, a devout intuition(4), of
that Divine and transcendent nature.

   Since, then, it has been affirmed, and truly affirmed, that the Spirit
is of the Divine Essence, and since in that one word "Divine" every idea of
greatness, as we have said, is involved, it follows that he who grants that
Divinity has potentially granted s all the rest;--the gloriousness, the
omnipotence, everything indicative of superiority. It is indeed a monstrous
thing to refuse to confess this in the case of the Spirit: monstrous,
because of the incongruity, as applied to Him, of the terms which in the
list of opposites correspond to the above terms. I mean, if one does not
grant gloriousness, one must grant the absence of gloriousness; if one sets
aside His power, one must acquiesce in its opposite. So also with regard to
honour, and goodness, and any other superiority, if they are not accepted,
their opposites must be conceded.

   But if all must shrink from that, as going even beyond the most
revolting blasphemy, then a devout mind must accept the nobler names and
conceptions of the Holy Spirit, and must pronounce concerning Him all that
we have already named, that He has honour, power, glory, goodness, and
everything else that inspires devotion. It must own, too, that these
realities do not attach to Him in imperfection or with any limit to the
quality of their brilliance, but that they correspond with their names to
infinity. He is not to be regarded as possessing dignity up to a certain
point, and then becoming different; but He is always such. If you begin to
count behind the ages, or if you fix your gaze on the Hereafter(6), you
will find no falling off whatever in dignity, or glory, or omnipotence,
such as to constitute Him capable of increase by addition, or of diminution
by subtraction. Being wholly and entirely perfect, He admits diminution in
nothing. Whereinsoever, on such a supposition as theirs, He is lessened,
therein He will be exposed to the inroad of ideas tending to dishonour Him.
For that which is not absolutely perfect must be suspected on some one
point of partaking of the opposite character. But if to entertain even the
thought of this is a sign of extreme derangement of mind, it is well to
confess our belief that His perfection in all that is good is altogether
unlimited, uncircumscribed, in no particular diminished.

   If such is the doctrine concerning Him when followed out(7), let the
same inquiry be made concerning the Son and the Father as well. Do you not
confess a perfection of glory in the case of the one as in the case of the
other? I think that all who reflect will allow it. If, then, the honour of
the Father is perfect, and the honour of the Son, is perfect, and they have
confessed as well the perfection of honour for the Holy Spirit, wherefore
do these new theorists dictate to us that we are not to allow in His case
an equality of honour with the Father and the Son? As for ourselves, we
follow out the above considerations and find ourselves unable to think, as
well as to say, that that which requires no addition for its perfection is,
as compared with something else, less dignified; for when we have something
wherein, owing to its faultless perfection, reason can discover no
possibility of increase, I do not see either wherein it can discover any
possibility of diminution. But these men, in denying the equality of
honour, really lay down the comparative absence of it; and so also when
they follow out further this same line of thought, by a diminution arising
from comparison they divert all the conceptions that devotion has formed of
the Holy Spirit; they do not own His perfection either in goodness, or
omnipotence, or in any such attribute. But if they shrink from such open
profanity and allow His perfection in every attribute of good, then these
clever people must tell us how one perfect thing can be more perfect or
less perfect than another perfect thing; for so long as the definition of
perfection applies to it, that thing can not admit of a greater and a less
in the matter of perfection.

   If, then, they agree that the Holy Spirit is perfect absolutely, and it
has been admitted in addition that true reverence requires perfection in
every good thing for the Father and the Son as well, what reasons can
justify them in taking away the Father(9) when once they have granted Him?
For to take away "equality of dignity" with the Father is a sure proof that
they do not think that the Spirit has a share in the perfection of the
Father. And as regards the idea itself of this honour in the case of the
Divine Being, from which they would exclude the Spirit, what do they mean
by it? Do they mean that honour which men confer on men, when by word and
gesture they pay respect to them, signifying their own deference in the
form of precedence and all such-like practices, which in the foolish
fashion of the day are kept up in the name of "honour." But all these
things depend on the goodwill of those who perform them; and if we suppose
a case in which they do not choose to perform them, then there is no one
amongst mankind who has from mere nature any advantage, such that he should
necessarily be more honoured than the rest; for all are marked alike with
the same natural proportions. The truth of this is clear; it does not admit
of any doubt. We see, for instance, the man who to-day, because of the
office which he holds, is considered by the crowd an object of honour,
becoming tomorrow himself one of those who pay honour, the office having
been transferred to another. Do they, then, conceive of an honour such as
that in the case of the Divine Being, so that, as long as we please to pay
it, that Divine honour is retained, but when we cease to do so it ceases
too at the dictate of our will? Absurd thought, and blasphemous as well!
The Deity, being independent of us, does not grow in honour; He is evermore
the same; He cannot pass into a better or a worse state; for He has no
better, and admits no worse.

   In what sort of manner, then, can you honour the Deity? How can you
heighten the Highest? How can you give glory to that which is above all
glory? How can you praise the Incomprehensible? If "all the nations are as
a drop of a bucket(1)," as Isaiah says, if all living humanity were to send
up one united note of praise in harmony together, what addition will this
gift of a mere drop be to that which is glorious essentially? The heavens
are telling the glory of God(2), and yet they are counted poor heralds of
His worth; because His Majesty is exalted, not as far as the heavens, but
high above those heavens, which are themselves included within a small
fraction of the Deity called figuratively His "span(3)." And shall a man,
this frail and short-lived creature, so aptly likened to "grass," who "to-
day is," and to-morrow is not, believe that he can worthily honour the
Divine Being? It would be like some one lighting a thin fibre from some tow
and fancying that by that spark he was making an addition to the dazzling
rays of the sun. By what words, pray, will you honour the Holy Spirit,
supposing you do wish to honour Him at all? By saying that He is absolutely
immortal, without turning, or variableness, always beautiful, always
independent of ascription from others, working as He wills all things in
all, Holy, leading, direct, just, of true utterance, "searching the deep
things of God," "proceeding from the Father, "receiving(4) from the Son,"
and all such-like things, what, after all, do you lend to Him by these and
such-like terms? Do you mention what He has, or do you honour Him by what
He has not? Well, if you attest what He has not, your ascription is
meaningless and comes to nothing; for he who calls bitterness "sweetness,"
while he lies himself, has failed to  commend that which is blamable.
Whereas, if you mention what He has, such and such a  quality is essential,
whether men recognize it or not; He remains the object of faith(5), says
the Apostle, if we have not faith.

   What means, then, this lowering and this expanding of their soul, on
the part of these men who are enthusiastic for the Father's honour, and
grant to the Son an equal share with Him, but in the case of the Spirit are
for narrowing down their favours; seeing that it has been demonstrated that
the intrinsic worth of the Divine Being does not depend for its contents
upon any will of ours, but has been always inalienably inherent in Him?
Their narrowness of mind, and unthankfulness, is exposed  in this opinion
of theirs, while the Holy Spirit is essentially honourable, glorious,
almighty, and all that we can conceive of in the way of exaltation, in
spite of them.

   "Yes," replies one of them, "but we have been taught by Scripture that
the Father is the Creator, and in the same way that it was 'through the
Son(6)' that 'all things were made'; but God's word tells us nothing of
this kind about the Spirit; and how, then, can it be right to place the
Holy Spirit in a position of equal dignity with One Who has displayed such
magnificence of power through the Creation?" What shall we answer so this?
That the thoughts of their hearts are so much idle talk, when they imagine
that the Spirit was not always with the Father and the Son, but that, as
occasion varies, He is sometimes to be contemplated as alone, sometimes to
be found in  the closest union with Them. For if the  heaven, and the
earth, and all created things  were really made through the Son and from
the Father, but apart from the Spirit, what was the Holy Spirit doing at
the time when the Father was at work with the Son upon the Creation? Was He
employed upon some other works, and was this the reason that He had no hand
in the building of the Universe? But, then, what special work of the Spirit
have they to point to, at the time when the world was being made? Surely,
it is senseless folly to conceive of a creation other than that which came
into existence from the Father through the Son. Well, suppose that He was
not employed at all, but dissociated Himself from the busy work of creating
by reason of an inclination to ease and rest, which shrank from toil?

   May the gracious Spirit Himself pardon this baseless supposition of
ours! The blasphemy of these theorists, which we have had to follow out in
every step it takes, has caused us unwittingly to soil our discussion with
the mud of their own imaginings. The view which is consistent with all
reverence is as follows. We are not to think of the Father as ever parted
from the Son, nor to look for the Son as separate from the Holy Spirit. As
it is impossible to mount to the Father, unless our thoughts are exalted
thither through the Son, so it is impossible also to 'say that Jesus is
Lord except by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
to be known only in a perfect Trinity, in closest consequence and union
with each other, before all creation, before all the ages, before anything
whatever of which we can form an ideal The Father is always Father, and in
Him the Son, and with the Son the Holy Spirit. If these Persons, then, are
inseparate from each other, how great is the folly of these men who
undertake to sunder this indivisibility by certain distinctions of time,
and so far to divide the Inseparable as to assert confidently, "the Father
alone, through the Son alone, made all things"; the Holy Spirit, that is,
being not present at all on the occasion of this making, or else not
working. Well, if He was not present, they must tell us where He was; and
whether, while God embraces all things, they can imagine any separate
standing-place for the Spirit, so that He could have remained in isolation
during the time occupied by the process of creating. If, on the other hand,
He was present, how was it that He was inactive? Because He could not, or
because He would not, work? Did He abstain willingly, or because some
strong necessity drove Him away? Now, if He deliberately embraced this
inactivity, He must reject working in any other possible way either; and He
Who affirmed that "He worketh all things in all, as He wills(8)," is
according to them a liar. If, on the contrary, this Spirit has the impulse
to work, but some overwhelming control hinders His design, they must tell
us the wherefore of this hindrance. Was it owing to his being grudged a
share in the glory of those operations, and in order to secure that the
admiration at their success should not extend to a third person as its
object; or to a distrust of His help, as if His co-operation would result
in present mischief? These clever men most certainly furnish the grounds
for our holding one of these two hypotheses; or else, if a grudging spirit
has no connection with the Deity, any more than a failure can be conceived
of in any relation to an Infallible Being, what meaning of any kind is
there in these narrow views of theirs, which isolate the Spirit's power
from all world-building efficiency? Their duty rather was to expel their
low human way of thinking, by means of loftier ideas, and to make a
calculation more worthy of the sublimity of the objects in question. For
neither did the Universal God make the universe "through the Son," as
needing any help, nor does the Only-begotten God work all things "by the
Holy Spirit," as having a power that comes short of His design; but the
fountain of power is the Father, and the power of the Father is the Son,
and the spirit of that power is the Holy Spirit; and Creation entirely, in
all its visible and spiritual extent, is the finished work of that Divine
power. And seeing that no toil can be thought of in the composition of
anything connected with the Divine Being (for performance being bound to
the moment of willing, the Plan at once becomes a Reality), we should be
justified in calling all that Nature which came into existence by creation
a movement of Will, an impulse of Design, a transmission of Power,
beginning from the Father, advancing through the Son, and completed in the
Holy Spirit.

   This is the view we take, after the unprofessional way usual with us;
and we reject all these elaborate sophistries of our adversaries, believing
and confessing as we do, that in every deed and thought, whether in this
world, or beyond this world, whether in time  or in eternity, the Holy
Spirit is to be apprehended as joined to the Father and Son, and is wanting
in no wish or energy, or anything else that is implied in a devout
conception of Supreme Goodness(9); and, therefore, that, except for the
distinction of order and Person, no variation in any point is to be
apprehended; but we assert that while His place is counted third in mere
sequence after the Father and Son, third in the order of the transmission,
in all other respects we acknowledge His inseparable union with them; both
in nature, in honour, in godhead, and glory, and majesty, and almighty
power, and in all devout belief.

   But with regard to service and worship, and the other things which they
so nicely calculate about, and bring into prominence, we say this; that the
Holy Spirit is exalted above all that we can do for Him with our merely
human purpose; our worship is far beneath the honour due; and anything else
that in human customs is held as honourable is somewhere below the dignity
of the Spirit; for that which in its essence is measureless surpasses those
who offer their all with so slight and circumscribed and paltry a power of
giving. This, then, we say to those of them who subscribe to the
reverential conception of the Holy Spirit that He is Divine, and of the
Divine nature. But if there is any of them who rejects this statement, and
this idea involved in the very name of Divinity, and says that which, to
the destruction of the Spirit's greatness, is in circulation amongst the
many, namely, that He belongs, not to making, but to made, beings, that it
is right to regard Him not as of a Divine, but as of a created nature, we
answer to a proposition such as this, that we do not understand how we can
count those who make it amongst the number of Christians at all. For just
as it would not be possible to style the unformed embryo a human being, but
only a potential one, assuming that it is completed so as to come forth to
human birth, while as long as it is in this unformed state, it is something
other than a human being; so our reason cannot recognize as a Christian one
who has failed to receive, with regard to the entire mystery, the genuine
form of our religion(1). We can hear Jews believing in God, and our God
too: even our Lord reminds(2) them in the Gospel that they recognize no
other God than the Father of the Only-begotten, "of Whom ye say that he is
your God." Are we, then, to call the Jews Christians because they too agree
to worship the God Whom we adore? I am aware, too, that the Manichees go
about vaunting the name of Christ. Because they hold revered the Name to
which we bow the knee, shall we therefore number them amongst Christians?
So, too, he who both believes in the Father and receives the Son, but sets
aside the Majesty of the Spirit, has "denied the faith, and is worse than
an infidel," and belies the name of Christ which he bears. The Apostle bids
the man of God to be "perfect(3)." Now, to take only the general man,
perfection must consist in completeness in every aspect of human nature, in
having reason, capability of thought and knowledge, a share of animal life,
an upright bearing, risibility, broadness of nail; and if any one were to
term some individual a man, and yet were unable to produce evidence in his
case of the foregoing signs of human nature, his terming him so would be a
valueless honour. Thus, too, the Christian is marked by his Belief in
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in this consists the form of him who is
fashioned(4) in accordance with the mystery of the truth. But if his form
is arranged otherwise, I will not recognize the existence of anything
whence the form is absent; there is a blurring out of the mark, and a loss
of the essential form, and an alteration of the characteristic signs of our
complete humanity, when the Holy Spirit is not included in the Belief. For
indeed the word of Ecclesiastes says true; your heretic is no living man,
but "bones," he says(5), "in the womb of her that is with child(6)"; for
how can one who does not think of the unction along with the Anointed be
said to believe in the Anointed? "Him," says (Peter), "did God anoint with
the Holy Spirit(7)."

   These destroyers of the Spirit's glory, who relegate Him to a subject
world, must tell us of what thing that unction is the symbol. Is it not a
symbol of the Kingship? And what? Do they not believe in the Only-begotten
as in His very nature a King? Men who have not once for all enveloped their
hearts with the Jewish "vail(8)" will not gainsay that He is this. If,
then, the Son is in His very nature a king, and the unction is the symbol
of His kingship, what, in the way of a consequence, does your reason
demonstrate? Why, that the Unction is not a thing alien to that Kingship,
and so that the Spirit is not to be ranked in the Trinity as anything
strange and foreign either. For the Son is King, and His living, realized,
and personified Kingship is found in the Holy Spirit, Who anoints the Only-
begotten, and so makes Him the Anointed, and the King of all things that
exist. If, then, the Father is King, and the Only-begotten is King, and the
Holy Ghost is the Kingship, one and the same definition of Kingship must
prevail throughout this Trinity, and the thought of "unction" conveys the
hidden meaning that there is no interval of separation between the Son and
the Holy Spirit. For as between the body's surface and the liquid of the
oil nothing intervening can be detected, either in reason or in perception,
so inseparable is the union of the Spirit with the Son; and the result is
that whosoever is to touch the Son by faith must needs first encounter the
oil in the very act of touching; there is not a part of Him devoid of the
Holy Spirit. Therefore belief in the Lordship of the Son arises in those
who entertain it, by means of the Holy Ghost; on all sides the Holy Ghost
is met by those who by faith approach the Son. If, then, the Son is
essentially a King, and the Holy Spirit is that dignity of Kingship which
anoints the Son, what deprivation of this Kingship, in its essence and
comparing it with itself, can be imagined? Again, let us look at it in this
way. Kingship is most assuredly shown in the rule over  subjects. Now what
is "subject" to this Kingly Being? The Word includes the ages certainly,
and all that is in them; "Thy Kingdom," it says, "is a Kingdom of ages,"
and, by ages, it means every substance in them created in infinite
space(9), whether visible or invisible; for in them all things were created
by the Maker of those ages. If, then, the Kingship must always be thought
of along with the King, and the world of subjects is acknowledged to be
something other than the world of rulers, what absurdity it is for these
men to contradict themselves thus, attributing as they do the unction as an
expression for the worth of Him Whose very nature it is to be a King, yet
degrading that unction Itself to the rank of a subject, as if wanting in
such worth! If It is a subject by virtue of its nature, then why is It made
the unction of Kingship, and so associated with the Kingly dignity of the
Only-be-gotten? If, on the other hand, the capacity to rule is shown by Its
being included in the majesty of Kingship, where is the necessity of having
everything dragged down to a plebeian(1) and servile lower condition, and
numbered with the subject creation? When we affirm of the Spirit the two
conditions, we cannot be in both cases speaking the truth: i.e. that He is
ruling, and that He is subject. If He rules, He is not under any lord, but
if He is subject, then He cannot be comprehended with the Being who is a
King. Men are recognized as amongst men, angels amongst angels, everything
amongst its kind; and so the Holy Spirit must needs be believed to belong
to one only of two worlds; to the ruling, or to the inferior world; for
between these two our reason can recognize nothing; no new invention of any
natural attribute on the borderland of the Created and the Uncreated can be
thought of, such as would participate  in both, yet be neither entirely; we
cannot imagine such an amalgamation and welding together of opposites by
anything being blended of the Created and the Uncreated, and two opposites
thus coalescing into one person, in which case the result of that strange
mixture would not only be a composite thing, but composed of elements that
were unlike, and disagreeing as to time; for that which receives its
personality from a creation is assuredly posterior to that which subsists
without a creation.

   If, then, they declare the Holy Ghost to be blended of both, they must
consequently view that blending as of a prior with a posterior thing; and,
according to them, He will be prior to Himself; and reversely, posterior to
Himself; from the Uncreated He will get the seniority, and from the Created
the juniority. But, in the nature of things, this cannot be; and so it must
most certainly be true to affirm of the Holy Spirit one only of these
alternatives, and that is, the attribute of being Uncreated; for notice the
amount of absurdity involved in the other alternative; all things that we
can think of in the actual creation have, by virtue of all having received
their  existence by an act of creation, a rank and value perfectly equal in
all cases, and so what reason can there be for separating the Holy Spirit
from the rest of the creation, and ranking Him with the Father and the Son?
Logic, then, will discover this about Him; That which is contemplated as
part of the Uncreated, does not exist by creation; or, if It does, then It
has no more power than its kindred creation, It cannot associate itself
with that Transcendent Nature; if, on the other hand, they declare that He
is a created being, and at the same time has a power which is above the
creation, then the creation will be found at variance with itself, divided
into ruler and ruled, so that part of it is the benefactor, part the
benefited, part the sanctifier, part the sanctified; and all that fund of
blessings which we believe to be provided for the creation by the Holy
Spirit are present in Him, welling up abundantly, and pouring forth upon
others, while the creation remains in need of the thence-issuing help and
grace, and receives, as a mere dole, those blessings which can be passed to
it from a fellow-creature! That would be like favouritism and respecting of
persons; when we know that there is no such partiality in the nature of
things, as that those existences which differ in no way from each other on
the score of substance should not have equal power; and I think that no one
who reflects will admit such views. Either He imparts nothing to others, if
He possesses nothing essentially; or, if we do believe that He does give,
His possession beforehand of that gift must be granted; this capacity of
giving blessings, whilst needing oneself no such extraneous help, is the
peculiar and exquisite privilege of Deity, and of no other.

   Then let us look to this too. In Holy Baptism, what is it that we
secure thereby? Is it not a participation in a life no longer subject to
death? I think that no one who can in any way be reckoned amongst
Christians will deny that statement. What then? Is that life-giving power
in the water itself which is employed to convey the grace of Baptism? Or is
it not rather clear to every one that this element is only employed as a
means in the external ministry, and of itself contributes nothing towards
the sanctification, unless it be first transformed itself by the
sanctification; and that what gives life to the baptized is the Spirit; as
our Lord Himself says in respect to Him with His own lips, "It is the
Spirit that giveth life;" but for the completion of this grace He alone,
received by faith, does not give life, but belief in our Lord must precede,
in order that the lively gift may come upon the believer, as our Lord has
spoken, "He giveth life to whom He willeth." But further still, seeing that
this grace administered through the Son is dependent on the Ungenerate
Source of all, Scripture accordingly teaches us that belief in the Father
Who engendereth all things is to come first; so that this life-giving grace
should be completed, for those fit to receive it, after starting from that
Source as from a spring pouring life abundantly, through the Only-begotten
Who is the True life, by the operation of the Holy Spirit. If, then, life
comes in baptism, and baptism receives its completion in the name of
Father, Son, and Spirit, what do these men mean who count this Minister of
life as nothing? If the gift is a slight one, they must tell us the thing
that is more precious than this life. But if everything whatever that is
precious is second to this life, I mean that higher and precious life in
which the brute creation has no part, how can they dare to depreciate so
great a favour, or rather the actual Being who grants the favour, and to
degrade Him in their conceptions of Him to a subject world by disjoining
Him from the higher world of deity(2). Finally, if they will have it that
this bestowal of life is a small thing, and that it means nothing great and
awful in the nature of the Bestower, how is it they do not draw the
conclusion which this very view makes inevitable, namely, that we must
suppose, even with regard to the Only-begotten and the Father Himself,
nothing great in Their life, the same as that which we have through the
Holy Spirit, supplied as it is from the Father through the Son?

   So that if these despisers and impugners of their very own life
conceive of the gift as a little one, and decree accordingly to slight the
Being who imparts the gift, let them be made aware that they cannot limit
to one Person only their ingratitude, but must extend its profanity beyond
the Holy Spirit to the Holy Trinity Itself. For like as the grace flows
down in an unbroken stream from the Father, through the Son and the Spirit,
upon  the persons worthy of it, so does this profanity return backward, and
is transmitted from the Son to the God of all the world, passing from one
to the other. If, when a man is slighted, He Who sent him is slighted (yet
what a distance there was between the man and the Sender!), what
criminality(3) is thereby implied in those who thus defy the Holy Spirit!
Perhaps this is the blasphemy against our Law-giver(4) for which the
judgment without remission has been decreed; since in Him the(5) entire
Being, Blessed and Divine, is insulted also. As the devout worshipper of
the Spirit sees in Him the glory of the Only-begotten, and in that sight
beholds the image of the Infinite God, and by means of that image makes an
outline, upon his own cognition(6), of the Original, so most plainly does
this contemner(7) (of the Spirit), whenever he advances any of his bold
statements against the glory of the Spirit, extend, by virtue of the same
reasoning, his profanity to the Son, and beyond Him to the Father.
Therefore, those who reflect must have fear lest they perpetrate an
audacity the result of which will be the complete blotting out of the
perpetrator of it; and while they exalt the Spirit in the naming, they will
even before the naming exalt Him in their thought, it being impossible that
words can mount along with thought; still when one shall have reached the
highest limit of human faculties, the utmost height and magnificence of
idea to which the mind can ever attain, even then one must believe it is
far below the glory that belongs to(8) Him, according to the words in the
Psalms, that "after exalting the Lord our God, even then ye scarcely
worship the footstool beneath His feet": and the cause of this dignity
being so incomprehensible is nothing else than that He is holy.

   If, then, every height of man's ability falls below the grandeur of the
Spirit (for that is what the Word means in the metaphor of "footstool"),
what vanity is theirs who think that there is within themselves a power so
great that it rests with them to define the amount of value to be
attributed to a being who is invaluable! And so they pronounce the Holy
Spirit unworthy of some things which are associated with the idea of value,
as if their own abilities could do far more than the Spirit, as estimated
by them, is capable of. What pitiable, what wretched madness! They
understand not what they are themselves when they talk like this, and what
the Holy Spirit against Whom they insolently range themselves. Who will
tell these people that men are "a spirit that goeth forth and returneth not
again(9)," built up in their mother's womb by means of a soiled conception,
and returning all of them to a soiled earth; inheriting a life that is
likened unto grass; blooming for a little during life's illusion(1), and
then withering away, and all the bloom upon them being shed and vanishing;
they themselves not knowing with certainty what they were before their
birth, nor into what they will be changed, their soul being ignorant of her
peculiar destiny as long as she tarries in the flesh? Such is man.

   On the contrary the Holy Spirit is, to begin with, because of qualities
that are essentially holy, that which the Father, essentially Holy, is; and
such as the Only-begotten is, such is the Holy Spirit; then, again, He is
so by virtue of life-giving, of imperishability, of unvariableness, of
everlastingness, of justice, of wisdom, of rectitude, of sovereignty, of
goodness, of power, of capacity to give all good things, and above them all
life itself, and by being everywhere, being present in each, filling the
earth, residing in the heavens, shed abroad upon supernatural Powers,
filling all things according to the deserts of each, Himself remaining
full, being with all who are worthy, and yet not parted from the Holy
Trinity. He ever "searches the deep things of God," ever "receives" from
the Son, ever is being "sent," and yet not separated, and being
"glorified," and yet He has always had glory. It is plain, indeed, that one
who gives glory to another must be found himself in the possession of
superabundant glory; for how could one devoid of glory glorify another?
Unless a thing be itself light, how can it display the gracious gift of
light? So the power to glorify could never be displayed by one who was not
himself glory(2), and honour, and majesty, and greatness. Now the Spirit
does glorify the Father and the Son. Neither does He lie Who saith, "Them
that glorify Me I glorify"(3); and "I have glorified Thee(4)," is said by
our Lord to the Father; and again He says, "Glorify Thou Me with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was(5)." The Divine Voice answers,
"I have both glorified, and will glorify again(6)." You see the revolving
circle of the glory moving from Like to Like. The Son is glorified by the
Spirit; the Father is glorified by the Son; again the Son has His glory
from the Father; and the Only-begotten thus becomes the glory of the
Spirit. For with what shall the Father be glorified, but with the true
glory of the Son: and with what again shall the Son be glorified, but with
the majesty of the Spirit? In like manner, again, Faith completes the
circle, and glorifies the Son by means of the Spirit, and the Father by
means of the Son.

   If such, then, is the greatness of the Spirit, and whatever is morally
beautiful, whatever is good, coming from God as it does through the Son, is
completed by the instrumentality of the Spirit that "worketh all in all,"
why do they set themselves against their own life? Why do they alienate
themselves from the hope belonging to "such as are to be saved"? Why do
they sever themselves from their cleaving unto God? For how can any man
cleave unto the Lord unless the Spirit operates within us that union of
ourselves with Him? Why do they haggle with us about the amount of service
and of worship? Why do they use that word "worship" in an ironical sense,
derogatory to a Divine and entirely Independent Being, supposing that they
desire their own salvation? We would say to them, "Your supplication is the
advantage of you who ask, and not the honouring of Him Who grants it. Why,
then, do you approach your Benefactor as if you had something to give? Or
rather, why do you refuse to name as a benefactor at all Him Who gives you
your blessings, and slight the Life-giver while clinging to Life? Why,
seeking for His sanctification, do you misconceive of the Dispenser of the
Grace of sanctification; and as to the giving of those blessings, why, not
denying that He has the power, do you deem Him not worthy to be asked to
give, and fail to take this into consideration, viz. how much greater a
thing it is to give some blessing than to be asked to give it? The asking
does not unmistakably witness to greatness in him who is asked; for it is
possible that one who does not have the thing to give might be asked for
it, for the asking depends only on the will of the asker. But one who
actually bestows some blessing has thereby given undoubted evidence of a
power residing in him. Why then, while testifying to the greater thing in
Him,--I mean the power to bestow everything that is morally beautiful(7)--
do you deprive Him of the asking, as of something of importance; although
this asking, as we have said, is often performed in the case of those who
have nothing in their power, owing to  the delusion of their devotees? For
instance, the slaves of superstition ask the idols for the objects of their
wishes; but the asking does not, in this instance of the idols, confer any
glory; only people pay that attention to them owing to the deluded
expectation that they will get some one of the things they ask for, and so
they do not cease to ask. But you, persuaded as you are of what and how
great things the Holy Spirit is the Giver, do you neglect the asking them
from Him, taking refuge in the law which bids you 'worship God and serve
Him only(8)?' Well, how will you worship Him only, tell me, when you have
severed Him from His intimate union with His own Only-begotten and His own
Spirit? This worship is simply Jewish.

   But you will say, "When I think of the Father it is the Son (alone)
that I have included as well in that term." But tell me; when you have
grasped the notion of the Son have you not admitted therein that of the
Holy Spirit too? For how can you confess the Son except by the Holy Spirit?
At what moment, then, is the Spirit in a state of separation from the Son,
so that when the Father is being worshipped, the worship of the Spirit is
not included along with that of the Son? And as regards their worship
itself, what in the world do they reckon it to be? They bestow it, as some
exquisite piece of honour, upon the God over all, and convey it over,
sometimes, so as to reach the Only-begotten also; but the Holy Spirit they
regard as unworthy of such a privilege. Now, in the common parlance of
mankind, that self-prostration of inferiors upon the ground which they
practise when they salute their betters is termed worship. Thus, it was by
such a posture that the patriarch Jacob, in his self-humiliation, seems to
have wished to show his inferiority when coming to meet his brother and to
appease his wrath; for "he bowed himself to the ground," says the
Scripture, "three times"(9); and Joseph's brethren, as long as they knew
him not, and he pretended before them that he knew them not, by reason of
the exaltation of his rank reverenced his sovereignty with this worship;
and even the great Abraham himself "bowed himself(1)" "to the children of
Heth," a stranger amongst the natives of that land, showing, I opine, by
that action, how far more powerful those natives were than sojourners. It
is possible to speak of many such actions both in the ancient records, and
from examples before our eyes in the world now(2).

   Do they too, then, mean this by their worship? Well, is it anything but
absurdity to think that it is wrong to honour the Holy Spirit with that
with which the patriarch honoured even Canaanites? Or do they consider
their "worship" something different to this, as if one sort were fitting
for men, another sort for the Supreme Being? But then, how is it that they
omit worship altogether in the instance of the Spirit, not even bestowing
upon Him the worship conceded in the case of men? And what kind of worship
do they imagine to be reserved especially for the Deity? Is it to be spoken
word, or acted gesture? Well, but are not these marks of honour shared by
men as well? In their case words are spoken and gestures acted. Is it not,
then, plain to every one who possesses the least amount of reflection, that
any gift worthy of the Deity mankind has not got to give; for the Author of
all blessings has no need of us. But it is we men who have transferred
these indications of respect and admiration, which we adopt towards each
other, when we would show by the acknowledgment of a neighbour's
superiority that one of us is in a humbler position than another, to our
attendance upon a Higher Power; out of our possessions we make a gift of
what is most precious to a priceless Nature. Therefore, since men,
approaching emperors and potentates for the objects which they wish in some
way to obtain from those rulers, do not bring to them their mere petition
only, but employ every possible means to induce them to feel pity and
favour towards themselves, adopting a humble voice, and a kneeling
position(3), clasping their knees, prostrating themselves on the ground,
and putting forward to plead for their petition all sorts of pathetic
signs, to wake that pity,--so it is that those who recognize the True
Potentate, by Whom all things in existence are controlled, when they are
supplicating for that which they have at heart, some lowly in spirit
because of pitiable conditions in this world, some with their thoughts
lifted up because of their eternal mysterious hopes, seeing that they know
not how to ask, and that their humanity is not  capable of displaying any
reverence that can reach to the grandeur of that Glory, carry the
ceremonial used in the case of men into the service of the Deity. And this
is what "worship" is,--that, I mean, which is offered for objects we have
at heart along with supplication and humiliation. Therefore Daniel too
bends the knees to the Lord, when asking His love for the captive people;
and He Who "bare our sicknesses," and intercedes for us, is recorded in the
Gospel to have fallen on His face, because of the man that He had taken
upon Him, at the hour of prayer, and in this posture to have made His
petition, enjoining thereby, I think, that at the time of our petition our
voice is not to be bold, but that we are to assume the attitude of the
wretched; since the Lord "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the
humble;" and somewhere else (He says), "he that exalteth himself shall be
abased." If, then, "worship" is a sort of suppliant state, or pleading put
forward for the object of the petition, what is the intention of these new-
fashioned regulations? These men do not even deign to ask of the Giver, nor
to kneel to the Ruler, nor to attend upon the Potentate.

*****


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/V, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic
Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 20108
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.