THE SEVEN BOOKS OF JOHN CASSIAN ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD -- AGAINST
NESTORIUS, BOOKS I TO III
THE SEVEN BOOKS OF JOHN CASSIAN
ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST NESTORIUS.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
The heresy compared to the hydra of the poets.(1)
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 I of the Lord's field has always had to put up I 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,(2) who while over-anxious about asserting our Lord's humanity(3)
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(1) 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;(2) 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 Belgae,(3) 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 had 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 Say-four 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(1) 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 Iris 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,(2) 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:(3) "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(1) 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,(2) 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.(3) And
in this sense 'the Word was made flesh:' (4) 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,(5) 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(6) 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, tho 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(7) 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(1) (who was also spoken of as a
"giant" (2)) 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 (3) 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,(4) 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(5) 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,(6) 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,"(1) 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(2) 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.(3) 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.(4) 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."(5) 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."(6) 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.(7) 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"(1)), 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.(2) 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."(3) What room is there
here for doubt, you incredulous person?(4) 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(5) 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."(1) 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,(2) 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 cat led 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.(3) 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(4) 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 blashemy, 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?"(5) 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."(1) 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 m the
East:(2) and in Exodus: "There appeared," he says, "to Moses an angel in a flame of
fire in the bush:"(8) 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(4) 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."(5) 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 un belief 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(1) 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."(2) 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."(8) 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."(4) 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."(1)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:(2) 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."(1) 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].(2) 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(8) 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." (1) 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 lsrael. "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."(2) 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,"(3) or in this passage: "I said ye are
Gods,"(4) 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."(5) 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 farm 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."(1) 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,(2) 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."(3) 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;"(4) 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 m 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."(1) 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.(2) 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,(3)--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?"(1)
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."(2) 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."(3) 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." (1) 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."(2) 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."(3) 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."(4) 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."(5) 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(6) 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."(1) 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 ord 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
chief-fled. 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."(1) 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(2) 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."(1) 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."(1) 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."(2) 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.'(3) 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."(1) 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."(2) 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 Sen, 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.