Part 5
There are
28 See Third Theological Oration, page 56, footnote 38.
29 Sabellius was a Christian theologian of the early 3rd century, perhaps originally from Rome. He was the most notorious advocate of "modalism," the theory that the one and indivisible divine nature manifested itself in three successive "modes," or masks, without any real or objective distinction. 30 Isaiah 8.19. 31 The rather bizarre-sounding biology here is derived from Aristotle's Generation of Animals. Nevertheless, the point makes some sense if one remembers mules – the hybrid offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
also creatures which depart in some way from their true natures and undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one substance; which is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of our own nature that everyone knows, and then I will pass on to another part of the subject.
§ 11. What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature.33
And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that the creature, the fragment, and the begotten-of-both are the same thing? Of course not. Are they 'of the same being [homoousia],' or what? Of course they are – how can they not be 'of one being'? Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons may have the same being. I do not speak in this way because I attribute createdness or being a fragment or any property of body to the divinity – let none of your tricky advocates come down on me again! – but in order that I may contemplate in these figures, as on a stage, things which are objects of pure thought alone. For it is not possible for any comparison to match exactly the whole truth in its purity. "But," our opponents say, "what is the meaning of all this? For is not the one an offspring, and the other a something else of the One? Did not both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him?" Not at all – Eve was a fragment of him, and Seth was begotten by him. And yet the two were one and the same thing; for both were human beings – no-one will deny that. Will you then give up your contention against the Spirit, by pretending that either He must be begotten or else He can be neither of the same Being nor God. Will you not admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I think it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome and to fight against the evidence.
§ 12. "But who has ever worshipped the Spirit?" our opponent asks "Who among all the figures of the Old or the New Testament? Who has ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship Him or pray to Him, and from where do you get this opinion of yours?" We will give a fuller explanation later on, when we discuss the question of unwritten teachings.
32 I.e. the (legendary) phœnix.
33 Cf. Genesis 2.22-23: "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.' " 34 See § 26 and § 27 of the present Oration.
Gregory of Nazianzus
For the time being it will be enough to say just this: it is in the Spirit that we worship, and it is in the Spirit that we pray. For Scripture says: God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth.35 And again: We do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And: I will pray with the Spirit, but I will pray with the mind also 36
– that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore it seems to me that worshipping or praying with the Spirit is simply the Spirit offering prayer or worship to Himself. And what godly or learned person would disapprove of this? For in fact to worship the One is to worship the Three, because the honour, like the divinity, is equal among the Three.
So I will not be frightened by the text, All things have been made by the Son,
as if the Holy Spirit were included in this all things. For the text actually says: All things WHICH have been made, and not simply all things. For the Father was not made, nor were any of the things which were not made. Prove that the Father was made, and then give Him to the Son and number Him among the creatures; but until you can prove this, you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive phrase. For if the Father was made, it was certainly through Christ – I myself would not deny that. But if the Father was not made, how can He be either one of the all things which have been made, or how can He have been made through Christ? Cease then to dishonour the Father by your opposition to the Only-begotten – for it is no real honour to the Father to rob Him of the Son by presenting the latter as a creature, however superior. And cease to dishonour the Son by your opposition to the Spirit. For the Son is not the maker of a fellow servant, but shares glory with One of equal honour. Rank nothing in the Trinity with yourself, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not cut off from Either the one and equally august nature, because if you overthrow any of the Three, you will have overthrown the whole. Better to have an incomplete notion of the union [of the Three] than to venture on a complete impiety.
§ 13. Our argument has now come to its principal point; and I am grieved that a problem that was long dead and had given way to faith, is now stirred up afresh. Nevertheless, it is necessary to stand against these babblers and not to let judgement be given against us by default, when we have the Word on our side and stand in defence of the Spirit. "If there is a God and a God and a God," they say, "how is it that there are not Three Gods? or how can what is
35 Romans 8.26. 36 1 Corinthians 14.15. 37 Cf. John 1.3.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
glorified not be a polyarchy?"38
Who are they that talk this way? Those who have achieved complete impiety, or even those who occupy the second rank in impiety – I mean those who think rightly about the Son. For my response is directed partly against both in common, partly against these latter in particular. To this second group I say: What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have revolted from the Spirit, to call us tritheists? Are not you ditheists? For if you deny also the worship of the Only-begotten, you have clearly ranged yourself among our adversaries. And why should we deal kindly with you as not quite dead? But if you do worship Him, and are so far in the way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to give for your ditheism, if you are charged with it? If you know a skilful argument, answer, and give us also the means to answer. For the very same reason with which you will repel a charge of ditheism will prove sufficient for us against a charge of tritheism. And thus we shall win the day by making use of you, our accusers, as our advocates. Could anything be more generous than that?
§ 14. And how are we to combat and dispute against both of these parties together? What is our response? For us there is one God, because there is only one divine nature, and all that proceeds from the One is referred to It, although we believe that there are Three. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One before and another after; neither are They divided in will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things. To put the matter concisely, the divine nature undivided in those who are distinct; there is a unique fusion of Light, as if three suns were joined to each other. Therefore, when we look at the divine nature, the First Cause, and the Monarchy,
it is the One that appears to us. But when we look at those in whom the divine nature dwells, at those who timelessly and with equal glory come out of the First Cause – then there are Three whom we worship.
§ 15. "So what?" our opponent perhaps will say; "Don't the Greeks also believe that there is one divinity, as their more advanced philosophers declare, and don't we treat humanity as one, namely the entire race? And yet they still have many gods, don't they, not One, just as there are many human beings?" But in the case of humanity, our common nature has a unity which is conceivable only in thought; and the individuals are very different from one another, for they are divided by time and by the capacity to experience and to act. For we are not only composite beings; we are also contrasted beings, both with respect to one another and with respect to our own selves. We do we remain entirely the same even for a single day, to say nothing of a whole lifetime, but both in body and in soul are in a perpetual state of flux and change. And perhaps the same may be said of the angels and of the whole of
38 polyarchy. See Oration 3, § 2 (page 45 and footnote 3). 39 Monarchy. Again, see Oration 3, § 2 (page 45 and footnote 3).
Gregory of Nazianzus
that superior nature which is second to the Trinity alone; although they are simple40
in some measure and more firmly oriented to Beauty, since they are nearer to the supreme Beauty.
§ 16. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship, the gods and the "dæmons"
41 (as they call them), need us to be their accusers. Their own theologians convict42 these gods of being subject to passions and infighting, full of innumerable evils and liable to changes. These "gods" struggle not only with one another but even with their first causes, whom the Greeks call Ocean, Tethys, Phanes, and several other names; last of all there was a certain god who, through love of power, hated his children and swallowed up all the rest through his greediness so that he might become "the father" of all "the mortals and gods" whom he had miserably devoured and then vomited out again.43 And if these are nothing but myths and fables, as they say in order to escape the shamefulness of the story, what will they say about the saying that "all things are divided into three parts," and that three gods preside over a different part of the Universe, each having a distinct province as well as a distinct rank?44
But this is not our faith. This is not the portion of Jacob, says my theologian.
But each of the Three is as entirely one with Those with whom it is united as it is with itself, because of the identity of essence and power among Them. And this is the ground of the union, so far as we have apprehended it. If then this account is the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not, let us seek for a better.
40 simple. I.e. not composite, not composed of different parts (for example, soul and body) the way humans are.
41 In the mythology of ancient Greek polytheism, "dæmons" were beings in between the gods and humans; they did not possess immortality. 42 Gregory may be thinking of Plato, who in The Republic II and III, denounced the stories of the gods told by earlier Greek poets such as Hesiod and Homer. 43 Gregory is referring to Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. 44 Cf. Homer, Iliad XV.189, where the god Poseidon speaks the quoted words and states that he rules the surface of the earth, while Zeus rules the heavens, and Hades rules the underworld. 45 Jeremiah 10.16.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
§ 17. As for the arguments with which you would over-throw the union which we support, I do not know whether we should say you are jesting or in earnest. For what is this argument? "Things of one essence [homoousia]," you say, "are counted together" – and by this "counted together," you mean to say that they can be reduced into a single number – "but things which are not of one essence [homoousia] are not counted together. So then," you add, "you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according to this account, while we do not run any risk at all of it, inasmuch as we assert that they are not 'of one essence' [homoousia]." And so by a single word you have freed yourselves from trouble and made yourselves the victors. But it is a pernicious victory, for in fact you have acted like those who hang themselves for fear of death. For to save yourselves trouble in your championship of monotheism, you have denied the divine nature and surrendered to your opponents the very point that you were seeking to establish. But for my part, I will not surrender what I worship, whatever the trouble it may cost me. And yet on this point I cannot see what the trouble is.
§ 18. You say, "Things of the same essence [homoousia] are counted together, but things which are not 'of the same essence' are counted one by one." Where did you get this from? From which teachers or spinners of myth? Do you not know that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature of the things them-selves? But I am so old fashioned – or perhaps I should say so ignorant – as to use the word three for just that number of things, even if they are of a different nature; and by the same token to use one and one and one to designate so many different units, even if they are united in essence. For I am not looking at the things themselves so much as at the quantity of the things with respect to which the enumera-tion is made. But since you hold so very close to "the literal meaning" [of the Scriptures] – although you are contending against "the literal meaning" – please take your proofs from this source. In the book of Proverbs it says: Three things are stately in their stride, the lion, the he-goat, and the rooster; and to these is added a fourth, a king haranguing his people 46 – not to mention the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of different natures. And I find two cherubim counted separately by Moses.47
According to the rules of your craft, how could the former things be called three when they differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter things be treated
46 Proverbs 30.29-30 (Septuagint).
47 Exodus 37.7-8: When constructing the ark of the covenant, Moses "made two cherubim of hammered gold; at the two ends of the mercy seat he made them, one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat he made the cherubim at its two ends."
Gregory of Nazianzus
as distinct units when they are in nature so similar and so united? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon as two masters,48
counting them under one designation [i.e. "master"] despite the vast difference between them, I should probably be even more ridiculous in your eyes for my method of numbering things together.
§ 19. "But to my mind," our opponent says, "those things are said to be numbered together and of the same essence when they are reciprocally designated by the same name – for example, 'three humans' or 'three gods'. But this does not apply to a group of three composed of different things." What does this retort amount to? It befits someone laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. I also will concede that Peter, Paul, and John are not three and are not "of the same being [homoousioi]," insofar as I cannot say "three Peters," or "three Pauls," or "three Johns".
For what you have reserved for names which are common to a general class of things, we claim – in conformity with your analytical figment – for proper names as well; otherwise, you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you arrogate for yourself.
What does John say? In his Catholic Epistles he says: There are three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood.
Do you think he is talking nonsense? – Talking nonsense, first, because he has been so bold as to assign a single numeral to things which are not "of the same being [homoousia]," though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are "of the same being". For who would assert that these three "witnesses" have the same essence? Talking nonsense, secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he happened upon his terms. For after using three in the masculine gender [τρεις – treis], he adds three words which are neuter [τα τρια – ta tria], contrary to the rules and regulations which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting
48 Cf. Matthew 6.24: "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Wealth [µαµωνα – mamona]." Μαµωνα, "wealth," is one of those curious survivals of an Aramaic word or phrase into the Greek of the evangelists; another example is Mark 5.41.
49 Peter, Paul, and John are not three and are not "of the same being," insofar as I cannot say "three Peters," or "three Pauls," or "three Johns". Peter, Paul, and John do not have the same existence, such that any one of their three names could be used interchangeably for the other two. 50 1 John 5.7-8.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
a masculine-gender three first, and then adding one and one and one in the neuter gender, or after a masculine-gender one and one and one to use the three not in the masculine but in the neuter gender? Is this not what you yourself reject in the case of the divinity?
What have you to say about the word καρκινος [karkinos], which can mean an animal, an instrument, and a constellation?51 And what about the word "dog"? – now something which runs on the ground, now something which swims in the sea, now something which sits in the heavens?52
Do you not see that three crabs or three dogs are being spoken of? – "Why, certainly." – Well then, are they therefore of the same essence [homoousia]? – "Only a fool would say that." – So you see how completely your argument – that only things of the same essence [homoousia] can be counted together – has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things of same essence are not always designated by the same numeral, and things not of the same essence can be designated by the same numeral, and if the nouns in both cases are stated with the numerals – what remains of your teachings?
§ 20. I note also this further point, which is not without its bearing on the subject. Don't one and one added together make two, and doesn't two, divided again, resolve back into one and one? – "Obviously." – In that case, according to your theory, if elements which are added together must have the same essence, and things which have different essences must be counted separately, then it will follow that the same things must have both the same essence and different essences! I laugh at your calculating now in one order, then in another order, of which you are so proud, as if the things themselves depend upon the order in which they are named. If this were so, according to the same law, it would follow that, since holy Scripture names the same things now in one order, then in another order on account of their equal dignity of nature, what prevents them from being at once more honourable and less honourable than themselves? I make the same observation concerning the names God and Lord, and concerning the prepositions of whom, and by whom, and in whom, by which you presume to subject the divinity to your own rules, attributing the first [i.e. God] to the Father, the second [i.e. Lord] to the Son, and the third [i.e. the prepositions] to the Holy Spirit. What would you do, then, if each of these expressions were invariably allotted to Each [of
51 That is to say, καρκινος can refer to a crab (shellfish), to a pair of pincers, or to the constellation Cancer. 52 That is to say, a pooch, a dog-fish, or one of two constellations (Canis Major ["the Larger Dog" = Orion's Hound], and Canis Minor ["the Lesser Dog"]). Gregory used the example of the dog and the dog-fish to make a similar point about the ambivalence of language in Oration 3, § 14 (pages 58-59).
Gregory of Nazianzus
the Three] – since, in fact, all these expressions are applied to all Three, as is evident to those who have studied the question? Nevertheless, you make the expressions a basis for asserting an inequality of nature and dignity.
This is sufficient for those who do not totally lack sense. But it hard for you, once you have assaulted the Spirit, to check your rush and, like a furious boar, not push your quarrel to the bitter end and charge into the blade until you have received a fatal wound in your own breast. All right, then, let us go on to see what further argument remains to you.
§ 21. Over and over again you come back at us with this reply: "It's not in Scripture." But that the Holy Spirit is not an alien smuggled into our religion but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and by those of our own day, is a point already demonstrated by many who have dealt with this subject and who have handled the holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime but by opening up the letter of the text and looking into the inner meaning. These have been deemed worthy to see the beauty hidden there, and have been illumined by the light of knowledge.
We in our turn will prove our teaching as succinctly as possible, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly ambitious by building on a foundation laid by someone else.53
But since the fact that Scripture does not very clearly or very often say in so many words that the Spirit is God, as it says first of the Father and afterwards of the Son – since this has provoked your blasphemy as well as this excessive wordiness and impiety of yours, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Scripture.
§ 22. Some things have no existence but are spoken of [in the Scriptures]; other things which do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proof of this? I am ready to give it. According to Scripture, God sleeps and awakens,
54 is angry, walks, has the cherubim for His throne.55
And yet when
53 Romans 15.20.
54 Cf. Psalm 44.23: "Awake, O Lord! why are you sleeping?" Psalm 78.65: "Then, O LORD, you woke as though from sleep." Jeremiah 31.26: "Thereupon I awoke and looked [says the LORD], and my sleep was pleasant to me." 55 God's anger. E.g. Psalm 79.5: "How long will you be angry, O LORD?* will your fury blaze like fire for ever?" Isaiah 5.25: "Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them; the mountains quaked, and their corpses were like refuse in the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still." God walks. E.g. Genesis 3.8:
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
has He ever been subject to such things [as sleeping and waking and anger]? Have you ever heard that God has a body [which walks and sits on a throne]? These are figures of speech, not realities. For we have designated as well as possible the things of God by reference to things of our own. His letting us alone and (as it were) not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up, for to wake up is to sleep no longer, as to turn towards someone is no longer to turn away. And when He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of anger. And His working now here, now there, we call walking; for walking is to move from one place to another. His resting among the holy company of heaven – so to speak, His loving to dwell among them – is His sitting and being enthroned; this, too, is an image that we derive from our own condition, for God rests on no-one and nothing so much as on the saints. His swiftness of movement is called flying,56 and His watchful care is called His "face,"57 and his giving and bestowing is His "hand".58
In short, the various powers or activities of God have been pictured for us by various bodily images.
§ 23. Again, where do you get your terms Unbegotten and Without-origin, those two citadels of your position?
Or we ourselves – where do we get our
"[Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze." God has the cherubim for His throne. E.g. Psalm 80.1: "Hear, O Shepherd of Israel, leading Joseph like a flock;* shine forth, you that are enthroned upon the cherubim." Isaiah 37.16: "O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, you are God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth."
56 Cf. Psalm 18.11: "[The LORD] mounted on cherubim and flew; / He swooped on the wings of the wind." 57 Cf. (among many other places) Psalm 27.11-12: "You speak in my heart and say, 'Seek my face.' / Your face, LORD, will I seek. Hide not your face from me, / nor turn away your servant in displeasure." 58 Cf. (again, among many other places) Psalm 145.15-16: "The eyes of all wait upon you, O LORD, / and you give them their food in due season. You open wide your hand / and satisfy the needs of every living creature." 59 Gregory's point is that the two terms in question, "unbegotten" and "without-origin" (αναρχον – anarchon), are not to be found in the Scriptures.
Gregory of Nazianzus
term Immortal? Show me exactly where these terms are found, or else we will discard them or erase them as not contained in Scripture. You are slain by your own principle – the names you rely on are overthrown and with them the rampart behind which you took shelter with such confidence. Is it not evident that they derived from passages which imply them, though the terms themselves do not actually occur? What are these passages? – I am the first, and I am the last;60 and, Before me there was no god, nor shall there be any after me.61
For all that depends on that I am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this – that nothing is before Him, and that He does not have a prior cause, – you have impli-citly given Him the titles Unbegotten and Without-origin. And to say that He has no end of being is to call Him Immortal and Imperishable. The first two pairs of terms are thus accounted for.
Now, what are the things which do not exist in fact and are not spoken of? These: "God is evil;" "A sphere is square;" "The past is present;" "Humanity is not a compound being." Have you ever known anyone so stupid as to dare to think or to assert anything of the sort?
It remains to show what are the things which both exist and are spoken of: God, human being, angel, judgement, vanity – namely, syllogisms such as yours – and the subversion of faith and emptying of the mystery.
§ 24. Seeing that there is so much diversity in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, so taken with Jewish wisdom and attached to syllables at the expense of realities? If you said "two times five" or "two times seven," and if I concluded that you meant "ten" or "fourteen"; or if you spoke of a being that had a soul and was rational and mortal, and if I concluded that you meant a human being – would you think that I was talking nonsense? Surely not, because I would be merely stating what you meant. After all, words belong as much to the one who speaks them as to the one who prompts them. Just as here I have been focusing less on your terms than on your thought, so if I found something else which is not stated at all or not clearly stated in Scripture, but which is included in Scripture's meaning, I would not refrain from expressing it out of fear of you – you slanderer of words! In this way, we will hold our own against the semi-orthodox – among whom I do not count you.62
For since you deny the titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now
60 Isaiah 41.4.
61 Isaiah 43.10. 62 the semi-orthodox are those who affirmed the divinity of the Son but denied that of the Spirit; see §§ 1-2 (pages 97-98) of the present Oration.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
I will again take up the argument broached a little earlier and show you, though you are so clever, the reason for the obscurity.63
§ 25. In the course of the history of the world, there have been two notable "shakings"
64 in human life. These are called the two Testaments – or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two "earthquakes". The first "earthquake" shifted the world from idols to the Law of Moses, the second shifted the world from the Law to the Gospel. And in the Gospel we are taught of a third "earthquake" – namely, from this earth to what cannot be moved or shaken.65 Now, the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made suddenly or at the first movement of the action. Why not? – for this is something we must know. This is why: – So that we might be persuaded, not compelled. For nothing that is involuntary is durable, as is the case with streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and secure. The former result [i.e. lack of durability] is due to one who uses force, the latter result is due to ourselves. The one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical power. God did not think it necessary for Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do good to the willing. So, like a tutor-escort66
or physician, He removes one custom and condones another, making some concessions to pleasure, just as physicians do with their patients when they artfully blend their medicine with something agreeable so that it may be taken. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits which custom and use have made honourable. For instance, the Law cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the Gospel abolished the sacrifices but did not forbid circumcision. Then, once people had accepted the
63 I.e. the Scripture's obscurity on the issue of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
64 Cf. Hebrews 12.26-27: "At that time his voice shook the earth; but now he has promised, Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven [Haggai 2.6]. This phrase, Yet once more, indicates the removal of what is shaken – that is, created things – so that what cannot be shaken may remain." 65 Hebrews 12.27 (see previous footnote). 66 Cf. Galatians 3.24-26: "Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith." The Greek word which the NRSV translates as "disciplinarian" is παιδαγωγος (paidagogos). In the ancient world, a pedagogue was a slave who either tutored the sons of his master in their first lessons at home or escorted them to school.
Gregory of Nazianzus
curtailment, they also yielded what had been conceded to them – in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision. They became Jews instead of Gentiles, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this. Having at one time defended circumcision and the purifications ordained by the Law of Moses, he developed to the point where he could say: Why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?67
His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter conduct, to maturity.
§ 26. To this I may compare the case of theology, except that the procedure is reversed. For in the case that I just illustrated, the change is made by successive subtractions; here, perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands thus: – The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New Testament manifested the Son, and suggested the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the divinity of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when the Son's divinity was not yet received was it safe to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Spirit – lest, like those loaded with food beyond their strength and looking directly at the light of the sun with eyes as yet too weak to bear it, people risk the loss even of what was within the reach of their powers. But by gradual additions and (as David says) ascents,
68 by advances and progress from glory to glory,69
the light of the Trinity comes to shine with the greater clarity.
It was for this reason, I think, that the Spirit gradually came to dwell in the disciples [of Jesus], measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him at the beginning of the Gospel, after the passion, after the ascension. He perfected their powers, He was breathed upon them,
70 and He appeared in tongues of fire.71
And indeed little by little He was disclosed by
67 Galatians 5.11.
68 Cf. Psalm 84.6: "[Those whose hearts are set on the pilgrims' way] will climb from height to height, / and the God of gods will appear in Zion." 69 2 Corinthians 3.18. 70 Cf. John 20.22: "When [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " 71 Acts 2.1-4: "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and he will give you another Advocate, the Spirit of truth.72 He said this so that He might not seem to be a rival God,73 or to be speaking to them by some other authority. Again: The Father will send him, but in my name.74 He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the will send. And again: I will send [the Advocate to you]75 – there you have His own dignity. Then: He will come 76
– there you have the authority of the Spirit.
§ 27. You see enlightenment breaking upon us gradually. You also see the order of theology,
which it is better for us to abide by – neither proclaiming things too suddenly nor keeping them hidden to the very end. For the former course [of proclaiming things too suddenly] would be inept, the latter course [of keeping them hidden to the end] would be impious; the former would be calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people.
I will add another point to what I have said, one which may already have occurred to some others, but which I think a fruit of my own thought. Our Saviour filled his disciples with many teachings but He had certain things which, He said, could not be borne by them at that time,
78 perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned; therefore He kept them hidden. And again He said that all things would be taught us by the Spirit at the time of His coming to dwell among us.79
One of these things, I take it, was the Spirit's own divinity,
on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability."
72 John 14.16-17. 73 A rival God – i.e. a rival to the Father. 74 John 14.26. 75 John 16.7. 76 John 16.8. 77 the order of theology. By theology Gregory here means God's revelation or self-disclosure, and (as Gregory suggests) its "order" is geared to the spiritual maturity of the hearers, whether they are ready to take the next step in understanding what God has revealed to faith. 78 John 16.12: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." 79 John 16.13: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
Gregory of Nazianzus
to be made clear later on when such knowledge would be more opportune and more readily received, after our Saviour resumed His place in glory. For then it [sc. the knowledge of the Spirit's divinity] would no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character. For what greater thing than this did He promise or the Spirit teach? If indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the majesty of God, it is this promise and this teaching.
§ 28. Such is my position, then, with regard to these questions. I hope it will always be my position, and that of whoever is dear to me; to worship the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, three individualities,80 one divinity, undivided in honour and glory and essence and kingdom – as one of our own inspired philosophers showed not long ago.81 If any are otherwise minded, or follow the temper of the times, now being of one mind, now of another, thinking unsoundly on the greatest subject of all, let them not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture says,82 nor the glory of its brightness. For if the Spirit is not to be worshipped, how can He deify me by baptism? And if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an object of adoration – and if an object of adoration, He must be God. The one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our new birth, and from the new birth our new creation,83
and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from whom it is derived.
But now shall burst upon you the swarm of testimonies which will demonstrate to
§ 29. This is what could be said, assuming that "it's not in Scripture".
80 three individualities = ιδιοτητας (idiotetas). We are used to saying "three persons," but that is not the word that Gregory uses.
81 Gregory probably means his friend Basil the Great (d. 379), who wrote his treatise On the Holy Spirit in 374-375. In that treatise, Basil argued for the equality – indeed, the identity – of honour, glory, and sovereignty to be attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. 82 Cf. Job 3.9 (Septuagint); 2 Peter 1.19: "You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." 83 our new creation. Gregory uses the word αναπλησις (anaplesis), which means "reconstruction," "rebuilding". He could thus be referring not to "the new creation" so much as to the restoration of our humanity to its state before the fall of Adam and Eve. 84 Cf. § 21 (above, page 112).
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
all who are not too dense, or total strangers to the Spirit, that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is most assuredly "in Scripture". Look at these facts: – Christ comes into the world; the Spirit goes before Him.85 He is baptised; the Spirit bears witness.86 He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him.87 He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies Him.88 He ascends; the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there which make up our idea of God, that the Spirit cannot do? What titles are there which make up our idea of God, that are not applied to the Spirit, except only "Unbegotten" and "Begotten"? For it was necessary that what distinguishes the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to Them, in order that there be no confusion in the divinity which sets all things, even chaos itself, in due arrangement and good order. Indeed, I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles and how many names are violated by those who attack the Spirit. He is called "the Spirit of God,"89 "the Spirit of Christ,"90 "the mind of Christ,"91 "the Spirit of the Lord,"92
and "the Lord" in
85 Cf. Luke 1.35: "The angel said to [Mary], 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.' "
86 Luke 3.21-22: "Now when all the people were baptised, and when Jesus also had been baptised and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.' " 87 Luke 4.2, 14: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness." 88 Matthew 12.28: "[Jesus said,] 'But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.' " 89 1 Corinthians 2.11: "For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God's except the Spirit of God." 90 Romans 8.9: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." 91 1 Corinthians 2.13, 16: "And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual…. For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? [Isa. 40.13] But we have the mind of Christ." 92 Wisdom of Solomon 1.7: "Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said…."
Gregory of Nazianzus
His own right,93 "the Spirit of adoption,"94 "of truth,"95 "of freedom;"96 "the Spirit of wisdom, "of understanding," "of counsel," "of might," "of knowledge," "of godliness," "of the fear of God".97 For He is the Maker of all these qualities, filling all with His essence, containing all things, filling the world in His essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, governing; He sanctifies by nature and not by adoption, He is not sanctified; He measures, He is not measured; He is shared in but does not share; He fills but is not filled; He contains and is not contained; He is received as an inheritance, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; He is held out as a threat.98 He is "the finger of God";99 fire, like God – to manifest, as I take it, His oneness of being [with the Father and the Son]; – the Spirit who creates all things, who by baptism and by resurrection creates anew; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who blows wherever and to whatever extent He chooses;100
the Spirit who leads, speaks, sends forth, sets apart, is angry, is put to the test; who reveals, enlightens, gives life – or rather, who is Light itself and Life itself; – who makes us His
93 2 Corinthians 3.17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit."
94 Romans 8.15: "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption." 95 John 14.17: "This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you." 96 2 Corinthians 3.17: "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." 97 Isaiah 11.2: "The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him [i.e. the branch of Jesse], the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD." 98 Mark 3.29: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." 99 Luke 11.20: "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you." This is part of Jesus' response to those who said he "cast out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons". Luke's account of the episode makes no mention of the Spirit; Gregory was evidently harmonising it with Mark 3.22-29. 100 John 3.8: "[Jesus said,] 'The wind [το πνευµα – to pneuma] blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit [εκ του πνευµατος – ek tou pneumatos].' "
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
temples;101 who deifies; who conducts us in the way of perfection, so that He precedes baptism and is to be sought after baptism; who does all that God does. He is divided into tongues of fire; He distributes spiritual gifts; making apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. He is intelligent, manifold, clear, piercing, unpolluted, irresistible102
– all of which is the same as saying that the Spirit is supreme Wisdom and works in a variety of ways; that He illumines and penetrates all things; that He is own master, unchangeable, almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle – the angelic powers, I think, – as well as the spirits of the apostles and prophets in the same manner, though not in the same places, since they lived here and there – thus showing that nothing circumscribes Him.
§ 30. Those who speak and teach these things, and who moreover call Him another Paraclete
103 in the sense of another God; those who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven,104 and those who branded Ananias and Sapphira with such fearful infamy for having lied to the Holy Spirit – that is to say, for having lied to God and not to a human105
– what do you think of such people? Do they proclaim that the Spirit is God, or something else? Now really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need some one to teach you. So important, then, and so vivid are His names. Why is it necessary to lay before you these testimonies word for word?
And whatever the Scriptures also say in more lowly fashion – that He is given, sent, distributed; that He is the gift, the bounty, the inspiration, the
101 1 Corinthians 3.16: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" 102 Wisdom 7.22-23: "There is in [Lady Wisdom] a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle." 103 John 14.16: "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate [allon Parakleton], to be with you for ever."
104 Mark 3.29; see footnote 98 (page 120). 105 Acts 5.1-11.
Gregory of Nazianzus
promise, the intercession for us106 and any other expressions of the sort (not to recite them all one by one) – is to be referred to the First Cause, in order to show from whom He comes and, on the other hand, to show that three separate principles, as conceived by polytheists,107 are not admitted. For it is equally impious to confuse like Sabellius and to divide like Arius – the former with respect to the person,108
the latter with respect to the natures.
§ 31. I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important subject; but I have been unable to discover anything on earth with which to compare the divine nature. Even if I did discover some tiny likeness, what was most important [about God] eluded me and left me still here below with my example. As others have done before, I have imagined a source, a fountain, and a river, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. For in these there is no distinction in time, nor are they separated from one another with respect to continuity, though each of the three seem to be distinguished in some way by its proper characteristics. But I was afraid in the first place that, by this analogy, I might be suggesting some sort of flow in the divine nature, which would exclude stability. Secondly, I was afraid that this image would introduce a numerical unity [of person]. For the source and the spring and the river are only one thing, though they take different forms.
§ 32. Again, I thought of the sun, a ray, and light. But here once more there was a danger that people might imagine a certain compound in the nature which is uncompounded, such as there is in the sun and what belongs to it. In the second place, there is the risk that we should assign the essence to the Father but deny any distinctive existence to the others, and thus make
106 Romans 8.26: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weak-ness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words." 107 as conceived by polytheists. This phrase renders a single word (an adverb) in Gregory's text – πολυθεως (polytheos), "polytheistically". It appears to be a "hapax legomenon," the one and only occurrence of this word in all of Greek literature. 108 With respect to the person (τω προσωπω – to prosopo). It is unusual for Gregory to use the term προσωπον to designate "divine person"; he normally used the term hypostasis. Given the association of προσωπον with a theatrical mask, it may have struck him as the most appropriate term when referring to Sabellius.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
Them only powers of God, existing in Him without being hypostases.109
For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but they are only emanations from the sun and attributes of its essence. And if we stick to this analogy, we also run the risk of attributing both being and non-being to God – and nothing could be more absurd than that. I have also heard that some one has suggested an explanation in these terms: – A ray of the sun flashing upon a wall and trembling with the movement of the moisture which the beam has taken up in mid-air, and then, being checked by the hard surface, has set up a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid movements, and is one as much as it is many, and many as much as it is one; because by the swiftness of its uniting and separating it escapes before the eye can see it.
§ 33. But it is not possible for me to make use even of this analogy; because it is quite clear what gives the ray its motion. But there is nothing prior to God which could set Him in motion; for He is Himself the cause of all things, and He has no prior cause. And secondly, this analogy will not do because here also there is a suggestion of such things as composition, diffusion, and an unsettled and unstable nature – none of which we can suppose in the divine nature. In a word, there is no fixed point for my mind in these illustrations from which to consider the Object which I am trying to represent to myself, unless one shrewdly accepts one point of the image while rejecting the others. Finally, it seems best to me to let the images and the shadows go, as being deceitful and falling very far short of the truth, and to attach myself to the more reverent conception, relying on few words, using the guidance of the Holy Ghost, keeping to the end as my genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which I have received from Him. Thus shall I continue my way through this life, persuading all others, so far as I am able, to worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one and only divinity and the one and only power: To whom be all glory and honour and might for ever and ever.
Amen.
109 hypostases. This is Gregory's technical term for "persons"; it refers not only to an individual's presence or manner of presence to others, but also to the underlying reality which makes the individual who he or she is in relation to others. 110 Revelation 1.6, 5.13.