On the Holy Trinity
To Eustathius.
All
you who study medicine have, one may say, humanity for your profession: and I
think that one who preferred your science to all the serious pursuits of life
would form the proper judgment, and not miss the right decision, if it be true
that life, the most valued of all things, is a thing to be shunned, and full of
pain, if it may not be had with health, and health your art supplies. But in
your own case the science is in a notable degree of double efficacy; you
enlarge for yourself the bounds of its humanity, since you do not limit the
benefit of your art to men's bodies, but take thought also for the cure of
troubles of the mind. I say this, not only following the common reports, but
because I have learned it from experience, as in many other matters, so
especially at this time in this indescribable malice of our enemies, which you
skilfully dispersed when it swept like some evil flood over our life,
dispelling this violent inflammation of our heart by your fomentation of soothing
words. I thought it right, indeed, in view of the continuous and varied effort
of our enemies against us, to keep silence, and to receive their attack
quietly, rather than to speak against men armed with falsehood, that most
mischievous weapon, which sometimes drives its point even through truth. But
you did well in urging me not to betray the truth, but to refute the
slanderers, lest, by a success of falsehood against truth, many might be
injured.
I
may say that those who conceived this causeless hatred for us seemed to be
acting very much on the principle of Æsop's fable. For just as he makes his
wolf bring some charges against the lamb (feeling ashamed, I suppose, of
seeming to destroy, without just pretext, one who had done him no hurt), and
then, when the lamb easily swept away all the slanderous charges brought
against him, makes the wolf by no means slacken his attack, but carry the day
with his teeth when he is vanquished by justice; so those who were as keen for
hatred against us as if it were something good (feeling perhaps some shame of
seeming to hate without cause), make up charges and complaints against us,
while they do not abide consistently by any of the things they say, but allege,
now that one thing, after a little while that another, and then again that
something else is the cause of their hostility to us. Their malice does not
take a stand on any ground, but when they are dislodged from one charge they
cling to another, and from that again they seize upon a third, and if all their
charges are refuted they do not give up their hate. They charge us with
preaching three Gods, and din into the ears of the multitude this slander,
which they never rest from maintaining persuasively. Then truth fights on our
side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse
with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and
hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find
Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the
subject of continual attacks upon us. Once more, we oppose to this assault our
wonted armour of truth, and show that we abhor this form of heresy just as much
as Judaism. What then? Are they weary after such efforts, and content to rest?
Not at all. Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint
against us in this way:— They allege that while we confess three Persons we say
that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this
assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of
their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does
not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to
make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom
is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing
custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let
the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely
be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
Well,
what is their charge? There are two brought forward together in the accusation
against us; one, that we divide the Persons; the other, that we do not employ
any of the names which belong to God in the plural number, but (as I said
already) speak of the goodness as one, and of the power, and the Godhead, and
all such attributes in the singular. With regard to the dividing of the
Persons, those cannot well object who hold the doctrine of the diversity of
substances in the Divine nature. For it is not to be supposed that those who
say that there are three substances do not also say that there are three
Persons. So this point only is called in question: that those attributes which
are ascribed to the Divine nature we employ in the singular.
But
our argument in reply to this is ready and clear. For any one who condemns
those who say that the Godhead is one, must necessarily support either those
who say that there are more than one, or those who say that there is none. But
the inspired teaching does not allow us to say that there are more than one,
since, whenever it uses the term, it makes mention of the Godhead in the
singular; as—In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead Colossians 2:9
; and, elsewhere—The invisible things of Him from the foundation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead Romans 1:20 . If, then, to extend the number of
the Godhead to a multitude belongs to those only who suffer from the plague of
polytheistic error, and on the other hand utterly to deny the Godhead would be
the doctrine of atheists, what doctrine is that which accuses us for saying
that the Godhead is one? But they reveal more clearly the aim of their
argument. As regards the Father, they admit the fact that He is God , and that
the Son likewise is honoured with the attribute of Godhead; but the Spirit, Who
is reckoned with the Father and the Son, they cannot include in their
conception of Godhead, but hold that the power of the Godhead, issuing from the
Father to the Son, and there halting, separates the nature of the Spirit from
the Divine glory. And so, as far as we may in a short space, we have to answer
this opinion also.
What,
then, is our doctrine? The Lord, in delivering the saving Faith to those who
become disciples of the word, joins with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit
also; and we affirm that the union of that which has once been joined is
continual; for it is not joined in one thing, and separated in others. But the
power of the Spirit, being included with the Father and the Son in the
life-giving power, by which our nature is transferred from the corruptible life
to immortality, and in many other cases also, as in the conception of Good, and
Holy, and Eternal, Wise, Righteous, Chief, Mighty, and in fact everywhere, has
an inseparable association with them in all the attributes ascribed in a sense
of special excellence. And so we consider that it is right to think that that
which is joined to the Father and the Son in such sublime and exalted
conceptions is not separated from them in any. For we do not know of any
differences by way of superiority and inferiority in attributes which express
our conceptions of the Divine nature, so that we should suppose it an act of
piety (while allowing to the Spirit community in the inferior attributes) to
judge Him unworthy of those more exalted. For all the Divine attributes,
whether named or conceived, are of like rank one with another, in that they are
not distinguishable in respect of the signification of their subject. For the
appellation of the Good does not lead our minds to one subject, and that of the
Wise, or the Mighty, or the Righteous to another, but the thing to which all
the attributes point is one; and, if you speak of God, you signify the same
Whom you understood by the other attributes. If then all the attributes
ascribed to the Divine nature are of equal force as regards their designation
of the subject, leading our minds to the same subject in various aspects, what
reason is there that one, while allowing to the Spirit community with the
Father and the Son in the other attributes, should exclude Him from the Godhead
alone? It is absolutely necessary either to allow to Him community in this
also, or not to admit His community in the others. For if He is worthy in the
case of those attributes, He is surely not less worthy in this. But if He is
less, according to their phrase , so that He is excluded from community with
the Father and the Son in the attribute of Godhead, neither is He worthy to
share in any other of the attributes which belong to God. For the attributes,
when rightly understood and mutually compared by that notion which we
contemplate in each case, will be found to imply nothing less than the
appellation of God. And a proof of this is that many even of the inferior
existences are called by this very name. Further, the Divine Scripture is not
sparing in this use of the name even in the case of things incongruous, as when
it names idols by the appellation of God. For it says, Let the gods that have
not made the heavens and the earth perish, and be cast down beneath the earth ;
and, all the gods of the heathen are devils ; and the witch in her
incantations, when she brings up for Saul the spirits that he sought for, says
that she saw gods 1 Samuel 28:13 . And again Balaam, being an augur
and a seer, and engaging in divination, and having obtained for himself the
instruction of devils and magical augury, is said in Scripture to receive
counsel from God. Numbers xxii One may show by collecting many instances
of the same kind from the Divine Scripture, that this attribute has no
supremacy over the other attributes which are proper to God, seeing that, as
has been said, we find it predicated, in an equivocal sense, even of things
incongruous; but we are nowhere taught in Scripture that the names of the Holy,
the Incorruptible, the Righteous, the Good, are made common to things unworthy.
If, then, they do not deny that the Holy Spirit has community with the Father
and the Son in those attributes which, in their sense of special excellence,
are piously predicated only of the Divine nature, what reason is there to
pretend that He is excluded from community in this only, wherein it was shown
that, by an equivocal use, even devils and idols share?
But
they say that this appellation is indicative of nature, and that, as the nature
of the Spirit is not common to the Father and the Son, for this reason neither
does he partake in the community of this attribute. Let them show, then,
whereby they discern this diversity of nature. For if it were possible that the
Divine nature should be contemplated in its absolute essence, and that we
should find by appearances what is and what is not proper to it, we should
surely have no need of other arguments or evidence for the comprehension of the
question. But since it is exalted above the understanding of the questioners,
and we have to argue from some particular evidence about those things which
evade our knowledge , it is absolutely necessary for us to be guided to the
investigation of the Divine nature by its operations. If, then, we see that the
operations which are wrought by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
differ one from the other, we shall conjecture from the different character of
the operations that the natures which operate are also different. For it cannot
be that things which differ in their very nature should agree in the form of
their operation: fire does not chill, nor ice give warmth, but their operations
are distinguished together with the difference between their natures. If, on
the other hand, we understand that the operation of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit is one, differing or varying in nothing, the oneness of their
nature must needs be inferred from the identity of their operation. The Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit alike give sanctification, and life, and light,
and comfort, and all similar graces. And let no one attribute the power of
sanctification in a special sense to the Spirit, when he hears the Saviour in
the Gospel saying to the Father concerning His disciples, Father, sanctify them
in Your name. So too all the other gifts
are wrought in those who are worthy alike by the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit: every grace and power, guidance, life, comfort, the change to
immortality, the passage to liberty, and every other boon that exists, which
descends to us.
But
the order of things which is above us, alike in the region of intelligence and
in that of sense (if by what we know we may form conjectures about those things
also which are above us), is itself established within the operation and power
of the Holy Spirit, every man receiving the benefit according to his own desert
and need. For although the arrangement and ordering of things above our nature
is obscure to our sense, yet one may more reasonably infer, by the things which
we know, that in them too the power of the Spirit works, than that it is
banished from the order existing in the things above us. For he who asserts the
latter view advances his blasphemy in a naked and unseemly shape, without being
able to support his absurd opinion by any argument. But he who agrees that
those things which are above us are also ordered by the power of the Spirit
with the Father and the Son, makes his assertion on this point with the support
of clear evidence from his own life. For as the nature of man is compounded of
body and soul, and the angelic nature has for its portion life without a body,
if the Holy Spirit worked only in the case of bodies, and the soul were not
capable of receiving the grace that comes from Him, one might perhaps infer
from this, if the intellectual and incorporeal nature which is in us were above
the power of the Spirit, that the angelic life too was in no need of His grace.
But if the gift of the Holy Spirit is principally a grace of the soul, and the
constitution of the soul is linked by its intellectuality and invisibility to
the angelic life, what person who knows how to see a consequence would not
agree, that every intellectual nature is governed by the ordering of the Holy
Spirit? For since it is said the angels do always behold the Face of My Father
which is in heaven Matthew 18:10, and it is not possible to behold the
person of the Father otherwise than by fixing the sight upon it through His
image; and the image of the person of the Father is the Only-begotten, and to
Him again no man can draw near whose mind has not been illumined by the Holy
Spirit, what else is shown from this but that the Holy Spirit is not separated
from any operation which is wrought by the Father and the Son? Thus the
identity of operation in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows plainly the
undistinguishable character of their substance. So that even if the name of
Godhead does indicate nature, the community of substance shows that this
appellation is properly applied also to the Holy Spirit. But I know not how
these makers-up of all sorts of arguments bring the appellation of Godhead to
be an indication of nature, as though they had not heard from the Scripture
that it is a matter of appointment , in which way nature does not arise. For
Moses was appointed as a god of the Egyptians, since He Who gave him the
oracles, etc., spoke thus to him, I have given you as a god to Pharaoh
Exodus 7:1 . Thus the force of the appellation is the indication of some
power, either of oversight or of operation. But the Divine nature itself, as it
is, remains unexpressed by all the names that are conceived for it, as our
doctrine declares. For in learning that He is beneficent, and a judge, good,
and just, and all else of the same kind, we learn diversities of His
operations, but we are none the more able to learn by our knowledge of His operations
the nature of Him Who works. For when one gives a definition of any one of
these attributes, and of the nature to which the names are applied, he will not
give the same definition of both: and of things of which the definition is
different, the nature also is distinct. Indeed the substance is one thing which
no definition has been found to express, and the significance of the names
employed concerning it varies, as the names are given from some operation or
accident. Now the fact that there is no distinction in the operations we learn
from the community of the attributes, but of the difference in respect of
nature we find no clear proof, the identity of operations indicating rather, as
we said, community of nature. If, then, Godhead is a name derived from
operation, as we say that the operation of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit is one, so we say that the Godhead is one: or if, according to the
view of the majority, Godhead is indicative of nature, since we cannot find any
diversity in their nature, we not unreasonably define the Holy Trinity to be of
one Godhead.
But
if any one were to call this appellation indicative of dignity, I cannot tell
by what reasoning he drags the word to this significance. Since however one may
hear many saying things of this kind, in order that the zeal of its opponents
may not find a ground for attacking the truth, we go out of our way with those
who take this view, to consider such an opinion, and say that, even if the name
does denote dignity, in this case too the appellation will properly befit the
Holy Spirit. For the attribute of kingship denotes all dignity; and our God, it
says, is King from everlasting. But the
Son, having all things which are the Father's, is Himself proclaimed a King by
Holy Scripture. Now the Divine Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is the
unction of the Only-Begotten Acts 10:38, interpreting the dignity of the
Spirit by a transference of the terms commonly used in this world. For as, in
ancient days, in those who were advanced to kingship, the token of this dignity
was the unction which was applied to them, and when this took place there was
thenceforth a change from private and humble estate to the superiority of rule,
and he who was deemed worthy of this grace received after his anointing another
name, being called, instead of an ordinary man, the Anointed of the Lord: for
this reason, that the dignity of the Holy Spirit might be more clearly shown to
men, He was called by the Scripture the sign of the Kingdom, and Unction,
whereby we are taught that the Holy Spirit shares in the glory and kingdom of
the Only-begotten Son of God. For as in Israel it was not permitted to enter
upon the kingdom without the unction being previously given, so the word, by a
transference of the terms in use among ourselves, indicates the equality of
power, showing that not even the kingdom of the Son is received without the
dignity of the Holy Spirit. And for this reason He is properly called Christ,
since this name gives the proof of His inseparable and indivisible conjunction
with the Holy Spirit. If, then, the Only-begotten God is the Anointed, and the
Holy Spirit is His Unction, and the appellation of Anointed points to the
Kingly authority, and the anointing is the token of His Kingship, then the Holy
Spirit shares also in His dignity. If, therefore, they say that the attribute
of Godhead is significative of dignity, and the Holy Spirit is shown to share
in this last quality, it follows that He Who partakes in the dignity will also
partake in the name which represents it.
