[A.D. 210-280.] When we reflect upon the history of Solomon, and his marvellous contributions to the sacred canon of Scripture, we must not be surprised to find a Tatian, a Tertullian, and a Novatian among the Fathers. We deplore the lapse of such characters, but after death they are not subject to human judgment. Let us cherish the gratitude we owe to them for their good works, and use their testimony so far as it was faithful; covering their shame with the mantle of charity, and praying for grace never to imitate their faults. “If any teacher have wandered from the faith, it is permitted,” says St. Vincent of Lerins1, “by Divine Providence for our trial, whether we love God or not, with all our heart and with all our soul.”

We find Novatian apparently exercising jurisdiction, sede vacante, in Rome, with his co-presbyters, and as vicar-general (to use a later term) corresponding with Cyprian. This was about A.D. 250, after the death of Fabian. His marked abilities and real services had fitted him to preside thus over the Roman presbytery, and to be their “secretary for foreign affairs.” But he laboured under the impediment of clinic baptism, and had not an unblemished record, if we credit Eusebius,2 in his conduct during persecution.

He was not called, therefore, to the episcopate. Cornelius was made bishop June 4, A.D. 251; and, apparently, disappointed ambition soon bore its thorny fruits. “Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms,” said Tertullian; [Vol. 3. cap. 17, p. 677, this series.] even in that period when to be a bishop was so often to be a martyr. And we find Novatian grasping a shadowy titular bishopric, which, wholly irregular and universally disowned, could have been to such a man the source of nothing but misery. I say, “to such a man,” for, without hearing the other side, I cannot accept what was unquestionably supposed to be fact amid the excitements of the times. And Novatian was not a common or a vulgar character. The arguments of Lardner3 teach us at least to be Christians, – to accept the facts, but “forbear to judge,” seeing, as that writer observes, “we have not one remaining line of his in self-defence or against his adversaries.”

Now as to his orthodoxy, so far as his extant writings are concerned, I think any scholar, not anxious to make out a case, will abide by the candid judgment of Bull, who defends his reputation against Petavius.4 “By no means,” he says, “should we tolerate that injustice of the Jesuit Petau towards the ancient writers, against their manifest mind and purpose; twisting, as he everywhere does, their sound and Catholic sayings into a sense alien and heretical.”

The work upon the Trinity, which is a most valuable contribution to Ante-Nicene theology, is said by Cave to have been written about A.D. 257; and that upon the Jewish meats seems to have been composed during the Decian persecution. His heresy, such as it was, turned upon unrelenting discipline, and was a sin against charity, which is greater than faith itself. It violated the “seventy times seven” maxim of our Lord, and the comprehensive precept, “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” It wounded Christian unity at a perilous period, and when every breach in the wall of the fold was sure to let in the wolves.

“He may have aspired to the papal chair,” says a contemporary writer5 of no mean repute, adding, “to which he had the best claim.” Then he says, “Novatian was elected anti-pope by a minority, and consecrated by three Italian bishops.” Is this history? What impression must it give to the young student? The learned writer whom I quote shows clearly enough that there was no “papacy” in primitive times, as that word is universally understood. Why, then, put a face upon Antiquity so utterly misleading? Neither Novatian, nor his consecrators, nor Cornelius, against whom he rebelled, ever dreamed of anything more than of an episcopal chair; venerable, indeed, for its succession of pastors from the times of SS. Peter and Paul, but as yet hardly felt in the Christian brotherhood; which for two centuries had produced many pious but few eminent men, and in which Novatian himself was the earliest contributor to the “Latin Christianity,” already founded and flourishing, not in Italy, but in Northern Africa.

The following is the Introductory Notice of the Edinburgh translator, the Rev. Dr. Wallis, who, I am glad to observe, is tender towards our author’s memory: – 

The biography of Novatian belongs to the ecclesiastical history of the third century. He was, or is reputed to have been, the founder of a sect which claimed for itself the name of “Puritan”6 (καθαροί). For a long time he was in determined opposition to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in regard to the admission of the lapsed and penitent into the Church; but the facts of the controversy and much of our information in regard to Novatian are to be got only from his enemies, the Roman bishop and his adherents. Accordingly, some have believed all the accusations that have been brought against him, while others have been inclined to doubt them all.7

It is not known where Novatian was born. Some have appealed to Philostorgius8 in behalf of the opinion that he was a Phrygian; but others maintain that, supposing this to be a statement of the historian, it is a mere conjecture of his, based on the character of Novatian’s teaching. It is also stated by Cyprian, that he was a Stoic before he passed over to the Christian Church; but this also has been doubted. While amongst the catechumens, he was seized by a violent disease, attributed to demoniac agency; and, being near death, he received baptism. He was ordained presbyter by Fabian, bishop of Rome, against the wishes of the rest of the clergy, who objected thereto because he had received clinic baptism. [see p. 400, rsub 479, supra] The subsequent circumstances of his schism and his contest with Cornelius, are stated at length with no friendly spirit in a letter to Antonianus by Cyprian. (Ep. li. p. 327, supra)9 Socrates10 states that he suffered martyrdom; but his authority, amid the silence of all others, is not sufficient to guarantee the fact.

Novatian composed many works. The following are extant: – 

I. De Trinitate, formerly attributed by some to Tertullian, by others to Cyprian; but now on all hands allowed to be the work of Novatian, to whom Jerome expressly assigns it.11 It was written after the heresy of Sabellius, which appeared 256 A.D. 

II. De Cibis Judaicis: at first also attributed by some to Tertullian or Cyprian; but now assigned to Novatian on the testimony of Jerome. It was written during the time of the Decian persecution, about 250 A.D.

III. Novatian was the author of the letter [Ep. xxx. p. 308, supra] addressed by the Roman clergy to Cyprian. So Cyprian himself states. [Ep. li. 5, p. 328, supra. Also, see Ep. xli. 2, p. 320, supra] Some have also attributed to him Ep. xxix. without any authority.

IV. Jerome attributes to him writings on Circumcision, on the Sabbath, on the Passover, on the Priesthood, on Prayer, on Attalus, on the Present Crisis, and Letters.

The best editions of Novatian are by Welchman, Oxford, 1724; and by Jackson, London, 1728.

FOOTNOTES

1 In his Commonitory, cap. xix. p. 57, ed. Baltimore, 1847. This useful edition contains the text, and a translation, with valuable notes, by the late Bishop Whittingham of Maryland.

2 H. E., vi.

3 His elaborate chapter (xlvii. and the note) must be read by all students who wish to understand the matter, or even to read Cyprian advantageously.

4 Defensio Fid. Nicaen., Works, vol. v. p. 374.

5 Dr. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. ii. p. 851.

6 [This is again putting a false face upon Antiquity. Purists, rather; i.e., in morals.]

7 See the last portion of Section Second of Neander’s Church History.

8 Hist. Eccl., lib. viii. c. 15. The text of Valesius has Οὔατον, not Novatus or Novatian.

9 [How could it be stated truly and yet seem friendly? The unfortunate man had violated discipline, and broken his most sacred obligations to the Christian flock, at a time when the heathen persecutions made all such scandals little less than mutiny against Christ himself. Consult Mat_18:7 and Luk_17:1. We owe to such discipline the sure canon of Scripture.]

10 Hist. Eccl., lib. iv. c. 28.

11 De viris Illustribus, c. 70.

Preface.

Novatian’s treatise concerning the Trinity is divided into thirty-one chapters. He first of all, from chapter first to the eighth, considers those words of the Rule of Truth or Faith,1 which bid us believe on God the Father and Lord Almighty, the absolutely perfect Creator of all things. Wherein among the other divine attributes he moreover ascribes to Him, partly from reason and partly from the Holy Scriptures, immensity, eternity, unity, goodness, immutability, immortality, spirituality; and adds that neither passions nor members can be attributed to God, and that these things are only asserted of God in Scripture anthropopathically.2

Chap. I.

Argument. — Novatian, with the View of Treating of the Trinity, Sets Forth from the Rule of Faith That We Should First of All Believe in God the Father and Lord Omnipotent, the Absolute Founder of All Things. The Works of Creation Are Beautifully Described. Man’s Free-Will Is Asserted; God’s Mercy in Inflicting Penalty on Man Is Shown; the Condition After Death of the Souls of the Righteous and Unrighteous Is Determined.

The Rule of truth requires that we should first of all things believe on God the Father and Lord Omnipotent; that is, the absolutely perfect Founder of all things, who has suspended the heavens in lofty sublimity, has established the earth with its lower mass, has diffused the seas with their fluent moisture, and has distributed all these things, both adorned and supplied with their appropriate and fitting instruments. For in the solid vault of heaven He has both awakened the light-bringing Sunrisings; He has filled up the white globe of the moon in its monthly3 waxings as a solace for the night; He, moreover, kindles the starry rays with the varied splendours of glistening light; and He has willed all these things in their legitimate tracks to circle the entire compass of the world, so as to cause days, months, years, signs, and seasons, and benefits of other kinds for the human race. On the earth, moreover, He has lifted up the loftiest mountains to a peak, He has thrown down valleys into the depths, He has smoothly levelled the plains, He has ordained the animal herds usefully for the various services of men. He has also established the oak trees of the woods for the future benefit of human uses. He has developed the harvests into food. He has unlocked the mouths of the springs, and has poured them into the flowing rivers. And after these things, lest He should not also provide for the very delights of the eyes, He has clothed all things with the various colours of the flowers for the pleasure of the beholders. Even in the sea itself, moreover, although it was in itself marvellous both for its extent and its utility, He has made manifold creatures, sometimes of moderate, sometimes of vast bodily size, testifying by the variety of His appointment to the intelligence of the Artificer. And, not content with these things, lest perchance the roaring and rushing waters should seize upon a foreign element at the expense of its human possessor, He has enclosed its limits with shores;4 so that when the raving billow and the foaming water should come from its deep bosom, it should return again unto itself, and not transgress its concealed bounds, but keep its prescribed laws, so that man might the rather be careful to observe the divine laws, even as the elements themselves observed them. And after these things He also placed man at the head of the world, arid man, too, made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight, that he might imitate God; and although the first elements of his body were earthly, yet the substance was inspired by a heavenly and divine breathing. And when He had given him all things for his service, He willed that he alone should be free. And lest, again, an unbounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exercise his free will, in the contempt of the law that was given. For, on the one hand, it had behoved him to be free, lest the image of God should, unfittingly be in bondage; and on the other, the law was to be added, so that an unbridled liberty might not break forth even to a contempt of the Giver. So that he might receive as a consequence both worthy rewards and a deserved punishment, having in his own power that which he might choose to do, by the tendency of his mind in either direction: whence, therefore, by envy, mortality comes back upon him; seeing that, although he might escape it by obedience, he rushes into it by hurrying to be God under the influence of perverse counsel. Still, nevertheless, God indulgently tempered his punishment by cursing, not so much himself, as his labours upon earth. And, moreover, what is required does not come without man’s knowledge; but He shows forth man’s hope of future discovery5 and salvation in Christ. And that he is prevented from touching of the wood of the tree of life, is not caused by the malignant poison of envy, but lest, living for ever without Christ’s previous pardon of his sins, he should always bear about with him for his punishment an immortality of guilt. Nevertheless also, in higher regions; that is, above even the firmament itself, regions which are not now discernible by our eyes, He previously ordained angels, he arranged spiritual powers, He put in command thrones and powers, and founded many other infinite spaces of heavens, and unbounded works of His mysteries; so that this world, immense as it is, might almost appear rather as the Latest, than the only work of corporeal things. And truly,6 what lies beneath the earth is not itself void of distributed and arranged powers. For there is a place whither the souls of the just and the unjust are taken, conscious of the anticipated dooms of fixture judgment; so that we might behold the overflowing greatness of God’s works in all directions, not shut up within the bosom of this world, however capacious as we have said, but might also be able to conceive of them beneath both the abysses and the depths I of the world itself. And thus considering the greatness of the works, we should worthily admire the Artificer of such a structure.

Chap. II.

Argument. — God Is Above All, Things, Himself Containing All Things, Immense, Eternal, Transcending the Mind of Man; Inexplicable in Discourse, Loftier than All Sublimity.

And over all these things He Himself, containing all things, having nothing vacant beyond Himself, has left room for no superior God, such as some people conceive. Since, indeed, He Himself has included all things in the bosom of perfect greatness and power, He is always intent upon His own work, and pervading all things, and moving all things, and quickening all things, and beholding all things, and so linking together discordant materials into the concord of all elements, that out of these unlike principles one world is so established by a conspiring union, that it can by no force be dissolved, save when He alone who made it commands it to be dissolved, for the purpose of bestowing other and greater things upon us. For we read that He contains all things, and therefore that there could have been nothing beyond Himself. Because, since He has not any beginning, so consequently He is not conscious of an ending; unless perchance — and far from us be the thought — He at some time began to be, and is not above all things, but as He began to be after something else, He would be beneath that which was before Himself, and would so be found to be of less power, in that He is designated as subsequent even in time itself. For this reason, therefore, He is always unbounded, because nothing is greater than He; always eternal, because nothing is more ancient than He. For that which is without beginning can be preceded by none, in that He has no time. He is on that account immortal, that He does not come to an end by any ending of His completeness. And since everything that is without beginning is without law, He excludes the mode of time by feeling Himself debtor to none. Concerning Him, therefore, and concerning those things which are of Himself, and are in Him, neither can the mind of man worthily conceive what they are, how great they are, and what they are like; nor does the eloquence of human discourse set forth a power that approaches the level of His majesty. For to conceive and to speak of His majesty, as well all eloquence is with reason mute, as all mind poor. For He is greater than mind itself; nor can it be conceived how great He is, seeing that, if He could be conceived, He would be smaller than the human mind wherein He could be conceived. He is greater, moreover, than all discourse, nor can He be declared; for if He could be declared, He would be less than human discourse, whereby being declared, He can both be encompassed and contained. For whatever could be thought concerning Him must be less than Himself; and whatever could be declared must be less than He, when compared in respect of Himself. Moreover, we can in some degree be conscious of Him in silence, but we cannot in discourse unfold Him as He is. For should you call Him Light, you would be speaking of His creature rather than of Himself — you would not declare Him; or should you call Him Strength, you would rather be speaking of and bringing out His power than speaking of Himself; or should you call Him Majesty, you would rather be describing His honour than Himself. And why should I make a long business of going through His attributes one by one? I will at once unfold the whole. Whatever in any respect you might declare of Him, you would rather be unfolding some condition and power of His than Himself. For what can you fittingly either say or think concerning Him who is greater than all discourses and thoughts? Except that in one manner — and how can we do this? how can we by possibility conceive how we may grasp these very things? — we shall mentally grasp what God is, if we shall consider that He is that which cannot be understood either in quality or quantity, nor, indeed, can come even into the thought itself. For if the keenness of our eyes grows dull on looking at the sun, so that the gaze, overcome by the brightness of the rays that meet it, cannot look upon the orb itself, the keenness of our mental perception suffers the same thing in all our thinking about God, and in proportion as we give our endeavours more directly to consider God, so much the more the mind itself is blinded by the light of its own thought. For — to repeat once more — what can you worthily say of Him, who is loftier than all sublimity, and higher than all height, and deeper than all depth, and clearer than all light, and brighter than all brightness, more brilliant than all splendour, stronger than all strength, more powerful7 than all power, and more mighty than all might, and greater than all majesty, and more potent than all potency, and richer than all riches, more wise than all wisdom, and more benignant than all kindness, better than all goodness, juster than all justice, more merciful than all clemency? For all kinds of virtues must? needs be less than Himself, who is both. God and Parent of all virtues, so that it may truly be said that God is that, which is such that nothing can be compared to Him. For He is above all that can be said. For He is a certain Mind generating and filling all things, which, without any beginning or end of time, controls, by the highest and most perfect reason, the naturally linked causes of things, so as to result in benefit to all.

Chap. III.

Argument. — That God Is the Founder of All Things, Their Lord and Parent, Is Proved from the Holy Scriptures.

Him, then, we acknowledge and know to be God, the Creator of all things — Lord on account of His power, Parent on account of His discipline — Him, I say, who “spake, and all things were made;” (Psa_148:5) He commanded, and all things went forth: of whom it is written, “Thou hast made all things in wisdom;” (Psa_104:24) of whom Moses said, “God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath;” (Deu_4:39) who, according to Isaiah, “hath meted out the heaven with a span, the earth with the hollow of His hand;” (Isa_40:12) “who looketh on the earth, and maketh it tremble; who boundeth the circle of the earth, and those that dwell in it like locusts; who hath weighed the mountains in a balance, and the groves in scales,” (Isa_40:22, Isa_40:12) that is, by the sure test of divine arrangement; easily fall into ruins if it were not balanced with equal weights, He has poised this burden of the earthly mass with equity. Who says by the prophet, “I am God, and there is none beside me” (Isa_45:22) Who says by the same prophet “Because I will not give my majesty to another,” (Isa_42:8) that He may exclude all heathens and heretics with their figments; proving that that is not God who is made by the hand of the workman, nor that which is feigned by the intellect of a heretic. For he is not God for whose existence the workman must be asked. And He has added hereto by the prophet, “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me, and where is the place of my rest?” (Isa_66:1)8 that He may show that He whom the world does not contain is much less contained in a temple; and He says these things not for boastfulness of Himself, but for our knowledge. For He does not desire from us the glory of His magnitude; but He wishes to confer upon us, even as a father, a religious wisdom. And He, wishing moreover to attract to gentleness our minds, brutish, and swelling, and stubborn with cloddish ferocity, says, “And upon whom shall my Spirit rest, save upon him that is lowly, and quiet, and that trembleth at my words?” (Isa_66:2) — so that in some degree one may recognise how great God is, in learning to fear Him by the Spirit given to him: Who, similarly wishing still more to come into our knowledge, and, by way of stirring up our minds to His worship, said, “I am the Lord, who made the light and created the darkness;” (Isa_45:7)9 that we might deem not that some Nature, — what I know not, — was the artificer of those vicissitudes whereby nights and days are controlled, but might rather, as is more true, recognise God as their Creator. And since by the gaze of our eyes we cannot see Him, we rightly learn of Him from the greatness, and the power, and the majesty of His works. “For the invisible things of Him,” says the Apostle Paul,” from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by those things which are made, even His eternal power and godhead;” (Rom_1:20)10 so that the human mind, learning hidden things from those that are manifest, from the greatness of the works which it should behold, might with the eyes of the mind consider the greatness of the Architect. Of whom the same apostle, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory.” (1Ti_1:17) For He has gone beyond the contemplation of the eyes who has surpassed the greatness of thought. “For,” it is said,” of Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things.” (Rom_11:33) For all things are by His command, because they are of Him; and are ordered by His word as being through Him; and all things return to His judgment; as in Him expecting liberty when corruption shall be done away, they appear to be recalled to Him.

Chap. IV.

Argument. — Moreover, He Is Good, Always the Same, Immutable, One and Only, Infinite; and His Own Name Can Never Be Declared, and He Is Incorruptible and Immortal.

Him alone the Lord rightly declares good, of whose goodness the whole world is witness; which world He would not have ordained if He had not been good. For if “everything was very good,” (Gen_1:31) consequently, and reasonably, both those things which were ordained have proved that He that ordained them is good, and those things which are the work of a good Ordainer cannot be other than good; wherefore every evil is a departure from God. For it cannot happen that He should be the originator or architect of any evil work, who claims to Himself the name of “the Perfect,” both Parent and Judge, especially when He is the avenger and judge of every evil work; because, moreover, evil does not occur to man from any other cause than by his departure from the good God. Moreover, this very thing is specified in man, not because it was necessary, but because he himself so willed it. Whence it manifestly appeared also what was evil; and lest there should seem to be envy in God, it was evident whence evil had arisen. He, then, is always like to Himself; nor does He ever turn or change Himself into any forms, lest by change He should appear to be mortal. For the change implied in turning from one thing to another is comprehended as a portion of a certain death. Thus there is never in Him any accession or increase of any part or honour, lest anything should appear to have ever been wanting to His perfection, nor is any loss sustained in Him, lest a degree of mortality should appear to have been suffered by Him. But what He is, He always is; and who He is, He is always Himself; and what character He has, He always has.11 For increasing argues beginning, as well as losses prove death and perishing. And therefore He says, “I am God, I change not;” (Mal_3:6) in that, what is not born cannot suffer change, holding His condition always. For whatever it be in Him which constitutes Divinity, must necessarily exist always, maintaining itself by its own powers, so that He should always be God. And thus He says, “I am that I am.” (Exo_3:14)12 For what He is has this name, because it always maintains the same quality of Himself. For change takes away the force of that name “That I Am;” for whatever, at any time, is changed, is shown to be mortal in that very particular which is changed. For it ceases to be that which it had been, and consequently begins to be what it was not; and therefore, reasonably, there remains always in God His position, in that without any loss arising from change, He is always like and equal to Himself. And what is not born cannot be changed: for only those things undergo change which are made, or which are begotten; in that those things which bad not been at one time, learn to be by coming into being, and therefore to suffer change by being born. Moreover, those things which neither have nativity nor maker, have excluded from themselves the capacity of change, not having a beginning wherein is cause of change. And thus He is declared to be one, having no equal. For whatever can be God, must as God be of necessity the Highest. But whatever is the Highest, must certainly be the Highest in such sense as to be without any equal. And thus that must needs be alone and one on which nothing can be conferred, having no peer; because there cannot be two infinites, as the very nature of things dictates. And that is infinite which neither has any sort of beginning nor end. For whatever has occupied the whole excludes the beginning of another. Because if He does not contain all which is, whatever it is — seeing that what is found in that whereby it is contained is found to be less than that whereby it is contained — He will cease to be God; being reduced into the power of another, in whose greatness He, being smaller, shall have been included. And therefore what contained Him would then rather claim to be God. Whence it results that God’s own name also cannot be declared, because He cannot be conceived. For that is contained in a name which is, in any way, comprehended from the condition of His nature. For the name is the signification of that thing which could be comprehended from a name. But when that which is treated of is such that it cannot be worthily gathered into one form by the very understanding itself, how shall it be set forth fittingly in the one word of an appellation, seeing that as it is beyond the intellect, it must also of necessity be above the significancy of the appellation? As with reason when He applies and prefers from certain reasons and occasions His name of God, we know that it is not so much the legitimate propriety of the appellation that is set forth, as a certain significancy determined for it, to which, while men betake themselves, they seem to be able thereby to obtain God’s mercy. He is therefore also both immortal and incorruptible, neither conscious of any kind of loss nor ending. For because He is incorruptible, He is therefore immortal; and because He is immortal, He is certainly also incorruptible, — each being involved by turns in the other, with itself and in itself, by a mutual connection, and prolonged by a vicarious concatenation to the condition of eternity; immortality arising from incorruption, as well as incorruption coming from immortality.

Chap. V.

Argument. — If We Regard the Anger, and Indignation, and Hatred of God Described in the Sacred Pages, We Must Remember That They Are Not to Be Understood as Bearing the Character of Human Vices.

Moreover, if we read of His wrath, and consider certain descriptions of His indignation, and learn that hatred is asserted of Him, yet we are not to understand these to be asserted of Him in the sense in which they are human vices. For all these things, although they may corrupt man, cannot at all corrupt the divine power. For such passions as these will rightly be said to be in men, and will not rightly be judged to be in God. For man may be corrupted by these things, because he can be corrupted; God may not be corrupted by them, because He cannot be corrupted. These things, forsooth, have their force which they may exercise, but only where a material capable of impression precedes them, not where a substance that cannot be impressed precedes them. For that God is angry, arises from no vice in Him. But He is so for our advantage; for He is merciful even then when He threatens, because by these threats men are recalled to rectitude. For fear is necessary for those who want the motive to a virtuous life, that they who have forsaken reason may at least be moved by terror. And thus all those, either angers of God or hatreds, or whatever they are of this kind, being displayed for our medicine, — as the case teaches, — have arisen of wisdom, not from vice, nor do they originate from frailty; wherefore also they cannot avail for the corruption of God. For the diversity in us of the materials of which we consist, is accustomed to arouse the discord of anger which corrupts us; but this, whether of nature or of defect, cannot subsist in God, seeing that He is known to be constructed assuredly of no associations of bodily parts. For He is simple and without any corporeal commixture, being wholly of that essence, which, whatever it be, — He alone knows, — constitutes His being, since He is called Spirit. And thus those things which in men are faulty and corrupting, since they arise from the corruptibility of the body, and matter itself, in God cannot exert the force of corruptibility, since, as we have said, they have come, not of vice, but of reason.

Chap. VI.

Argument. — And That, Although Scripture Often Changes the Divine Appearance into a Human Form, yet the Measure of the Divine Majesty Is Not Included Within These Lineaments of Our Bodily Nature.

And although the heavenly Scripture often turns the divine appearance into a human form, — as when it says, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous;” (Psa_34:15)13 or when it says, “The Lord God smelled the smell of a good savour;” (Gen_8:21) or when there are given to Moses the tables “written with the finger of God;” (Exo_31:18) or when the people of the children of Israel are set free from the land of Egypt “with a mighty hand and with a stretched out arm;” (Psa_136:12) or when it says, “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things;” (Isa_1:20) or when the earth is set forth as “God’s footstool;” (Isa_66:1)14 or when it says, “Incline thine ear, and hear,” (Psa_17:6) — we who say that the law is spiritual do not include within these lineaments of our bodily nature any mode or figure of the divine majesty, but diffuse that character of unbounded magnitude (so to speak) over its plains without any limit. For it is written, “If I shall ascend into heaven, Thou art there; if I shall descend into hell, Thou art there also; and if I shall take my wings, and go away across the sea, there Thy hand shall lay hold of me, and Thy right hand shall hold me.” (Psa_139:8, Psa_139:9, Psa_139:10) For we recognise the plan of the divine Scripture according to the proportion of its arrangement. For the prophet then was still speaking about God in parables according to the period of the faith, not as God was, but as the people were able to receive Him. And thus, that such things as these should be said about God, must be imputed not to God, but rather to the people. Thus the people are permitted to erect a tabernacle, and yet God is not contained within the enclosure of a tabernacle. Thus a temple is reared, and yet God is not at all bounded within the restraints of a temple. It is not therefore God who is limited, but the perception of the people is limited; nor is God straitened, but the understanding of the reason of the people is held to be straitened. Finally, in the Gospel the Lord said, “The hour shall come when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father;” (Joh_4:21) and gave the reasons, saying, “God is a Spirit; and those therefore who worship, must worship in spirit and in truth.” (Joh_4:24) Thus the divine agencies are there15 exhibited by means of members; it is not the appearance of God nor the bodily lineaments that are described. For when the eyes are spoken of, it is implied that He sees all things; and when the ear, it is set forth that He hears all things; and when the finger, a certain energy of His will is opened up; and when the nostrils, His recognition of prayers is shown forth as of odours; and when the hand, it is proved that He is the author of every creature; and when the arm, it is announced that no nature can withstand the power of His arm; and when the feet it is unfolded that He fills all things, and that there is not any place where God is not. For neither members nor the offices of members are needful to Him to whose sole judgment, even unexpressed, all things serve and are present. For why should He require eyes who is Himself the light? or why should He ask for feet who is everywhere? or why should He wish to go when there is nowhere where He can go beyond Himself? or why should He seek for hands whose will is, even when silent, the architect for the foundation of all things? He needs no ears who knows the wills that are even unexpressed; or for what reason should He need a tongue whose thought is a command? These members assuredly were necessary to men, but not to God, because man’s design would be ineffectual if the body did not fulfil the thought. Moreover, they are not needful to God, whose will the works attend not so much without any effort, as that the works themselves proceed simultaneously with the will. Moreover, He Himself is all eye, because He all sees; and all ear, because He all hears; and all hand, because He all works; and all foot, because He all is everywhere. For He is the same, whatever it is. He is all equal, and all everywhere. For He has not in Him any diversity in Himself, being simple. For those are the things which are reduced to diversity of members, which arise from birth and go to dissolution. But things which are not concrete cannot be conscious of these things.16 And what is immortal, whatever it is, that very thing is one and simple, and for ever. And thus because it is one it cannot be dissolved; since whatever is that very thing which is placed beyond the claim of dissolution, it is freed from the laws of death.

Chap. VII.

Argument. — Moreover, That when God Is Called a Spirit, Brightness, and Light, God Is Not Sufficiently Expressed by Those Appellations.

But when the Lord says that God is a Spirit, I think that Christ spoke thus of the Father, as wishing that something still more should be understood than merely that God is a Spirit. For although, in His Gospel, He is reasoning for the purpose of giving to men an increase of intelligence, nevertheless He Himself speaks to men concerning God, in such a way as they can as yet hear and receive; although, as we have said, He is now endeavouring to give to His hearers religious additions to their knowledge of God. For we find it to be written that God is called Love, and yet from this the substance of God is not declared to be Love; and that He is called Light, while in this is not the substance of God. But the whole that is thus said of God is as much as can be said, so that reasonably also, when He is called a Spirit, it is not all that He is which is so called; but so that, while men’s mind by understanding makes progress even to the Spirit itself, being already changed in spirit, it may conjecture God to be something even greater through the Spirit. For that which is, according to what it is, can neither be declared by human discourse, nor received by human ears, nor gathered by human perceptions. For if “the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him, neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor the heart of man, nor even his mind has perceived;” (1Co_2:9) what and how great is He Himself who promises these things, in understanding which both the mind and nature of man have failed! Finally, if you receive the Spirit as the substance of God, you will make God a creature. For every spirit is a creature. And therefore, then, God will be made. In which manner also, if, according to Moses, you should receive God to be fire, in saying that He is a creature, you will have declared what is ordained, you will not have taught who is its ordainer. But these things are rather used as figures than as being so in fact. For as, in the Old Testament,17 God is for this reason called Fire, that fear may be struck into the hearts of a sinful people, by suggesting to them a Judge; so in the New Testament He is announced as Spirit, that, as the Renewer and Creator of those who are dead in their sins, He may be attested by this goodness of mercy granted to those that believe.

Chap. VIII.

Argument. — It Is This God, Therefore, That the Church Has Known and Adores; and to Him the Testimony of Things as Well Visible as Invisible Is Given Both at All Times and in All Forms, by the Nature Which His Providence Rules and Governs.

This God, then, setting aside the fables and figments of heretics, the Church knows and worships, to whom the universal and entire nature of things as well visible as invisible gives witness; whom angels adore, stars wonder at, seas bless, lands revere, and all things under the earth look up to; whom the whole mind of man is conscious of, even if it does not express itself; at whose command all things are set in motion, springs gush forth, rivers flow, waves arise, all creatures bring forth their young, winds arc compelled to blow, showers descend, seas arc stirred up, all things everywhere diffuse their fruitfulness. Who ordained, peculiar to the protoplasts of eternal life, a certain beautiful paradise in the east; He planted the tree of life, and similarly placed near it another tree of the knowledge of good and evil, gave a command, and decreed a judgment against sin; He preserved the most righteous Noe from the perils of the deluge, for the merit of His innocence and faith; He translated Enoch: He elected Abraham into the society of his friendship; He protected Isaac: He increased Jacob; He gave Moses for a leader unto the people; He delivered the groaning children of Israel from the yoke of slavery; He wrote the law; He brought the offspring of our fathers into the land of promise; He instructed the prophets by His Spirit, and by all of them He promised His Son Christ; and at the time at which He had covenanted that He would give Him, He sent Him, and through Him He desired to come into our knowledge, and shed forth upon us the liberal stores of His mercy, by conferring His abundant Spirit on the poor and abject. And, because He of His own free-will is both liberal and kind, lest the whole of this globe, being turned away from the streams of His grace, should wither, He willed the apostles, as founders of our family, to be sent by His Son into the whole world, that the condition of the human race might be conscious of its Founder; and, if it should choose to follow Him, might have One whom even in its supplications it might now call Father instead of God.18 And His providence has had or has its course among men, not only individually, but also among cities themselves, and states whose destructions have been announced by the words of prophets; yea, even through the whole world itself; whose end, whose miseries, and wastings, and sufferings on account of unbelief He has allotted. And lest moreover any one should think that such an indefatigable providence of God does not reach to even the very least things, “One of two sparrows,” says the Lord, “shall not fall without the will of the Father; but even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” (Mat_10:29, Mat_10:30) And His care and providence did not permit even the clothes of the Israelites to be worn out, nor even the vilest shoes on their feet to be wasted; nor, moreover, finally, the very garments of the captive young men to be burnt. And this is not without reason; for if He embraces all things, and contains all things, — and all things, and the whole, consist of individuals, — His care will consequently extend even to every individual thing, since His providence reaches to the whole, whatever it is. Hence it is that He also sitteth above the Cherubim; that is, He presides over the variety of His works, the living creatures which hold the control over the rest being subjected to His throne: [Eze_1:10 and Rev_4:7] a crystal covering being thrown over all things; that is, the heaven covering all things, which at the command of God had been consolidated into a firmament19 from the fluent material of the waters, that the strong hardness that divides the midst of the waters that covered the earth before, might sustain as if on its back the weight of the superincumbent water, its strength being established by the frost. And, moreover, wheels lie below — that is to say, the seasons — whereby all the members of the world are always being rolled onwards; such feet being added by which those things do not stand still for ever, but pass onward. And, moreover, throughout all their limbs they are studded with eyes; for the works of God must be contemplated with an ever watchful inspection: in the heart of which things, a fire of embers is in the midst, either because this world of ours is hastening to the fiery day of judgment; or because all the works of God are fiery, and are not darksome, but flourish.20 Or, moreover, lest, because those things had arisen from earthly beginnings, they should naturally be inactive, from the rigidity of their origin, the hot nature of an interior spirit was added to all things; and that this nature concreted with the cold bodies might minister21 for the purpose of life equal measures for all.22 This, therefore, according to David, is God’s chariot. “For the chariot of God,” says he, “is multiplied ten thousand times;” (Psa_68:18) that is, it is innumerable, infinite, immense. For, under the yoke of the natural law given to all things, some things are restrained, as if withheld by reins; others, as if stimulated, are urged on with relaxed reins. For the world23 which is that chariot of God with all things, both the angels themselves and the stars guide; and their movements, although various, yet bound by certain laws, we watch them guiding by the bounds of a time prescribed to themselves; so that rightly we also are now disposed to exclaim with the apostle, as he admires both the Architect and His works: “Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how inscrutable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!” And the rest. (Rom_11:33)24

Chap. IX.

Argument. — Further, That the Same Rule of Truth Teaches Us to Believe, After the Father, also in the Son of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord God, Being the Same That Was Promised in the Old Testament, and Manifested in the New.

The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God, Christ Jesus, the Lord our God, but the Son of God — of that God who is both one and alone, to wit the Founder of all things, as already has been expressed above. For this Jesus Christ, I will once more say, the Son of this God, we read of as having been promised in the Old Testament, and we observe to be manifested in the New, fulfilling the shadows and figures of all the sacraments, with the presence of the truth embodied. For as well the ancient prophecies as the Gospels testify Him to be the son of Abraham and the son of David. Genesis itself anticipates Him, when it says: “To thee will I give it, and to thy seed.” (Gen_27:8) He is spoken of when it shows how a man wrestled with Jacob; He too, when it says: “There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a leader from between his thighs, until He shall come to whom it has been promised; and He shall be the expectation of the nations.” (Gen_49:10) He is spoken of by Moses when he says: “Provide another whom thou mayest send.” (Exo_4:13) He is again spoken of by the same, when he testifies, saying: “A Prophet will God raise up to you from your brethren; listen to Him as if to me.” (Deu_18:15) It is He, too, that he speaks of when he says: “Ye shall see your life hanging in doubt night and day, and ye shall not believe Him.” (Deu_28:66) Him, too, Isaiah alludes to: “There shall go forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall grow up from his root.” (Isa_11:1) The same also when he says: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” (Isa_7:13) Him he refers to when he enumerates the healings that were to proceed from Him, saying: “Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear: then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be eloquent.” (Isa_35:3-6) Him also, when he sets forth the virtue of patience, saying: “His voice shall not be heard in the streets; a bruised reed shall He not destroy, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.” (Isa_42:2, Isa_42:3) Him, too, when he described His Gospel: “And I will ordain for you an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David.” (Isa_55:3) Him, too, when he foretells that the nations should believe on Him: “Behold, I have given Him for a Chief and a Commander to the nations. Nations that knew not Thee shall call upon Thee, and peoples that knew Thee not shall flee unto Thee.” (Isa_55:4, Isa_55:5) It is the same that he refers to when, concerning His passion, he exclaims, saying: “As a sheep He is led to the slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth in His humility.” (Isa_53:7) Him, moreover, when he described the blows and stripes of His scourgings: “By His bruises we were healed.” (Isa_53:5) Or His humiliation: “And we saw Him, and He had neither form nor comeliness, a man in suffering, and who knoweth how to bear infirmity.” (Isa_53:2) Or that the people would not believe on Him: “All day long I have spread out my hands unto a people that believeth not.” (Isa_65:2) Or that He would rise again from the dead: “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and one who shall rise to reign over the nations; on Him shall the nations hope, and His rest shall be honour.” (Isa_11:10) Or when he speaks of the time of the resurrection: “We shall find Him, as it were, prepared in the morning.” (Hos_6:3) Or that He should sit at the right hand of the Father: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I shall place Thine enemies as the stool of Thy feet.” (Psa_110:1, Psa_110:2) Or when He is set forth as possessor of all things: “Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the boundaries of the earth for Thy possession.” (Psa_2:8) Or when He is shown as Judge of all: “O God, give the King Thy judgment, and Thy righteousness to the King’s Son.” (Psa_72:1) And I shall not in this place pursue the subject further: the things which are announced of Christ are known to all heretics, but are even better known to those who hold the truth.

Chap. X.

Argument. — That Jesus Christ Is the Son of God and Truly Man, as Opposed to the Fancies of Heretics, Who Deny That He Took upon Him True Flesh.

But of this I remind you, that Christ was not to be expected in the Gospel in any other wise than as He was promised before by the Creator, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament; especially as the things that were predicted of Him were fulfilled, and those things that were fulfilled had been predicted. As with reason I might truly and constantly say to that fanciful — I know not what — of those heretics who reject the authority of the Old Testament, as to a Christ feigned and coloured up from old wives’ fables: “Who art thou? Whence art thou? By whom art thou sent? Wherefore hast thou now chosen to come? Why such as thou art? Or how hast thou been able to come? Or wherefore hast thou not gone to thine own, except that thou hast proved that thou hast none of thine own, by coming to those of another? What hast thou to do with the Creator’s world? What hast thou to do with the Creator’s man? What hast thou to do with the image of a body from which thou takest away the hope of resurrection? Why comest thou to another man’s servant, and desirest thou to solicit another man’s son? Why dost thou strive to take me away from the Lord? Why dost thou compel me to blaspheme, and to be impious to my Father? Or what shall I gain from thee in the resurrection, if I do not receive myself when I lose my body? If thou wishest to save, thou shouldest have made a man to whom to give salvation. If thou desirest to snatch from sin, thou shouldest have granted to me previously that I should not fall into sin. But what approbation of law dost thou carry about with thee? What testimony of the prophetic word hast thou? Or what substantial good can I promise myself from thee, when I see that thou hast come in a phantasm and not in a bodily substance? What, then, hast thou to do with the form of a body, if thou hatest a body? Nay, thou wilt be refitted as to the hatred of bearing about the substance of a body, since thou hast been willing even to take up its form. For thou oughtest to have hated the imitation of a body, if thou hatedst the reality; because, if thou art something else, thou oughtest to have come as something else, lest thou shouldest be called the Son of the Creator if thou hadst even the likeness of flesh and body. Assuredly, if thou hatedst being born because thou hatedst ‘the Creator’s marriage-union,’ thou oughtest to refuse even the likeness of a man who is born by the ‘marriage of the Creator.’”

Neither, therefore, do we acknowledge that that is a Christ of the heretics who was — as it is said — in appearance and not in reality; for of those things which he did, he could have done nothing real, if he himself was a phantasm, and not reality. Nor him who wore nothing of our body in himself, seeing “he received nothing from Mary ;” neither did he come to us, since he appeared “as a vision, not in our substance.” Nor do we acknowledge that to be Christ who chose an ethereal or starry flesh, as some heretics have pretended. Nor can we perceive any salvation of ours in him, if in him we do not even recognise the substance of our body; nor, in short, any other who may have worn any other kind of fabulous body of heretical device. For all such fables as these are confuted as well by the nativity as by the death itself of our Lord. For John says: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;” (Joh_1:14) [Of fables and figments, see cap. viii. p. 617.] so that, reasonably, our body should be in Him, because indeed the Word took on Him our flesh. And for this reason blood flowed forth from His hands and feet, and from His very side, so that He might be proved to be a sharer in our body by dying according to the laws of our dissolution. And that He was raised again in the same bodily substance in which He died, is proved by the wounds of that very body, and thus He showed the laws of our resurrection in His flesh, in that He restored the same body in His resurrection which He had from us. For a law of resurrection is established, in that Christ is raised up in the substance of the body as an example for the rest; because, when it is written that “flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God,” (1Co_15:50) [Vol. 3. p. 521, this series] it is not the substance of the flesh that is condemned, which was built up by the divine hands that it should not perish, but only the guilt of the flesh is rightly rebuked, which by the voluntary daring of man rebelled against the claims of divine law. Because in baptism and in the dissolution of death the flesh is raised up and returns to salvation, by being recalled to the condition of innocency when the mortality of guilt is put away.

Chap. XI.

 — And Indeed That Christ Was Not Only Man, but God Also; That Even as He Was the Son of Man, so also He Was the Son of God.

But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. For there is a great risk of saying that the Saviour of the human race was only man; that the Lord of all, and the Chief of the world, to whom all things were delivered, and all things were granted by His Father, by whom all things were ordained, all things were created, all things were arranged, the King of all ages and times, the Prince of all the angels, before whom there is none but the Father, was only man, and denying to Him divine authority in these things. For this contempt of the heretics will recoil also upon God the Father, if God the Father could not beget God the Son. But, moreover, no blindness of the heretics shall prescribe to the truth. Nor, because they maintain one thing in Christ and, do not maintain another, they see one side of Christ and do not see another, shall there be taken away from us that which they do not see for the sake of that which they do. For they regard the weaknesses in Him as if they were a man’s weaknesses, but they do not count the powers as if they were a God’s powers. They keep in mind the infirmities of the flesh, they exclude the powers of the divinity; when if this argument from the infirmities of Christ is of avail to the result of proving Him to be man from His infirmities, the argument of divinity in Him gathered from His powers avails to the result also of asserting Him to be God from His works. For if His sufferings show in Him human frailty, why may not His works assert in Him divine power? For if this should not avail to assert Him to be God from His powers, neither can His sufferings avail to show Him to be man also from them. For whatever principle be adopted on one or the other side, will be found to be maintained.25 For there will be a risk that He should not be shown to be man from His sufferings, if He could not also be approved as God by His powers. We must not then lean to one side and evade the other side, because any one who should exclude one portion of the truth will never hold the perfect truth. For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when be is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” (Mat_22:42 et seq.) so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” (Gal_4:4) so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Luk_6:5) And in the same manner as He suffers, as man, the condemnation, so as God He is found to have all judgment of the quick and dead. And in the same manner as He is born as man subsequent to the world, so as God He is manifested to have been before the world. And in the same way as He was begotten as man of the seed of David, so also the world is said to have been ordained by Him as God. And in the same way as He was as man after many, so as God He was before all. And in the same manner as He was as man inferior to others, so as God He was greater than all. And in the same manner as He ascended as man into heaven, so as God He had first descended thence. And in the same manner as He goes as man to the Father, so as the Son in obedience to the Father He shall descend thence. So if imperfections in Him prove human frailty, majesties in Him affirm divine power. For the risk is, in reading of both, to believe not both, but one of the two. Wherefore as both are read of in Christ, let both be believed; that so finally the faith may be true, being also complete. For if of two principles one gives way in the faith, and the other, and that indeed which is of least importance, be taken up for belief, the rule of truth is thrown into confusion; and that boldness will not confer salvation, but instead of salvation will effect a great risk of death from the overthrow of the faith.

Chap. XII.

Argument. — That Christ Is God, Is Proved by the Authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Why, then, should we hesitate to say what Scripture does not shrink from declaring? Why shall the truth of faith hesitate in that wherein the authority of Scripture has never hesitated? For, behold, Hosea the prophet says in the person of the Father: “I will not now save them by bow, nor by horses, nor by horsemen; but I will save them by the Lord their God.” (Hos_1:7) If God says that He saves by God, still God does not save except by Christ. Why, then, should man hesitate to call Christ God, when he observes that He is declared to be God by the Father according to the Scriptures? Yea, if God the Father does not save except by God, no one can be saved by God the Father unless he shall have confessed Christ to be God, in whom and by whom the Father promises that He will give him salvation: so that, reasonably, whoever acknowledges Him to be God, may find salvation in Christ God; whoever does not acknowledge Him to be God, would lose salvation which he could not find elsewhere than in Christ God. For in the same way as Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, interpreted, God with us;” (Isa_7:14) so Christ Himself says, “Lo, I am with you, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mat_28:20) Therefore He is “God with us;” yea, and much rather, He is in us. Christ is with us, therefore it is He whose name is God with us, because He also is with us; or is He not with us? How then does He say that He is with us? He, then, is with us. But because He is with us He was called Emmanuel, that is, God with us. God, therefore, because He is with us, was called God with us, The same prophet says: “Be ye strengthened, ye relaxed hands, and ye feeble knees; be consoled, ye that are cowardly in heart; be strong; fear not. Lo, our God shall return judgment; He Himself shall come, and shall save you: then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be eloquent.” (Isa_35:3, etc.) Since the prophet says that at God’s advent these should be the signs which come to pass; let men acknowledge either that Christ is the Son of God, at whose advent and by whom these wonders of healings were performed; or, overcome by the truth of Christ’s divinity, let them rush into the other heresy, and refusing to confess Christ to be the Son of God, and God, let them declare Him to be the Father. For, being bound by the words of the prophets, they can no longer deny Christ to be God. What, then, do they reply when those signs are said to be about to take place on the advent of God, which were manifested on the advent of Christ? In what way do they receive Christ as God? For now they cannot deny Him to be God. As God the Father, or as God the Son? If as the Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God? If as the Father, why do they not follow those who appear to maintain blasphemies of that kind? unless because in this contest against them concerning the truth, this is in the meantime sufficient for us, that, being convinced in any kind of way, they should confess Christ to be God, seeing they have even wished to deny that He is God. He says by Habakkuk the prophet: “God shall come from the south, and the Holy One from the dark and dense mountain.” (Hab_3:3)26 Whom do they wish to represent as coming from the south? If they say that it is the Almighty God the Father, then God the Father comes from a place, from which place, moreover, He is thus excluded, and He is bounded within the straitnesses of some abode; and thus by such as these, as we have said, the sacrilegious heresy of Sabellius is embodied. Since Christ is believed to be not the Son, but the Father; since by them He is asserted to be in strictness a bare man, in a new manner, by those, again, Christ is proved to be God the Father Almighty. But if in Bethlehem, the region of which local division looks towards the southern portion of heaven, Christ is born, who by the Scriptures is also said to be God, this God is rightly described as coming from the south, because He was foreseen as about to come from Bethlehem. Let them, then, choose of the two alternatives, the one that they prefer, that He who came from the south is the Son, or the Father; for God is said to be about to come from the south. If the Son, why do they shrink from calling Him Christ and God? For the Scripture says that God shall come. If the Father, why do they shrink from being associated with the boldness of Sabellius, who says that Christ is the Father? unless because, whether they call Him Father or Son, from his heresy, however unwillingly, they must needs withdraw if they are accustomed to say that Christ is merely man; when compelled by the facts themselves, they are on the eve of exalting Him as God, whether in wishing to call Him Father or in wishing to call Him Son.

FOOTNOTES

1 Which we call the Creed.

2 From the ninth chapter to the twenty-eighth he enters upon the diffuse explanation also of these words of our creed which commend to us faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, the Christ promised us in the Old Testament, and proves by the authority of the old and new covenant that He is very man and very God. In chapter eighteenth he refutes the error of the Sabellians, and by the authority of the sacred writings he establishes the distinction of the Father and of the Son, and replies to the objections of the above-named heresiarchs and others. In the twenty-ninth chapter he treats of faith in the Holy Spirit, saying that finally the authority of the faith admonishes us, after the Father and the Son, to believe also on the Holy Spirit, whose operations he recounts and proves from the Scriptures. He then labours to associate the unity of God with the matters previously contended for, and at length sets forth the sum of the doctrines above explained. [Anthropopathy, see cap. v. p. 615.]

3 “Mensurnis,” or otherwise “menstruis.”

4 [Jer_5:22. Compare this sublime page with paganism.]

5 “Inventionis.” “Redemptionis” is a reasonable emendation.

6 Or probably, “Neither indeed is,” etc. [vol. 3. p. 428.]

7 Viritior. [See Robert Hall on French Atheism.]

8 [No possible or pocket god.]

9 [A lesson to our age.]

10 [“So that they are without excuse.”]

11 In other words, God is always the same in essence, in personality and in attributes.

12 [The ineffable name of the Self-Existent.]

13 [Anthropopathy, p. 611.]

14 [Capp v. and vi. are specimens of vigorous thought.]

15 sc. in the Old Testament.

16 That is to say, “of birth and dissolution.” [He is the Now.]

17 [Exo_3:2. Not consuming. Heb_12:29, “consuming.”]

18 [Madame de Staël has beautifully remarked on the benefit conferred upon humanity by Him who authorized us to say, “Our Father.” “Scientific” atheism gives nothing instead.]

19 [The science of the third century had overruled the Pythagorean system, and philosophers bound the Church and the human mind in the chains of false science for ages. The revival of true science was due to Copernicus, a Christian priest, and to Galileo, and other Christians. Let this be noted.]

20 “Vigent,” or otherwise “lucent.”

21 “Ministraret” seems to be preferable to “monstraret.”

22 [Our author’s genius actually suggests a theory, in this chapter, concerning the zoa, or “living creatures,” which anticipates all that is truly demonstrated by the “evolutionists,” and which harmonizes the variety of animated natures. Rev_5:13, Rev_5:14.]

23 [The universe is here intended, as in Milton, “this pendent world.” Parad. Lost, book ii. 1052.]

24 “Note also the rest of the text” is our author’s additional comment.

25 Scil. in its alternative.

26 [See English margin, and Robinson, i. p. 552.]

Chap. XIII.

Argument. – That the Same Truth Is Proved from the Sacred Writings of the New Covenant.

And thus also John, describing the nativity of Christ, says: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full Of grace and truth.” (Joh_1:14) [For Sabellius, see p. 128, supra] For, moreover, “His name is called the Word of God,” (Rev_19:13) and not without reason. “My heart has emitted a good word;” (Psa_45:1) which word He subsequently calls by the name of the King inferentially, “I will tell my works to the King.” (Psa_45:1) For “by Him were made all the works, and without Him was nothing made.” (Joh_1:3) “Whether” says the apostle “they be thrones or dominations, or powers, or mights, visible things and invisible, all things subsist by Him not.” (Col_1:16) Moreover, this is I d which came unto His own, and His own received Him not. For the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” (Joh_1:10, Joh_1:11) Moreover, this Word “was in the beginning with God, and God was the Word.” (Joh_1:1) Who then can doubt, when in the last clause it is said, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” that Christ, whose is the nativity, and because He was made flesh, is man; and because He is the Word of God, who can shrink from declaring without hesitation that He is God, especially when he considers the evangelical Scripture, that it has associated both of these substantial natures into one concord of the nativity of Christ? For He it is who “as a bride-groom goeth forth from his bride-chamber; He exulted as a giant to run his way. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return unto the ends of it.” (Psa_19:6, Psa_19:7) Because, even to the highest, “not any one hath ascended into heaven save He who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” (Joh_3:13) Repeating this same thing, He says: “Father, glorify me with that glory wherewith I was with Thee before the world was.” (Joh_17:5)27 And if this Word came down from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, that by the assumption of flesh He might ascend thither as the Son of man, whence the Son of God had descended as the Word, reasonably, while by the mutual connection both flesh wears the Word of God, and the Son of God assumes the frailty of the flesh; when the flesh being espoused ascending thither, whence without the flesh it had descended, it at length receives that glory which in being shown to have had before the foundation of the world, it is most manifestly proved to be God. And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, “I and the Father are one,” (Joh_10:30) Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ’s divinity, says in reply to Christ, “My Lord and my God;” (Joh_20:28) and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,” (Rom_9:5) writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained “an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ;” (Gal_1:1 and Gal_1:12) and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made. For how can you say that He is man only, when you see Him also in the flesh, unless because when both aspects are considered, both truths are rightly believed?

Chap. XIV.

Argument. – The Author Prosecutes the Same Argument.

And yet the heretic still shrinks from urging that Christ is God, whom he perceives to be proved God by so many words as well as facts. If Christ is only man, how, when He came into this world, did He come unto His own, since a man could have made no world? If Christ was only man, how is the world said to have been made by Him, when the world was not by man, but man was ordained after the world? If Christ was only man, how was it that Christ was not only of the seed of David; but He was the Word made flesh and dwelt among us? For although the Protoplast was not born of seed, yet neither was the Protoplast formed of the conjunction of the Word and the flesh. For He is not the Word made flesh, nor dwelt in us. If Christ was only man, how does He “who cometh from heaven testify what He hath seen and heard,” (Joh_3:31) when it is plain that man cannot come from heaven, because he cannot be born there? If Christ be only man, how are “visible things and invisible, thrones, powers, and dominions,” said to be created by Him and in Him; when the heavenly powers could not have been made by man, since they must needs have been prior to man? If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon; when it is not the nature of man, but of God, that it can be present in every place? If Christ is only man, why is a man invoked in prayers as a Mediator, when the invocation of a man to afford salvation is condemned as ineffectual? If Christ is only man, why is hope rested upon Him, when hope in man is declared to be accursed? If Christ is only man, why may not Christ be denied without destruction of the soul, when it is said that a sin committed against man may be forgiven? If Christ is only man, how comes John the Baptist to testify and say, “He who cometh after me has become before me, because He was prior to me;” (Joh_1:15) when, if Christ were only man, being born after John, He could not be before John, unless because He preceded him, in that He is God? If Christ is only man, how is it that “what things the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise,” (Joh_5:19) when man cannot do works like to the heavenly operations of God? If Christ is only man, how is it that “even as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,” (Joh_5:26) when man cannot have life in him after the example of God the Father, because he is not glorious in eternity, but made with the materials of mortality? If Christ is only man, how does He say, “I am the bread of eternal life which came down from heaven,” (Joh_6:51) when man can neither be the bread of life, he himself being mortal, nor could he have come down from heaven, since no perishable material is established in heaven? If Christ is only man, how does He say that “no man hath seen God at any time, save He which is of God; He hath seen God?” (Joh_6:46) Because if Christ is only man, He could not see God, because no man has seen God; but if, being of God, He has seen God, He wishes it to be understood that He is more than man, in that He has seen God. If Christ is only man, why does He say, “What if ye shall see the Son of man ascending thither where He was before?” (Joh_6:62) But He ascended into heaven, therefore He was there, in that He returned thither where He was before. But if He was sent from heaven by the Father, He certainly is not man only; for man, as we have said, could not come from heaven. Therefore as man He was not there before, but ascended thither where He was not. But the Word of God descended which was there, – the Word of God, I say, and God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. It was not therefore man that thus came thence from heaven, but the Word of God; that is, God descended thence.

Chap. XV.28

Argument. – Again He Proves from the Gospel That Christ Is God.

If Christ is only man, how is it that He says, “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: because I know whence I came, and whither I go; ye know not whence I came, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh?” (Joh_8:14, Joh_8:15) Behold, also He says, that He shall return thither whence He bears witness that He came before, as being sent, – to wit, from heaven. He came down therefore from whence He came, in the same manner as He goes thither from whence He descended. Whence if Christ were only man, He would not have come thence, and therefore would not depart thither, because He would riot have come thence. Moreover, by coming thence, whence as man He could not have come, He shows Himself to have come as God. For the Jews, ignorant and untaught in the matter of this very descent of His, made these heretics their successors, seeing that to them it is said, “Ye know not whence I come, and whither I go: ye judge after the flesh.” As much they as the Jews, holding that the carnal birth of Christ was the only one, believed that Christ was nothing else than man; not considering this point, that as man could not come from heaven, so as that he might return thither, He who descended thence must be God, seeing that man could not come thence. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “Ye are from below, I am from above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world?” (Joh_8:23) But therefore if every man is of this world, and Christ is for that reason in this world, is He only man? God forbid! But consider what He says: “I am not of this world.” Does He then speak falsely when He says “of this world,” if He is only man? Or if He does not speak falsely, He is not of this world; He is therefore not man only, because He is not of this world. But that it should not be a secret who He was, He declared whence He was: “I,” said He, “am from above,” that is, from heaven, whence man cannot come, for he was not made in heaven. He is God, therefore, who is from above, and therefore He is not of this world; although, moreover, in a certain manner He is of this word: wherefore Christ is not God only, but man also. As reasonably in the way in which He is not of this world according to the divinity of the Word, so He is of this world according to the frailty of the body that He has taken upon Him. For man is joined with God, and God is linked with man. But on that account this Christ here laid more stress on the one aspect of His sole divinity, because the Jewish blindness contemplated in Christ the aspect alone of the flesh; and thence in the present passage He passed over in silence the frailty of the body, which is of the world, and spoke of His divinity alone, which is not of the world: so that in proportion as they had inclined to believe Him to be only man, in that proportion Christ might draw them to consider His divinity, so as to believe Him to be God, desirous to overcome their incredulity concerning His divinity by omitting in the meantime any mention of His human condition, and by setting before them His divinity alone. If Christ is man only, how does He say, “I proceeded forth and came from God,” (Joh_8:42) when it is evident that man was made by God, and did not proceed forth from Him? But in the way in which as man He proceeded not from God, thus the Word of God proceeded, of whom it is said, “My heart hath uttered forth a good Word ;” (Psa_45:1) which, because it is from God, is with reason also with God. And this, too, since it was not uttered without effect, reasonably makes all things: “For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” (Joh_1:3) But this Word whereby all things were made (is God). “And God,” says he, “was the Word.” (Joh_1:1) Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” (Joh_8:51) Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” (Joh_8:58) For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” (Joh_10:27, Joh_10:28) And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” (Joh_10:30) For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? – who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God; which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” (Joh_10:35, Joh_10:36) By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God. For because, undoubtedly, they are said to be gods unto whom the words of God were given, much more is He God who is found to be superior to all these. And nevertheless He refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact.29 For He wishes that He should be thus understood to be God, as the Son of God, and He would not wish to be understood to be the Father Himself. Thus He said that He was sent, and showed them that He had manifested many good works from the Father; whence He desired that He should not be understood to be the Father, but the Son. And in the latter portion of His defence He made mention of the Son, not the Father, when He said, “Ye say, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, He calls Himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to His divinity, by saying, “I and the Father are one,” He proved that He was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.

Chap. XVI.30

Argument. – Again from the Gospel He Proves Christ to Be God.

If Christ was only man, how is it that He Himself says, “And every one that believeth in me shall not die for evermore?” (Joh_11:26) And yet he who believes in man by himself alone is called accursed; but he who believes on Christ is not accursed, but is said not to die for evermore. Whence, if on the one hand He is man only, as the heretics will have it, how shall not anybody who believes in Him die eternally, since he who trusts in man is held to be accursed? Or on the other, if he is not accursed, but rather, as it is read, destined for the attainment of everlasting life, Christ is not man only, but God also, in whom he who believes both lays aside all risk of curse, and attains to the fruit of righteousness. If Christ was only man, how does He say that the Paraclete “shall take of His, those things which He shall declare?” (Joh_16:14) For neither does the Paraclete receive anything from man, but the Paraclete offers knowledge to man; nor does the Paraclete learn things future from man, but instructs man concerning futurity. Therefore either the Paraclete has not received from Christ, as man, what He should declare, since man could give nothing to the Paraclete, seeing that from Him man himself ought to receive, and Christ in the present instance is both mistaken and deceives, in saying that the Paraclete shall receive from Him, being a man, the things which He may declare; or He does not deceive us, – as in fact He does not, – and the Paraclete has received from Christ what He may declare. But if He has received from Christ what He may declare to us, Christ is greater than the Paraclete, because the Paraclete would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the Paraclete being less than Christ, moreover, by this very fact proves Christ to be God, from whom He has received what He declares: so that the testimony of Christ’s divinity is immense, in the Paraclete being found to be in this economy less than Christ, and taking from Him what He gives to others; seeing that if Christ were only man, Christ would receive from the Paraclete what He should say, not the Paraclete receive from Christ what He should declare. If Christ was only man, wherefore did He lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which He said, “And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent?” (Joh_17:3) Had He not wished that He also should be understood to be God, why did He add, “And Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent,” except because He wished to be received as God also? Because if He had not wished to be understood to be God, He would have added, “And the man Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent;” but, in fact, He neither added this, nor did Christ deliver Himself to us as than only, but associated Himself with God, as He wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as He is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed,31 on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on Him whom He has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked Himself to the Father had He not wished to be understood to be God also: for He would have separated Himself from Him had He not wished to be understood to be God. He would have placed Himself among men only, had He known Himself to be only man; nor would He have linked Himself with God had He not known Himself to be God also. But in this case He is silent about His being man, because no one doubts His being man, and with reason links Himself to God, that He might establish the formula of His divinity31 for those who should believe. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And now glorify me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was?” (Joh_17:5) If, before the world was, He had glory with God, and maintained His glory with the Father, He existed before the world, for He would not have had the glory unless He Himself had existed before, so as to be able to keep the glory. For no one could possess anything, unless he himself should first be in existence to keep anything. But now Christ has the glory before the foundation of the world; therefore He Himself was before the foundation of the world. For unless He were before the foundation of the world, He could not have glory before the foundation of the world, since He Himself was not in existence. But indeed man could not have glory before the foundation of the world, seeing that he was after the world; but Christ had – therefore He was before the world. Therefore He was not man only, seeing that He was before the world. He is therefore God, because He was before the world, and held His glory before the world. Neither let this be explained by predestination, since this is not so expressed, or let them add this who think so, but woe is denounced to them who add to, even as to those who take away from, that which is written. Therefore that may not be said, which may not be added. And thus, predestination being set aside, seeing it is not so laid down, Christ was in substance before the foundation of the world. For He is “the Word by which all things were made, and without which nothing was made.” Because even if He is said to be glorious in predestination, and that this predestination was before the foundation of the world, let order be maintained, and before Him a considerable number of men was destined to glory. For in respect of that destination, Christ will be perceived to be less than others if He is designated subsequent to them. For if this glory was in predestination, Christ received that predestination to glory last of all; for prior to Him Adam will be seen to have been predestinated, and Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and many others. For since with God the order of all, both persons and things, is arranged, many will be said to have been predestinated before this predestination of Christ to glory. And on these terms Christ is discovered to be inferior to other men, although He is really found to be better and greater, and more ancient than the angels themselves. Either, then, let all these things be set on one side, that Christ’s divinity may be destroyed; or if these things cannot be set aside, let His proper divinity be attributed to Christ by the heretics.

Chap. XVII.32

Argument. – It Is, Moreover, Proved by Moses in the Beginning of the Holy Scriptures.

What if Moses pursues this same rule of truth, and delivers to us in the beginning of his sacred writings, this principle by which we may learn that all things were created and rounded by the Son of God, that is, by the Word of God? For He says the same that John and the rest say; nay, both John and the others are perceived to have received from Him what they say. For if John says, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made,” (Joh_1:3) the prophet David too says, “I tell my works to the King.” (Psa_45:1) Moses, moreover, introduces God commanding that there should be light at the first, that the heaven should be established, that the waters should be gathered into one place, that the dry land should appear, that the fruit should be brought forth according to its seed, that the animals should be produced, that lights should be established in heaven, and stars. He shows that none other was then present to God – by whom these works were commanded that they should be made – than He by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. And if He is the Word of God – ”for my heart has uttered forth a good Word” (Psa_45:1) [As understood by the Father passim. See Justin, vol. 1. p. 213; Theophilus, vol. 2. 98; Tertullian, vol. 3 p. 365; Origen, 4. pp. 352, sec. 5, 421; and Cyprian, p. 516, supra.] – He shows that in the beginning the Word was, and that this Word was with the Father, and besides that the Word was God, and that all things were made by Him. Moreover, this “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” (Joh_1:14) – to wit, Christ the Son of God; whom both on receiving subsequently as man according to the flesh, and seeing before the foundation of the world to be the Word of God, and God, we reasonably, according to the instruction of the Old and New Testament, believe and hold to be as well God as man, Christ Jesus. What if the same Moses introduces God saying, “Let us make man after our image and likeness;” (Gen_1:26) and below, “And God made man; in the image of God made He him, male and female made He them?” (Gen_1:27) If, as we have already shown, it is the Son of God by whom all things were made, certainly it was the Son of God by whom also man was ordained, on whose account all things were made. Moreover, when God commands that man should be made, He is said to be God who makes man; but the Son of God makes man, that is to say, the Word of God, “by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.” And this Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us: therefore Christ is God; therefore man was made by Christ as by the Son of God. But God made man in the image of God; He is therefore God who made man in the image of God; therefore Christ is God: so that with reason neither does the testimony of the Old Testament waver concerning the person of Christ, being supported by the manifestation of the New Testament; nor is the power of the New Testament detracted from, while its truth is resting on the roots of the same Old Testament. Whence they who presume Christ the Son of God and man to be only man, and not God also, do so in opposition to both Old and New Testaments, in that they corrupt the authority and the truth both of the Old and New Testaments. What if the same Moses everywhere introduces God the Father infinite and without end, not as being enclosed in any place, but as one who includes every place; nor as one who is in a place, but rather one in whom every place is, containing all things and embracing all things, so that with reason He can neither descend nor ascend, because He Himself both contains and fills all things, and yet nevertheless introduces God descending to consider the tower which the sons of men were building, asking and saying, “Come;” and then, “Let us go down and there confound their tongues, that each one may not understand the words of his neighbour.” (Gen_11:7) Whom do they pretend here to have been the God who descended to that tower, and asking to visit those men at that time? God the Father? Then thus He is enclosed in a place; and how does He embrace all things? Or does He say that it is an angel descending with angels, and saying, “Come;” and subsequently, “Let us go down and there confound their tongues?” And yet in Deuteronomy we observe that God told these things, and that God said, where it is written, “When He scattered abroad the children of Adam, He determined the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” (Deu_32:8)33 Neither, therefore, did the Father descend, as the subject itself indicates; nor did an angel command these things, as the fact shows. Then it remains that He must have descended, of whom the Apostle Paul says, “He who descended is the same who ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things,” (Eph_4:10) that is, the Son of God, the Word of God. But the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This must be Christ. Therefore Christ must be declared to be God.

Chap. XVIII.34

Argument. – Moreover Also, from the Fact That He Who Was Seen of Abraham Is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; but of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.

Behold, the same Moses tells us in another place that “God was seen of Abraham.” (Gen_12:7) And yet the same Moses hears from God, that “no man can see God and live.” (Exo_33:20) If God cannot be seen, how was God seen? Or if He was seen, how is it that He cannot be seen? For John also says, “No man hath seen God at any time;” (1Jo_4:12) and the Apostle Paul, “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Ti_6:16) But certainly the Scripture does not lie; therefore, truly, God was seen. Whence it may be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, seeing that He never was seen; but the Son, who has both been accustomed to descend, and to be seen because He has descended. For He is the image of the invisible God, as the imperfection and frailty of the human condition was accustomed sometimes even then to see God the Father in the image of God, that is, in the Son of God. For gradually and by progression human frailty was to be strengthened by the image to that glory of being able one day to see God the Father. For the things that are great are dangerous if they are sudden. For even the sudden light of the sun after darkness, with its too great splendour, will not make manifest the light of day to unaccustomed eyes, but will rather strike them with blindness.

And lest this should occur to the injury of human eyes, the darkness is broken up and scattered by degrees; and the rising of that luminary, mounting by small and unperceived increments, gently accustoms men’s eyes to bear its full orb by the gentle increase of its rays. Thus, therefore, Christ also – that is, the image of God, and the Son of God – is looked upon by men, inasmuch as He could be seen. And thus the weakness and imperfection of the human destiny is nourished, led up, and educated by Him; so that, being accustomed to look upon the Son, it may one day be able to see God the Father Himself also as He is, that it may not be stricken by His sudden and intolerable brightness, and be hindered from being able to see God the Father, whom it has always desired.35 Wherefore it is the Son who is seen; but the Son of God is the Word of God: and the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. What in the world is the reason that we should hesitate to call Him God, who in so many ways is acknowledged to be proved God? And if, moreover, the angel meets with Hagar, Sarah’s maid, driven from her home as well as turned away, near the fountain of water in the way to Shur; asks and learns the reason of her flight, and after that offers her advice that she should humble herself; and, moreover, gives her the hope of the name of mother, and pledges and promises that from her womb there should be a numerous seed, and that she should have Ismael to be born from her; and with other things unfolds the place of his habitation, and describes his mode of life; yet Scripture sets forth this angel as both Lord and God – for He would not have promised the blessing of seed unless the angel had also been God. Let them ask what the heretics can make of this present passage. Was that the Father that was seen by Hagar or not? For He is declared to be God. But far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest He should be subordinate to another whose angel He would be. But they will say that it was an angel. How then shall He be God if He was an angel? Since this name is nowhere conceded to angels, except that on either side the truth compels us into this opinion, that we ought to understand it to have been God the Son, who, because He is of God, is rightly called God, because He is the Son of God. But, because He is subjected36 to the Father, and the Announcer of the Father’s will, He is declared to be the Angel of Great Counsel.37 Therefore, although this passage neither is suited to the person of the Father, lest He should be called an angel, nor to the person of an angel, lest he should be called God; yet it is suited to the person of Christ that He should be both God because He is the Son of God, and should be an angel because He is the Announcer of the Father’s mind. And the heretics ought to understand that they are setting themselves against the Scriptures, in that, while they say that they believe Christ to have been also an angel, they are unwilling to declare Him to have been also God, when they read in the Old Testament that He often came to visit the human race. To this, moreover, Moses added the instance of God seen of Abraham at the oak of Mature, when he was sitting at the opening of his tent at noon-day. And nevertheless, although he had beheld three men, note that he called one of them Lord; and when he had washed their feet, he offers them bread baked on the ashes, with butter and abundance of milk itself, and urges them that, being detained as guests, they should eat. And after I this he hears also that he should be a father, and learns that Sarah his wife should bring forth a son by him; and acknowledges concerning the destruction of the people of Sodom, what they deserve to suffer; and learns that God had come down on account of the cry of Sodom. in which place, if they will have it that the Father was seen at that time to have been received with hospitality in company with two angels, the heretics have believed the Father to be visible. But if an angel, although of the three angels one is called Lord, why, although it is not usual, is an angel called God? Unless because, in order that His proper invisibility may be restored to the Father, and the proper inferiority36 be remitted to the angel, it was only God the Son, who also is God, who was seen by Abraham, and was believed to have been received with hospitality. For He anticipated sacramentally what He was hereafter to become. He was made a guest of Abraham, being about to be among the sons of Abraham. And his children’s feet, by way of proving what He was, He washed; returning in the children the claim of hospitality which formerly the Father had put out to interest to Him. Whence also, that there might be no doubt but that it was He who was the guest of Abraham on the destruction of the people of Sodom, it is declared: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” (Gen_19:24) For thus also said the prophet in the person of God: “I have overthrown you, as the Lord overturned Sodom and Gomorrha.” (Amo_4:11) Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, “The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire.” And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself. Moreover, says the Scripture, the same Angel and God visits and consoles the same Hagar when driven with her son from the dwelling of Abraham. For when in the desert she had exposed the infant, because the water had fallen short from the pitcher; and when the lad had cried out, and she had lifted up her weeping and lamentation, “God heard,” says the Scripture, “the voice of the lad from the place where he was.” (Gen_21:17, etc.) Having told that it was God who heard the voice of the infant, it adds: “And the angel of the Lord called Hagar herself out of heaven,” saying that that was an angel37 whom it had called God, and pronouncing Him to be Lord whom it had set forth as an angel; which Angel and God moreover promises to Hagar herself greater consolations, in saying, “Fear not; for I have heard the voice of the lad from the place where he was. Arise, take up the lad, and hold him; for I will make of him a great nation.” (Gen_21:18) Why does this angel, if angel only, claim to himself this right of saying, I will make of him a great nation, since assuredly this kind of power belongs to God, and cannot belong to an angel? Whence also He is confirmed to be God, since He is able to do this; because, by way of proving this very point, it is immediately added by the Scripture: “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of running water; and she went and filled the bottle from the well, and gave to the lad: and God was with the lad.” (Gen_21:20) If, then, this God was with the Lord, who opened the eyes of Hagar that she might see the well of running water, and might draw the water on account of the urgent need of the lad’s thirst, and this God who calls her from heaven is called an angel when, in previously hearing the voice of the lad crying, He was rather God; is not understood to be other than angel, in like manner as He was God also. And since this cannot be applicable or fitting to the Father, who is God only, but may be applicable to Christ, who is declared to be not only God, but angel also, [see vol. 1. p. 184] it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather Christ, since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the “angel of great counsel.” (Isa_9:6, LXX) And He is the angel, in that He declares the bosom of the Father, as John sets forth. For if John himself says, that He Himself who sets forth the bosom of the Father, as the Word, became flesh in order to declare the bosom of the Father, assuredly Christ is not only man, but angel also; and not only angel, but He is shown by the Scriptures to be Cod also. And this is believed to be the case by us; so that, if we will not consent to apprehend that it was Christ who then spoke to Hagar, we must either make an angel God, or we must reckon God the Father Almighty among the angels. [Among the apparitions are noted Gen_32:24, Exo_3:1-22, Num_22:21, Jos_5:13, 1 Kings 28:11]

Chap. XIX.38

Argument. – That God also Appeared to Jacob as an Angel; Namely, the Son of God.

What if in another place also we read in like manner that God was described as an angel? For when, to his wives Leah and Rachel, Jacob complained of the injustice of their father, and when he told them that he desired now to go and return into his own land, he moreover inter posed the authority of his dream; and at this time he says that the angel of God had said to him in a dream, “Jacob, Jacob. And I said,” says he, “What is it? Lift up thine eyes, said He, and see, the he-goats and the rams leaping upon the sheep, and the she-goats are black and white, and many-coloured, and grizzled, and speckled: for I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee. I am God, who appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst for me there the standing stone, and there vowedst a vow unto me: now therefore arise, and go forth from this land, and go unto the land of thy nativity, and I will be with thee.” (Gen_31:11-13) If the Angel of God speaks thus to Jacob, and the Angel himself mentions and says, “I am God, who appeared unto thee in the house of God,” we see without any hesitation that this is declared to be not only an angel, but God also; because He speaks of the vow directed to Himself by Jacob in the place of God, and He does not say, in my place. It is then the place of God, and He also is God. Moreover, it is written simply in the place of God, for it is not said in the place of the angel and God, but only of God; and He who promises those things is manifested to be both God and Angel, so that reasonably there must be a distinction between Him who is called God only, and Him who is declared to be not God simply, but Angel also. Whence if so great an authority cannot here be regarded as belonging to any other angel, that He should also avow Himself to be God, and should bear witness that a vow was made to Him, except to Christ alone, to whom not as angel only, but as to God, a vow can be vowed; it is manifest that it is not to be received as the Father, but as the Son, God and Angel.39 Moreover, if this is Christ, as it is, he is in terrible risk who says that Christ is either man or angel alone, withholding from Him the power of the divine name, – an authority which He has constantly received on the faith of the heavenly Scriptures, which continually say that He is both Angel and God. To all these things, moreover, is added this, that in like manner as the divine Scripture has frequently declared Him both Angel and God, so the same divine Scripture declares Him also both man and God, expressing thereby what He should be, and depicting even then in figure what He was to be in the truth of His substance. “For,” it says, “Jacob remained alone; and there wrestled with him a man even till daybreak. And He saw that He did not prevail against him; and He touched the broad part of Jacob’s thigh while He was wrestling with him and he with Him, and said to him, Let me go, for the morning has dawned. And he said, I will not let Thee go, except Thou bless me. And He said, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And He said to him, Thy name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name; because thou hast prevailed with God, and thou an powerful with men.” (Gen_32:24-27) [vol. 4. p. 390, sec. 10, this series.] And it adds, moreover: “And Jacob called the name of that place the Vision of God: for I have seen the Lord face to face, and my soul has been made safe. And the sun arose upon him. Afterwards he crossed over the Vision of God, but he halted upon his thigh.” (Gen_32:30, Gen_32:31) A man, it says, wrestled with Jacob. If this was a mere man, who is he? Whence is he? Wherefore does he contend and wrestle with Jacob? What had intervened? What had happened? What was the cause of so great a dispute as that, and so great a struggle? Why, moreover, is Jacob, who is found to be strong enough to hold the man with whom he is wrestling, and asks for a blessing from Him whom he is holding, asserted to have asked therefore, except because this struggle was prefigured as that which should be between Christ and the sons of Jacob, which is said to be completed in the Gospel? For against this man Jacob’s people struggled, in which struggle Jacob’s people was found to be the more powerful, because against Christ it gained the victory of its iniquity: at which time, on account of the crime that it committed, hesitating and giving way, it began most sorely to halt in the walk of its own faith and salvation; and although it was found the stronger, in respect of the condemnation of Christ, it still needs His mercy, still needs His blessing. But, moreover, the man who wrestled with Jacob says, “Moreover, thy name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name;” and if lsrael is the man who sees God, the Lord was beautifully showing that it was not only a man who was then wrestling with Jacob, but God also. Certainly Jacob saw God, with whom he wrestled, although he was holding the man in his own struggle. And in order that there might still be no hesitation, He Himself laid down the interpretation by saying, “Because thou hast prevailed with God, and art powerful with men.” For which reason the same Jacob, perceiving already the force of the Mystery, and apprehending the authority of Him with whom he had wrestled, called the name of that place in which he had wrestled, the Vision of God. He, moreover, superadded the reason for his interpretation being offered of the Vision of God: “For I have seen,” said he, “God face to face, and my soul has been saved.” Moreover, he saw God, with whom he wrestled as with a man; but still indeed he held the man as a conqueror, though as an inferior he asked a blessing as from God. Thus he wrestled with God and with man; and thus truly was that struggle prefigured, and in the Gospel was fulfilled, between Christ and the people of Jacob, wherein, although the people had the mastery, yet it proved to be inferior by being shown to be guilty. Who will hesitate to acknowledge that Christ, in whom this type of a wrestling was fulfilled, was not man only, but God also, since even that very type of a wrestling seems to have proved Him man and God? And yet, even after this, the same divine Scripture justly does not cease to call the Angel God, and to pronounce God the Angel. For when this very Jacob was about to bless Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, with his hands placed across on the heads of the lads, he said, “The God which fed me from my youth even unto this day, the Angel who delivered me from all evils, bless these lads.” (Gen_48:14, Gen_48:15) Even to such a point does he affirm the same Being to be an Angel, whom he had called God, as in the end of his discourse, to express the person of whom he was speaking as one, when he said40 “bless these lads.” For if he had meant the one to be understood as God, and the other as an angel, he would have comprised the two persons in the plural number; but now he defined the singular number of one person in the blessing, whence he meant it to be understood that the same person is God and Angel. But yet He cannot be received as God the Father; but as God and Angel, as Christ He can be received. And Him, as the author of this blessing, Jacob also signified by placing his hands crossed upon the lads, as if their father was Christ, and showing, from thus placing his hands, the figure and future form of the passion.41 Let no one, therefore, who does not shrink from speaking of Christ as an Angel, thus shrink from pronouncing Him God also, when he perceives that He Himself was invoked in the blessing of these lads, by the sacrament of the passion, intimated in the type of the crossed hands, as both God and Angel.

Chap. XX.42

Argument. – It Is Proved from the Scriptures That Christ Was Called an Angel. But yet It Is Shown from Other Parts of Holy Scripture That He Is God Also.

But if some heretic, obstinately struggling against the truth, should persist in all these instances either in understanding that Christ was properly an angel, or should contend that He must be so understood, he must in this respect also be subdued by the force of truth. For if, since all heavenly things, earthly things, and things under the earth, are subjected to Christ, even the angels themselves, with all other creatures, as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, [Psa_97:7; Joh_10:36; Hippol., p. 153, supra.] rightly also Christ is God. And if any angel at all subjected to Christ can be called God, and this, if it be said, is also professed without blasphemy, certainly much more can this be fitting for Christ, Himself the Son of God, for Him to be pronounced God. For if an angel who is subjected to Christ is exalted as God, much more, and more consistently, shall Christ, to whom all angels are subjected, be said to be God. For it is not suitable to nature, that what is conceded to the lesser should be denied to the greater. Thus, if an angel be inferior to Christ, and yet an angel is called god, rather by consequence is Christ said to be God, who is discovered to be both greater and better, not than one, but than all angels. And if “God standeth in the assembly of the gods, and in the midst God distinguisheth between the gods,” (Psa_82:1, Psa_82:2, etc.) and Christ stood at various times in the synagogue, then Christ stood in the synagogue as God, – judging, to wit, between the gods, to whom He says, “How long do ye accept the persons of men?” That is to say, consequently, charging the men of the synagogue with not practising just judgments. Further, if they who are reproved and blamed seem even for any reason to attain this name without blasphemy, that they should be called gods, assuredly much more shall He be esteemed God, who not only is said to have stood as God in the synagogue of the gods, but moreover is revealed by the same authority of the reading as distinguishing and judging between gods. But even if they who “fall like one of the princes” are still called gods, much rather shall He be said to be God, who not only does not fall like one of the princes, but even overcomes both the author and prince of wickedness himself. And what in the world is the reason, that although they say that this name was given even to Moses, since it is said, “I have made thee as a god to Pharaoh,” (Exo_7:1) it should be denied to Christ, who is declared to be ordained43 not to Pharaoh only, but to every creature, as both Lord and God? And in the former case indeed this name is given with reserve, in the latter lavishly; in the former by measure, in the latter above all kind of measure: “For,” it is said, “the Father giveth not to the Son by measure, for the Father loveth the Son.” (Joh_3:34, Joh_3:35) In the former for the time, in the latter without reference to time; [Rev_11:15] for He received the power of the divine name, both above all things and for all time. But if he who has received the power of one man, in respect to this limited power given him, still without hesitation attains that name of God, how much more shall He who has power over Moses himself as well be believed to have attained the authority of that name?

Chap. XXI.44

Argument. – That the Same Divine Majesty Is Again Confirmed in Christ by Other Scriptures.

And indeed I could set forth the treatment of this subject by all heavenly Scriptures, and set in motion, so to speak, a perfect forest of texts concerning that manifestation of the divinity of Christ, except that I have not so much undertaken to speak against this special form of heresy, as to expound the rule of truth concerning the person of Christ. Although, however, I must hasten to other matters, I do not think that I must pass over this point, that in the Gospel the Lord declared, by way of signifying His majesty, saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again.” (Joh_2:19) Or when, in another passage, and on another subject, He declares, “I have power to lay down my life, and again to take it up; for this commandment I have received of my Father.” (Joh_10:18) Now who is it who says that He can lay down His life, or can Himself recover His life again, because He has received it of His Father? Or who says that He can again resuscitate and rebuild the destroyed temple of His body, except because He is the Word who is from the Father, who is with the Father, “by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;” (Joh_1:3) the imitator45 of His Father’s works and powers, “the image of the invisible God ;” (Col_1:5) “who came down from heaven;” (Joh_3:31, Joh_3:32) who testified what things he had seen and heard; who “came not to do His own will, but rather to do the will of the Father,” (Joh_4:38) by whom He had been sent for this very purpose, that being made the “Messenger of Great Counsel,” (Isa_9:6) He might unfold to us the laws of the heavenly mysteries; and who as the Word made flesh dwelt among us, of us this Christ is proved to be not man only, because He was the son of man, but also God, because He is the Son of God? And if by the apostle Christ is called “the first-born of every creature,” (Col_1:15)46 how could He be the first-born of every creature, unless because according to His divinity the Word proceeded from the Father before every creature? And unless the heretics receive it thus, they will be constrained to show that Christ the man was the first-born of every creature; which they will not be able to do. Either, therefore, He is before every creature, that He may be the first-born of every creature, and He is not man only, because man is after every creature; or He is man only, and He is after every creature. And how is He the first-born of every creature, except because being that Word which is before every creature; and therefore, the first-born of every creature, He becomes flesh and dwells in us, that is, assumes that man’s nature which is after every creature, and so dwells with him and in him, in us, that neither is humanity taken away from Christ, nor His divinity denied? For if He is only before every creature, humanity is taken away from Him; but if He is only man, the divinity which is before every creature is interfered with. Both of these, therefore, are leagued together in Christ, and both are conjoined, and both are linked with one another. And rightly, as there is in Him something which excels the creature, the agreement of the divinity and the humanity seems to be pledged in Him: for which reason He who is declared as made the “Mediator between God and man” (1Ti_2:5) is revealed to have associated in Himself God and man. And if the same apostle says of Christ, that “having put off the flesh, He spoiled powers, they being openly triumphed over in Himself,” (Col_2:15) he certainly did not without a meaning propound that the flesh was put off, unless because he wished it to be understood that it was again put on also at the resurrection. Who, therefore, is He that thus put off and put on the flesh? Let the heretics seek out. For we know that the Word of God was invested with the substance of flesh, and that He again was divested of the same bodily material, which again He took up in the resurrection and resumed as a garment. And yet Christ could neither have been divested of nor invested with manhood, had He been only man: for man is never either deprived of nor invested with himself. For that must be something else, whatever it may be, which by any other is either taken away or put on. Whence, reasonably, it was the Word of God who put off the flesh, and again in the resurrection put it on, since He put it off because at His birth He had been invested with it. Therefore in Christ it is God who is invested, and moreover must be divested, because He who is invested must also likewise be He who is divested; whereas, as man, He is invested with and divested of, as it were, a certain tunic of the compacted body.47 And therefore by consequence He was, as we have said, the Word of God, who is revealed to be at one time invested, at another time divested of the flesh. For this, moreover, He before predicted in blessings: “He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.” (Gen_49:11) If the garment in Christ be the flesh, and the clothing itself be the body, let it be asked who is He whose body is clothing, and garment flesh? For to us it is evident that the flesh is the garment, and the body the clothing of the Word; and He washed His bodily substance, and purified the material of the flesh in blood, that is, in wine, by His passion, in the human character that He had undertaken. Whence, if indeed He is washed, He is man, because the garment which is washed is the flesh; but He who washes is the Word of God, who, in order that He might wash the garment, was made the taker-up of the garment. Rightly, from that substance which is taken that it might be washed, He is revealed as a man, even as from the authority of the Word who washed it He is manifested to be God.

FOOTNOTES

27 [Note this exposition.]

28 According to Pamelius, ch. xxiii.

29 “Dispositione,” scil. οἰκονομίᾳ – Jackson.

30 According to Pamelius, ch. xxiv.

31 [That is, “the prescribed rule” of our Catholic orthodoxy reflects the formula of our Lord’s testimony concerning Himself. Here is a reference to testimony of the early creeds and canons.]

32 According to Pamelius, ch. xxv.

33 [ἔστησεν ὁρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ, Sept.]

34 According to Pamelius, ch. xxvi.

35 [This leading up and educating of humanity to “see God” is here admirably put. Heb_1:3]

36 [De subordinatione, etc.: Bull, Defensio, etc., vol. v. pp. 767, 685. The Nicene doctrine includes the subordination of the Son.]

37 [Isa_9:6, according to the Seventy. Exo_23:20. See Bull, Defensio, vol. v. p. 30. Comp. Hippol., p. 225, supra; Novatian, p. 632, infra.]

38 According to Pamelius, ch. xxvii.

39 [Sirach 5:6. A striking text when compared with the “Angel of the Covenant” (Angelus Testamenti, Vulgate), Mal_3:1]

40 Benedicat.

41 [A very beautiful patristic idea of the dim vision of the cross to which the Fathers were admitted, but which they understood not, even when they predicted it. 1 Peter 10:11.]

42 According to Pamelius, ch. xv.

43 [The full meaning of which only comes out in the Gospel and in 2Pe_1:4. The lie of Gen_3:5, is made true in Christ.]

44 According to Pamelius, ch. xvi.

45 [Joh_5:19. The infirmities of language are such that cunning men like Petavius can construct anti-Nicene doctrine out of scripture itself; and the marvel is, that the Christian Fathers before the Council of Nicaea generally use such precision of language, although they lacked the synodical definitions.]

46 [But not a creature, for the apostle immediately subjoins that He is the Creator and final Cause of the universe. Moreover, the first-born here seems to mean the heir of all creation, for such is the logical force of the verse following. So, πρωτοτοκεῖα (in the Seventy) = heirship. Gen_25:31.]

47 Perhaps the emendation homine instead of homo is right. “He puts on and puts off humanity, as if it were a kind of tunic for a compacted body.”

Chap. XXII.48

Argument – That the Same Divine Majesty Is in Christ, He once More Asserts by Other Scriptures.

But why, although we appear to hasten to another branch of the argument, should we pass over that passage in the apostle: “Who, although He was in the form of God, did not think it robbery that He should be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking up the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God hath highly exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bent, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, in the glory of God the Father?” (Phi_2:6-11) “Who, although He was in the form of God,” he says. If Christ had been only man, He would have been spoken of as in “the image” of God, not “in the form” of God. For we know that man was made after the image or likeness, not after the form, of God. Who then is that angel who, as we have said, was made in the form of God? But neither do we read of the form of God in angels, except because this one is chief and royal above all – the Son of God, the Word of God, the imitator of all His Father’s works, in that He Himself worketh even as His Father. He is – as we have declared – in the form of God the Father. And He is reasonably affirmed to be in the form of God, in that He Himself, being above all things, and having the divine power over every creature, is also God after the example of the Father. Yet He obtained, this from His own Father, that He should be both God of all and should be Lord, and be begotten and made known from Himself as God in the form of God the Father. He then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him.49 Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equaling Himself with God the Father; but, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His rule and will, He even was contented to take on Him the form of a servant – that is, to become man; and the substance of flesh and body which, as it came to Him from the bondage of His forefathers’ sins according to His manhood, He undertook by being born, at which time moreover He emptied Himself, in that He did not refuse to take upon Him the frailty incident to humanity. Because if He had been born man only, He would not have been emptied in respect of this; for man, being born, is increased, not emptied. For in beginning to be that which He could not possess, so long as He did not exist, as we have said, He is not emptied, but is rather increased and enriched. But if Christ is emptied in being born, in taking the form of a servant, how is He man only? Of whom it could more truly have been said that He was enriched, not emptied, at the time that He was born, except because the authority of the divine Word, reposing for awhile in taking upon itself humanity, and not exercising itself with its real strength, casts itself down, and puts itself off for the time, in bearing the humanity which it has undertaken? It empties itself in descending to injuries and reproaches, in bearing abominations, in experiencing things unworthy; and yet of this humility there is present at once an eminent reward. For He has “received a name which is above every name,” which assuredly we understand to be none other than the name of God. For since it belongs to God alone to be above all things, it follows that the name which is that God’s who is above all things, is above every name; which name by consequence is certainly His who, although He was “in the form of God, thought it not robbery for Him to be equal with God.” For neither, if Christ were not God, would every knee bend itself in His name, “of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” nor would things visible and invisible, even every creature of all things, be subjected or be placed under man, when they might remember that they were before man. Whence, since Christ is said to be in the form of God, and since it is shown that for His nativity according to the flesh He emptied Himself; and since it is declared that He received from the Father that name which is above every name; and since it is shown that in His name “every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, bend and bow” themselves; and this very thing is asserted to be a furtherance of the glory of God the Father; consequently He is not man only, from the fact that He became obedient to the Father, even to death, yea, the death of the cross; but, moreover, from the proclamation by these higher matters of the divinity of Christ, Christ Jesus is shown to be Lord and God, which the heretics will not have.

Chap. XXIII.50

Argument. – And This Is so Manifest, That Some Heretics Have Thought Him to Be God the Father, Others That He Was Only God Without the Flesh.

In this place I may be permitted also to collect arguments from the side of other heretics. It is a substantial kind of proof which is gathered even from an adversary, so as to prove the truth even from the very enemies of truth. For it is so far manifest that He is declared in the Scriptures to be God, that many heretics, moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity, exaggerating His honours above measure, have dared to announce or to think Him not the Son, but God the Father Himself. [The Noetians, Hippol., p. 148, supra.] And this, although it is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, is still a great and excellent argument for the divinity of Christ, who is so far God, except as Son of God, born of God, that very many heretics – as we have said – have so accepted Him as God, as to think that He must be pronounced not the Son, but the Father. Therefore let it be considered whether He is God or not, since His authority has so affected some, that, as we have already said above, they have thought Him God the Father Himself, and have confessed the divinity in Christ with such impetuosity and effusion – compelled to it by the manifest divinity in Christ – that they thought that He whom they read of as the Son, because they perceived Him to be God, must be the Father. Moreover, other heretics have so far embraced the manifest divinity of Christ, as to say that He was without flesh, and to withdraw from Him the whole humanity which He took upon Him, lest, by associating with Him a human nativity, as they conceived it, they should diminish in Him the power of the divine name. [Irenaeus, vol. 1. p. 527] This, however, we do not approve; but we quote it as an argument to prove that Christ is God, to this extent, that some, taking away the manhood, have thought Him God only, and some have thought Him God the Father Himself; when reason and the proportion of the heavenly Scriptures show Christ to be God, but as the Son of God; and the Son of man, having been taken up, moreover by God, that He must be believed to be man also. Because if He came to man, that He might be Mediator of God and men, it behoved Him to be with man, and the Word to be made flesh, that in His own self He might link together the agreement of earthly things with heavenly things, by associating in Himself pledges of both natures, and uniting God to man and man to God; so that reasonably the Son of God might be made by the assumption of flesh the Son of man, and the Son of man by the reception of the Word of God the Son of God. This most profound and recondite mystery, destined before the worlds for the salvation of the human race, is found to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man, that the human race might be placed within the reach of the enjoyment of eternal salvation.

Chap. XXIV.51

Argument. – That These Have Therefore Erred, by Thinking That There Was No Difference Between the Son of God and the Son of Man; Because They Have Ill Understood the Scripture.

But the material of that heretical error has arisen, as I judge, from this, that they think that there is no distinction between the Son of God and the Son of man; because if a distinction were made, Jesus Christ would easily be proved to be both man and God. For they will have it that the self-same that is man, the Son of man, appears also as the Son of God; that man and flesh and that same frail substance may be said to be also the Son of God Himself. Whence, since no distinction is discerned between the Son of man and the Son of God, but the Son of man Himself is asserted to be the Son of God, the same Christ and the Son of God is asserted to be man only; by which they strive to exclude, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (Joh_1:14) And ye shall call His name Emmanuel; which is, interpreted, God with us.” (Mat_1:23) For they propose and put forward what is told in the Gospel of Luke, whence they strive to maintain not what is the truth, but only what they want it to be: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shah overshadow thee; therefore also the Holy Thing which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luk_1:35) If, then, say they, the angel of God says to Mary, “that Holy Thing which is born of thee,” the substance of flesh and body is of Mary; but he has set forth that this substance, that is, that Holy Thing which is born of her, is the Son of God. Man, say they, himself, and that bodily flesh; that which is called holy, itself is the Son of God. That also when the Scripture says that “Holy Thing,” we should understand thereby Christ the man, the Son of man; and when it places before us the Son of God, we ought to perceive, not man, but God. And yet the divine Scripture easily convicts and discloses the frauds and artifices of the heretics. For if it were thus only, “The Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that Holy Thing which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” perchance we should have had to strive against them in another sort, and to have sought for other arguments, and to have taken up other weapons, with which to overcome both their snares and their wiles; but since the Scripture itself, abounding in heavenly fulness, divests itself of the calumnies of these heretics, we easily depend upon that that is written, and overcome those errors without any hesitation. For it said, not as we have already stated, “Therefore the Holy Thing which shall be born of thee;” but added the conjunction, for it says, “Therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee,” so as to make it plain that that Holy Thing which is born of her – that is, that substance of flesh and body – is not the Son of God primarily, but consequently, and in the secondary place;52 but primarily, that the Son of God is the Word of God, incarnate by that Spirit of whom the angel says, “The Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” For He is the legitimate Son of God who is of God Himself; and He, while He assumes that Holy Thing, and links to Himself the Son of man, and draws Him and transfers Him to Himself, by His connection and mingling of association becomes responsible for and makes Him the Son of God, which by nature He was not, so that the original cause53 of that name Son of God is in the Spirit of the Lord, who descended and came, and that there is only the continuance of the name in the case of the Son of man;54 and by consequence He reasonably became the Son of God, although originally He is not the Son of God. And therefore the angel, seeing that arrangement, and providing for that order of the mystery, did not confuse every thing in such a way as to leave no trace of a distinction, but established the distinction by saying, “Therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” lest, had he not arranged that distribution with his balances, but had left the matter all mixed up in confusion, it had really afforded occasion to heretics to declare that the Son of man, in that He is man, is the same as the Son of God and man. But now, explaining severally the ordinance and the reason of so great a mystery, he evidently set forth in saying, “And that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” the proof that the Son of God descended, and that He, in taking up into Himself the Son of man, consequently made Him the Son of God, because the Son of God associated and joined Him to Himself. So that, while the Son of man cleaves in His nativity to the Son of God, by that very mingling He holds that as pledged and derived which of His own nature He could not possess. And thus by the word of the angel the distinction is made, against the desire of the heretics, between the Son of God and man; yet with their association, by pressing them to understand that Christ the Son of man is man, and also to receive the Son of God and man the Son of God; that is, the Word of God as it is written as God; and thus to acknowledge that Christ Jesus the Lord, connected on both sides, so to speak, is on both sides woven in and grown together, and associated in the same agreement of both substances, by the binding to one another of a mutual alliance – man and God by the truth of the Scripture which declares this very thing. 

Chap. XXV.55

Argument. – And That It Does Not Follow Thence, That Because Christ Died It Must also Be Received That God Died; for Scripture Sets Forth That Not Only Was Christ God, but Man Also.

Therefore, say they, if Christ is not man only, but God also – and Scripture tells us that He died for us, and was raised again – then Scripture teaches us to believe that God died; or if God does not die, and Christ is said to have died, then Christ will not be God, because God cannot be admitted to have died. If they ever could understand or had understood what they read, they would never speak after such a perilous fashion. But the folly of error is always hasty in its descent, and it is no new thing if those who have forsaken the lawful faith descend even to perilous results. For if Scripture were to set forth that Christ is God only, and that there was no association of human weakness mingled in His nature, this intricate argument of theirs might reasonably avail something. If Christ is God, and Christ died, then God died. But when Scripture determines, as we have frequently shown, that He is not only God, but man also, it follows that what is immortal may be held to have remained uncorrupted. For who cannot understand that the divinity is impassible, although the human weakness is liable to suffering? When, therefore, Christ is understood to be mingled and associated as well of that which God is, as of that which man is – for “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us” – who cannot easily apprehend of himself, without any teacher and interpreter, that it was not that in Christ that died which is God, but that in Him died which is man? For what if the divinity in Christ does not die, but the substance of the flesh only is destroyed, when in other men also, who are not flesh only, but flesh and soul, the flesh indeed alone suffers the inroads of wasting and death, while the soul is seen to be uncorrupted, and beyond the laws of destruction and death? For this also our Lord Himself said, exhorting us to martyrdom and to contempt of all human power: “Fear not those who slay the body, but cannot kill the soul.” (Mat_10:28) But if the immortal soul cannot be killed or slain in any other, although the body and flesh by itself can be slain, how much rather assuredly could not the Word of God and God in Christ be put to death at all, although the flesh alone and the body was slain! For if in any man whatever, the soul has this excellence of immortality that it cannot be slain, much more has the nobility of the Word of God this power of not being slain. For if the power of men fails to slay the sacred power of God, and if the cruelty of man fails to destroy the soul, much more ought it to fail to slay the Word of God. For as the soul itself, which was made by the Word of God, is not killed by men, certainly much rather will it be believed that the Word of God cannot be destroyed. And if the sanguinary cruelty of men cannot do more against men than only to slay the body, how much more certainly it will not have power against Christ beyond in the same way slaying the body! So that, while from these considerations it is gathered that nothing but the human nature in Christ was put to death, it appears that the Word in Him was not drawn down into mortality. For if Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who, it is admitted, were only men, are manifested to be alive – for all they,56 says He, “live unto God;” and death in them does not destroy the soul, although it dissolves the bodies themselves: for it could exercise its power on the bodies, it did not avail to exercise it on the souls: for the one in them was mortal, and therefore died; the other in them was immortal, and therefore is understood not to have been extinguished: for which reason they are affirmed and said to live unto God, – much rather death in Christ could have power against the material of His body alone, while against the divinity of the Word it could not bring itself to bear. For the power of death is broken when the authority of immortality intervenes.

Chap. XXVI.57

Argument. – Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves That the Father Is One, the Son Another.

But from this occasion of Christ being proved from the sacred authority of the divine writings not man only, but God also, other heretics, breaking forth, contrive to impair the religious position in Christ; by this very fact wishing to show that Christ is God the Father, in that He is asserted to be not man only, but also is declared to be God. For thus say they, If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God, then say they, If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father. Wherein they are proved to be in error, not knowing Christ, but following the sound of a name; for they are not willing that He should be the second person after the Father, but the Father Himself. And since these things are easily answered, few words shall be said. For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness;” (Gen_1:26) and that after this it was related, “And God made man, in the image of God made He him?” Or when he holds in his hands: “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven?” (Gen_19:24) Or when he reads (as having been said) to Christ: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathens for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession?” (Psa_2:7, Psa_2:8) Or when also that beloved writer says: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I shall make Thine enemies the stool of Thy feet?” (Psa_110:1) Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: “Thus saith the Lord to Christ my Lord?” (Isa_45:1)58 Or when he reads: “I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me?” (Joh_6:38) Or when he finds it written: “Because He who sent me is greater than I?” (Joh_14:28) Or when he considers the passage: “I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God?” (Joh_20:17) Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: “Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me?” (Joh_8:17, Joh_8:18) Or when the voice from heaven is: “I have both glorified Him, and I will glorify Him again?” (Joh_12:20) Or when by Peter it is answered and said: Thou art the Son of the living God?” (Mat_16:6) Or when by the Lord Himself the sacrament of this revelation is approved, and He says: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father which is in heaven? (Mat_16:16) Or when by Christ Himself it is expressed: “Father, glorify me with that glory with which I was with Thee before the world was made? (Mat_16:17) Or when it was said by the same: “Father, I knew that Thou hearest me always; but on account of those who stand around I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me?” (Joh_11:12) Or when the definition of the rule is established by Christ Himself, and it is said: “And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee upon the earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest me?” (Joh_17:3, Joh_17:4) Or when, moreover, by the same it is asserted and said: “All things are delivered to me by my Father?” (Luk_10:22) Or when the session at the right hand of the Father is proved both by apostles and prophets? And I should have enough to do were I to endeavour to gather together all the passages [cap. xxi. p. 632, supra.] whatever on this side; since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that He always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father Himself permitted to Him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that He is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if He be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?

Chap. XXVII.59

Argument. – He Skillfully Replies to a Passage Which the Heretics Employed in Defence of Their Own Opinion.

But since they frequently urge upon us the passage where it is said, “I and the Father are one,” (Joh_10:30)60 in this also we shall overcome them with equal facility. For if, as the heretics think, Christ were the Father, He ought to have said, “I and the Father are one.”61 But when He says I, and afterwards introduces the Father by saying, “I and the Father,” He severs and distinguishes the peculiarity of His, that is, the Son’s person, from the paternal authority, not only in respect of the sound of the name, but moreover in respect of the order of the distribution of power, since He might have said, “I the Father,” if He had had it in mind that He Himself was the Father. And since He said “one” thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say “one” person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. He is said to be one neuter, not one masculine, because the expression is not referred to the number, but it is declared with reference to the association of another. Finally, He adds, and says, “We are,” not “I am,” so as to show, by the fact of His saying” I and the Father are,” that they are two persons. Moreover, that He says one,62 has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection; and because He is of the Father, whatsoever He is, He is the Son; the distinction however remaining, that He is not the Father who is the Son, because He is not the Son who is the Father. For He would not have added “We are,” if He had had it in mind that He, the only and sole Father, had become the Son. In fine, the Apostle Paul also apprehended this agreement of unity, with the distinction of persons notwithstanding: for in writing to the Corinthians he said, “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God who gives the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one.” (1Co_3:6, 1Co_3:7, 1Co_3:8)63 And who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that. Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person? Moreover, also, the offices mentioned of each one of them are different; for one is he who plants, and another he who waters. The Apostle Paul, however, put forward these two not as being one person, but as being “one;” so that although Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons, yet as far as respects their agreement both are “one.” For when two persons have one judgment, one truth, one faith, one and the same religion, one fear of God also, they are one even although they are two persons: they are the same, in that they have the same mind. Since those whom the consideration of person divides from one another, these same again are brought together as one by the consideration of religion. And although they are not actually the self-same people, yet in feeling the same, they are the same; and although they are two, are still one, as having an association in faith, even although they bear diversity in persons. Besides, when at these words of the Lord the Jewish ignorance had been aroused, so that hastily they ran to take up stones, and said, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God,” (Joh_10:33) the Lord established the distinction, in giving them the principle on which He had either said that He was God, or wished it to be understood, and says, “Say ye of Him, whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Joh_10:36) Even here also He said that He had the Father. He is therefore the Son, not the Father: for He would have confessed that He was the Father had He considered Himself to be the Father; and He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. In receiving, then, sanctification from the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Now, consequently, He who is inferior to the Father, is not the Father, but the Son; for had He been the Father, He would have given, and not received, sanctification. Now, however, by declaring that He has received sanctification from the Father, by the very fact of proving Himself to be less than the Father, by receiving from Him sanctification, He has shown that He is the Son, and not the Father. Besides, He says that He is sent: so that by that obedience wherewith the Lord Christ came, being sent, He might be proved to be not the Father, but the Son, who assuredly would have sent had He been the Father; but being sent, He was not the Father, lest the Father should be proved, in being sent, to be subjected to another God. And still after this He added what might dissolve all ambiguity, and quench all the controversy of error: for He says, in the last portion of His discourse, “Ye say, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.” Therefore if He plainly testifies that He is the Son of God, and not the Father, it is an instance of great temerity and excessive madness to stir up a controversy of divinity and religion, contrary to the testimony of the Lord Christ Himself, and to say that Christ Jesus is the Father, when it is observed that He has proved Himself to be, not the Father, but the Son.

Chap. XXVIII.

Argument. – He Proves also That the Words Spoken to Philip Make Nothing for the Sabellians.

Hereto also I will add that view wherein the heretic, while he rejoices as if at the loss of some power of seeing special truth and light, acknowledges the total blindness of his error. For again and again, and frequently, he objects that it was said, “Have I been so long time with you, and do ye not know me, Philip? He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father also.” (Joh_14:9) But let him learn what he does not understand. Philip is reproved, and rightly, and deservedly indeed, because he has said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” (Joh_14:8) For when had he either heard from Christ, or learnt that Christ was the Father? although, on the other hand, he had frequently heard, and had often learned, rather that He was the Son, not that He was the Father. For what the Lord said, “If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also: and henceforth ye have known Him, and have seen Him,” (Joh_14:7) He said not as wishing to be understood Himself to be the Father, but implying that he who thoroughly, and fully, and with all faith and all religiousness, drew near to the Son of God, by all means shall attain, through the Son Himself, in whom he thus believes, to the Father, and shall see Him. “For no one,” says He, “can come to the Father, but by me.” (Joh_14:6) And therefore he shall not only come to God the Father, and shall know the Father Himself; but, moreover, he ought thus to hold, and so to presume in mind and heart, that he has henceforth not only known, but seen the Father. For often the divine Scripture announces things that are not yet done as being done, because thus they shall be; and things which by all means have to happen, it does not predict as if they were future, but narrates as if they were done. And thus, although Christ had not been born as yet in the times of Isaiah the prophet, he said, “For unto us a child is born;” (Isa_9:6) and although Mary had not yet been approached, he said, “‘ And I approached unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.” (Isa_8:3) And when Christ had not yet made known the mind of the Father, it is said, “And His name shall be called the Angel of Great Counsel.” (Isa_9:6, LXX) [see pp. 628, 632, supra.] And when He had not yet suffered, he declared, “He is as a sheep led to the slaughter.” (Isa_53:7) And although the cross had never yet existed, He said, “All day long have I stretched out my hands to an unbelieving people.” (Isa_65:2) And although not yet had He been scornfully given to drink, the Scripture says, “In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psa_69:21) And although He had not yet been stripped, He said, “Upon my vesture they did cast lots, and they numbered my bones: they pierced my hands and my feet.” (Psa_22:18, Psa_22:17) For the divine Scripture, foreseeing, speaks of things which it knows shall be as being already done, and speaks of things as perfected which it regards as future, but which shall come to pass without any doubt. And thus the Lord in the present passage said, “Henceforth ye have known and have seen Him.” Now He said that the Father should be seen by whomsoever had followed the Son, not as if the Son Himself should be the Father seen, but that whosoever was willing to follow Him, and be His disciple, should obtain the reward of being able to see the Father. For He also is the image of God the Father; so that it is added, moreover, to these things, that “as the Father worketh, so also the Son worketh.” (Joh_5:17) And the Son is an imitator [cap. xxi. note 45, 632, supra.] of all the Father’s works, so that every one may regard it just as if he saw the Father, when he sees Him who always imitates the invisible Father in all His works. But if Christ is the Father Himself, in what manner does He immediately add, and say, “Whosoever believeth in me, the works that I do he shall do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father? (Joh_14:12) And He further subjoins, “If ye love me, keep my commandments; and I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter.” (Joh_14:5, Joh_14:6) After which also He adds this: “If any one loveth me, he shall keep my word: and my Father will love him; and we will come unto him, and will make our abode with him.” (Joh_14:23) Moreover, also, He added this too: “But the Advocate, that Holy Spirit whom the Father will send, He will teach you, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (Joh_14:26) He utters, further, that passage when He shows Himself to be the Son, and reasonably subjoins, and says, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.” (Joh_14:28) But what shall we say when He also continues in these words: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit He purgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit?” (Joh_15:1) Still He persists, and adds: “As the Father hath loved me, so also have I loved you: remain in my love. If ye have kept my commandments, ye shall remain in my love; even as I have kept the Father’s commandments, and remain in His love.” (Joh_15:9, Joh_15:10) Further, He says in addition: “But I have called you friends; for all things which I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.” (Joh_15:15) Moreover, He adds to all this: “But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not Him that sent me.” (Joh_15:21) These things then, after the former, evidently attesting Him to be not the Father but the Son, the Lord would never have added, if He had had it in mind, either that He was the Father, or wished Himself to be understood as the Father, except that He might declare this, that every man ought henceforth to consider, in seeing the image of God the Father through the Son, that it was as if he saw the Father; since every one believing on the Son may be exercised in the contemplation of the likeness, so that, being accustomed to seeing the divinity in likeness, he may go forward, and grow even to the perfect contemplation of God the Father Almighty. And since he who has imbibed this truth into his mind and soul, and has believed of all things that thus it shall be, he shall even now see, as it were, in some measure the Father whom he will see hereafter; and he may so regard it, as if he actually held, what he knows for certain that he shall one day hold. But if Christ Himself had been the Father, why did He promise as future, a reward which He had already granted and given? For that He says, “Blessed are they of a pure heart, for they shall see God,” (Mat_5:8) it is understood to promise the contemplation and vision of the Father; therefore He had not given this; for why should He promise if He had already given? For He had given if He was the Father: for He was seen, and He was touched But since, when Christ Himself is seen and touched, He still promises, and says that he who is of a pure heart shall see God, He proves by this very saying that He who was then present was not the Father, seeing that He was seen, and yet promised that whoever should be of a pure heart should see the Father. It was therefore not the Father, but the Son, who promised this, because He who was the Son promised that which had yet to be seen; and His promise would have been superfluous unless He had been the Son. For why did He promise to the pure in heart that they should see the Father, if already they who were then present saw Christ as the Father? But because He was the Son, not the Father, rightly also He was then seen as the Son, because He was the image of God; and the Father, because He is invisible, is promised and pointed out as to be seen by the pure in heart. Let it then be enough to have suggested even these points against that heretic; a few words about many things. For a field which is indeed both wide and expansive would be laid open if we should desire to discuss that heretic more fully; seeing that bereaved, in these two particulars, as it were of his eyes plucked out, he is altogether overcome in the blindness of his doctrine.

Chap. XXIX.

Argument. – He Next Teaches Us That the Authority of the Faith Enjoins, After the Father and the Son, to Believe also on the Holy Spirit, Whose Operations Tie Enumerates from Scripture.

Moreover, the order of reason, and the authority of the faith in the disposition of the words and in the Scriptures of the Lord, admonish us after these things to believe also on the Holy Spirit, once promised to the Church, and in the appointed occasions of times given. For He was promised by Joel the prophet, but given by Christ. “In the last days,” says the prophet, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon my servants and my handmaids.” (Joe_2:28; Act_2:17) And the Lord said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit, they shall be remitted; and whose ye retain, they shall be retained.” (Joh_20:22, Joh_20:23) But this Holy Spirit the Lord Christ calls at one time “the Paraclete,” at another pronounces to be the “Spirit of truth.” (Joh_14:16, Joh_14:17) And He is not new in the Gospel, nor yet even newly given; for it was He Himself who accused the people in the prophets, and in the apostles gave them the appeal to the Gentiles. For the former deserved to be accused, because they had contemned the law; and they of the Gentiles who believe deserve to be aided by the defence of the Spirit, because they earnestly desire to attain to the Gospel law. Assuredly in the Spirit there are different kinds of offices, because in the times there is a different order of occasions; and yet, on this account, He who discharges these offices is not different, nor is He another in so acting, but He is one and the same, distributing His offices according to the times, and the occasions and impulses of things. Moreover, the Apostle Paul says, “Having the same Spirit; as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.” (2Co_4:13) He is therefore one and the same Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, except that in the former He was occasional, in the latter always. But in the former not as being always in them, in the latter as abiding always in them; and in the former distributed with reserve, in the latter all poured out; in the former given sparingly, in the latter liberally bestowed; not yet manifested before the Lord’s resurrection, but conferred after the resurrection. For, said He, “I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.” (Joh_14:16, Joh_14:17) And, “When He, the Advocate, shall come, whom I shall send unto you from my Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from my Father.” (Joh_15:20) And, “If I go not away, that Advocate shall not come to you; but if I go away, I will send Him to you.” (Joh_16:7) And, “When the Spirit of truth shall come, He will direct you into all the truth.” (Joh_16:13) And because the Lord was about to depart to the heavens, He gave the Paraclete out of necessity to the disciples; so as not to leave them in any degree orphans, [Joh_14:18, Greek] which was little desirable, and forsake them without an advocate and some kind of protector. For this is He who strengthened their hearts and minds, who marked out the Gospel sacraments, who was in them the enlightener of divine things; and they being strengthened, feared, for the sake of the Lord’s name, neither dungeons nor chains, nay, even trod under foot the very powers of the world and its tortures, since they were henceforth armed and strengthened by the same Spirit, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributes, and appropriates to the Church, the spouse of Christ, as her ornaments. This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed. This is He who, after the manner of a dove, when our Lord was baptized, came and abode upon Him, dwelling in Christ full and entire, and not maimed in any measure or portion; but with His whole overflow copiously distributed and sent forth, so that from Him others might receive some enjoyment of His graces: the source of the entire Holy Spirit remaining in Christ, so that from Him might be drawn streams of gifts and works, while the Holy Spirit dwelt affluently in Christ. For truly Isaiah, prophesying this, said: “And the Spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and piety; and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him.” (Isa_11:2, Isa_11:3) This self-same thing also he said in the person of the Lord Himself, in another place,’ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because He has anointed me, He has sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor.” (Isa_61:1) Similarly David: “Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Psa_45:7) Of Him the Apostle Paul says: “For he who hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of His.” (Rom_8:9) “And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2Co_3:17) He it is who effects with water the second birth as a certain seed of divine generation, and a consecration of a heavenly nativity, the pledge of a promised inheritance, and as it were a kind of handwriting of eternal salvation; who can make us God’s temple, and fit us for His house; who solicits the divine hearing for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; filling the offices of advocacy, and manifesting the duties of our defence, – an inhabitant given for our bodies and an effector of their holiness. Who, working in us for eternity, can also produce our bodies at the resurrection of immortality, accustoming them to be associated in Himself with heavenly power, and to be allied with the divine eternity of the Holy Spirit. For our bodies are both trained in Him and by Him to advance to immortality, by learning to govern themselves with moderation according to His decrees. For this is He who “desireth against the flesh,” because “the flesh resisteth against the Spirit.” (Gal_5:17) This is He who restrains insatiable desires, controls immoderate lusts, quenches unlawful fires, conquers reckless impulses, repels drunkenness, checks avarice, drives away luxurious revellings, links love, binds together affections, keeps down sects, orders the rule of truth, overcomes heretics, turns out the wicked, guards the Gospel, Of this says the same apostle: “We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.” (1Co_2:12) Concerning Him he exultingly says: “And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (1Co_7:40) Of Him he says: “The Spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets.” (1Co_14:32) Of Him also he tells: “Now the Spirit speaketh plainly, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, who speak lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience cauterized.” (1Ti_4:1) Established in this Spirit, “none ever calleth Jesus anathema;” (1Co_12:3) no one has ever denied Christ to be the Son of God, or has rejected God the Creator; no one utters any words of his own contrary to the Scriptures; no one ordains other and sacrilegious decrees; no one draws up different laws.64 Whosoever shall blaspheme against Him, “hath not forgiveness, not only in this world, but also not in the world to come.” (Mat_12:32) This is He who in the apostles gives testimony to Christ; in the martyrs shows forth the constant faithfulness of their religion; in virgins restrains the admirable continency of their sealed chastity; in others, guards the laws of the Lord’s doctrine incorrupt and uncontaminated; destroys heretics, corrects the perverse, condemns infidels, makes known pretenders; moreover, rebukes the wicked, keeps the Church uncorrupt and inviolate, in the sanctity of a perpetual virginity and truth.

Chap. XXX.

Argument. – In Fine, Notwithstanding the Said Heretics Have Gathered the Origin of Their Error from Consideration of What Is Written:65 Although We Call Christ God, and the Father God, Still Scripture Does Not Set Forth Two Gods, Any More than Two Lords or Two Teachers.

And now, indeed, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let it be sufficient to have briefly said thus much, and to have laid down these points concisely, without carrying them out in a lengthened argument. For they could be presented more diffusely and continued in a more expanded disputation, since the whole of the Old and New Testaments might be adduced in testimony that thus the true faith stands. But because heretics, ever struggling against the truth, are accustomed to prolong the controversy of pure tradition and Catholic faith, being offended against Christ; because He is, moreover, asserted to be God by the Scriptures also, and this is believed to be so by us; we must rightly – that every heretical calumny may be removed from our faith – contend, concerning the fact that Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us. For as well they who say that Jesus Christ Himself is God the Father, as moreover they who would have Him to be only man, have gathered thence66 the sources and reasons of their error and perversity; because when they perceived that it was written [Gal_3:20; Deu_6:4] that “God is one,” they thought that they could not otherwise hold such an opinion than by supposing that it must be believed either that Christ was man only, or really God the Father. And they were accustomed in such a way to connect their sophistries as to endeavour to justify their own error. And thus they who say that Jesus Christ is the Father argue as follows: – If God is one, and Christ is God, Christ is the Father, since God is one. If Christ be not the Father, because Christ is God the Son, there appear to be two Gods introduced, contrary to the Scriptures. And they who contend that Christ is man only, conclude on the other hand thus: – If the Father is one, and the Son another, but the Father is God and Christ is God, then there is not one God, but two Gods are at once introduced, the Father and the Son; and if God is one, by consequence Christ must be a man, so that rightly the Father may be one God. Thus indeed the Lord is, as it were, crucified between two thieves,67 even as He was formerly placed; and thus from either side He receives the sacrilegious reproaches of such heretics as these. But neither the Holy Scriptures nor we suggest to them the reasons of their perdition and blindness, if they either will not, or cannot, see what is evidently written in the midst of the divine documents. For we both know, and read, and believe, and maintain that God is one, who made the heaven as well as the earth, since we neither know any other, nor shall we at any time know such, seeing that there is none. “I,” says He, “am God, and there is none beside me, righteous and a Saviour.” (Isa_43:11) And in another place: “I am the first and the last, and beside me there is no God who is as I.” (Isa_44:6, Isa_44:7) And, “Who hath meted out heaven with a Span, and the earth with a handful? Who has suspended the mountains in a balance, and the woods on scales?” (Isa_40:12) And Hezekiah: “That all may know that Thou art God alone.” (Isa_37:20) Moreover, the Lord Himself: “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? God alone is good.” (Mat_19:17) Moreover, the Apostle Paul says: “Who only hath immortality, and dwelleth in the light that no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Ti_6:16) And in another place: “But a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” (Gal_3:20) But even as we hold, and read, and believe this, thus we ought to pass over no portion of the heavenly Scriptures, since indeed also we ought by no means to reject those marks of Christ’s divinity which are laid down in the Scriptures, that we may not, by corrupting the authority of the Scriptures, be held to have corrupted the integrity of our holy faith. And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God.” (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2) And, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us.” (Joh_1:14) And, “My Lord and my God.” (Joh_20:28) And, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore.” (Rom_9:5) What, then, shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How, then, does it say that “God is one?” Or is not Christ God also? How, then, is it said to Christ,” My Lord and my God?” Unless, therefore, we hold all this with fitting veneration and lawful argument, we shall reasonably be thought to have furnished a scandal to the heretics, not assuredly by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which never deceive; but by the presumption of human error, whereby they have chosen to be heretics. And in the first place, we must turn the attack against them who undertake to make against us the charge of saying that there are two Gods. It is written, and they cannot deny it, that “there is one Lord.” (Deu_6:4) What, then, do they think of Christ? – that He is Lord, or that He is not Lord at all? But they do not doubt absolutely that He is Lord; therefore, if their reasoning be true, here are already two Lords. How, then, is it true according to the Scriptures, there is one Lord? And Christ is called the “one Master.” (Mat_23:8-10) Nevertheless we read that the Apostle Paul also is a master.68 Then, according to this, our Master is not one, for from these things we conclude that there are two masters. How, then, according to the Scriptures, is “one our Master, even Christ?” In the Scriptures there is one “called good, even God;” but in the same Scriptures Christ is also asserted to be good. There is not, then, if they rightly conclude, one good, but even two good. How, then, according to the scriptural faith, is there said to be only one good? But if they do not think that it can by any means interfere with the truth that there is one Lord, that Christ also is Lord, nor with the truth that one is our. Master, that Paul also is our master, or with the truth that one is good, that Christ also is called good; on the same reasoning, let them understand that, from the fact that God is one, no obstruction arises to the truth that Christ also is declared to be God.

FOOTNOTES

48 According to Pamelius, ch. xvii.

49 [Not “a seipso Deus.” See Bull, Defens., vol. v. p. 685.]

50 According to Pamelius, ch. xvii.

51 According to Pamelius, ch. xix.

52 “The miraculous generation is here represented as the natural, but by no means as the only cause for which He who had no human father was to receive the name of God’s Son.” – Oosterzee, in loco, on Luke. – Tr.

53 Principalitas.

54 The edition of Pamelius reads: ut sequela nominis in Filio Dei et hominis sit. The words Dei et were expelled by Welchman, whom we have followed.

55 According to Pamelius, ch. xx.

56 [Luk_20:38. A solemn admonition is found in the parallel Scripture, Mat_22:29, which teaches us how much we ought to find beneath the surface of the Holy Writ.]

57 According to Pamelius, ch. xxi.

58 Some transcriber has written Κυρίῳ for Κύρῳ, “the Lord” for “Cyrus,” and the mistake has been followed by the author.

59 According to Pamelius, ch. xxii.

60 scil. “unum,” Gr. ἕν.

61 Original, “unas.” Scil. person.

62 Neuter.

63 scil. ἕν.

64 [To commit any one of these errors, he thinks, is to prove one’s self “sensual, having not the Spirit.” Jud_1:19; Rom_8:7]

65 “There is one God.”

66 Scil. from Scripture.

67 [“Non semper pendebit inter latrones Christus: aliquando resurget Crucifixa Veritas.” – Sebastian Castalio.]

68 διδάσκαλος.

Chap. XXXI.

Argument. – But That God, The, Son of God, Born of God the Father from Everlasting, Who Was Always in the Father, Is the Second Person to the Father, Who Does Nothing Without His Father’s Decree; and That He Is Lord, and the Angel of God’s Great Counsel, to Whom the Father’s Godhead Is Given by Community of Substance.

Thus God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God; to whose greatness, or majesty, or power, I would not say nothing can be preferred, but nothing can be compared; of whom, when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born, who is not received69 in the sound of the stricken air, or in the tone of voice forced from the lungs, but is acknowledged in the substance of the power put forth by God, the mysteries of whose sacred and divine nativity neither an apostle has learnt, nor prophet has discovered, nor angel has known, nor creature has apprehended. To the Son alone they are known, who has known the secrets of the Father. He then, since He was begotten of the Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to be unborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father also precedes Him, – in a certain sense, – since it is necessary – in some degree – that He should be before He is Father. Because it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning;70 even as He is the less as knowing that He is in Him, having an origin because He is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Fat, her who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father; and He who was in the Father because He was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father, because He came forth from the Father, – that is to say, that divine substance whose name is the Word, whereby all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. For all things are after Him, because they are by Him. And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born – compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both – He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods. If He had not been begotten – compared with Him who was not begotten, and as being found equal – they not being begotten, would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods. Had He been formed without beginning as the Father, and He Himself the beginning of all things as is the Father, this would have made two beginnings, and consequently would have shown to us two Gods also. Or if He also were not the Son, but the Father begetting from Himself another Son, reasonably, as compared with the Father, and designated as great as He, He would have caused two Fathers, and thus also He would have proved the existence of two Gods. Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible, and declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles, and thus also He would have proved them to be two Gods. If incomprehensible,71 if also whatever other attributes belong to the Father, reasonably we say, He would have given rise to the allegation of two Gods, as these people feign. But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods, since He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. In which kind, being both as well only-begotten as first-begotten of Him who has no beginning, He is the only one, of all things both Source and Head. And therefore He declared that God is one, in that He proved Him to be from no source nor beginning, but rather the beginning and source of all things. Moreover, the Son does nothing of His own will, nor does anything of His own determination; nor does He come from Himself, but obeys all His Father’s commands and precepts; so that, although birth proves Him to he a Son, yet obedience even to death declares Him the minister of the will of His Father, of whom He is. Thus making Himself obedient to His Father in all things, although He also is God, yet He shows the one God the Father by His obedience, from whom also He drew His beginning. And thus He could not make two Gods, because He did not make two beginnings, seeing that from Him who has no beginning He received the source of His nativity before all time.72 For since that is the beginning to other creatures which is unborn, – which God the Father only is, being beyond a beginning of whom He is who was born, – while He who is born of Him reasonably comes from Him who has no beginning, proving that to be the beginning from which He Himself is, even although He is God who is born, yet He shows Him to be one God whom He who was born proved to be without a beginning. He therefore is God, but begotten for this special result, that He should be God. He is also the Lord, but born for this very purpose of the Father, that He might be Lord. He is also an Angel, but He was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the Great Counsel of God. And His divinity is thus declared, that it may not appear by any dissonance or inequality of divinity to have caused two Gods. For all things being subjected to Him as the Son by the Father, while He Himself, with those things which are subjected to Him, is subjected to His Father, He is indeed proved to be Son of His Father; but He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. Whence, while all things put under Him are delivered to Him who is God, and all things are subjected to Him, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father, remits again to the Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth, and also given and directed upon the Son, and is again returned by the communion of substance to the Father. God indeed is shown as the Son, to whom the divinity is beheld to be given and extended. And still, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God; while by degrees in reciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent by the Son Himself to the Father, who had given them; so that reasonably God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot. Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover “was heard,”73 briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God.

Two Notes by the American Editor.

P. 611. The author’s elucidation of the figure, anthropopathy, is an enlargement of Clement’s casual remarks in the Stromata (cap. xvi. vol. ii. p. 363, this series). Consult On the Figurative Language of Holy Scripture, Jones of Nayland, Works, vol. iv. ed. 1801.

P. 630, note 5. Compare Waterland, vol. ii. p. 210, ed. 1823; also Life of Bishop Bull, by Robert Nelson, p. 260. For the extraordinary history of Bull’s work in France, see the said Life, pp. 327-333. For Petavius, Waterland, vol. ii. p. 277, and Bull’s Life, p. 243. Petavius seems to have had a crafty design to sustain the Council of Trent by arguing that the Council of Nicaea also made new dogmas. Bull proves that it only bore witness to the old. To the honour of the assembled bishops of the Gallican Church, they sustained Bull against the Jesuit. 

FOOTNOTES

69 As the Word formed. [He expounds Psa_44:1-26 (Psalms 45, LXX)]

70 [“In a sense;” i.e., in logic, not time.]

71 [Compare the Athanasian Confession.]

72 [As in the Athanasian Confession.]

73 There is apparently some indistinct reference here to the passage in Heb_5:7, “and was heard in that he feared” – ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλυβείας. [For the Angel of Great Council, see p. 629, supra.]

On the Jewish Meats.1

Chap. I.

Argument. — Novatian, a Roman Presbyter, During His Retirement at the Time of the Decian Persecution, Being Urged by Various Letters from His Brethren, Had Written Two Earlier Epistles Against the Jews on the Subjects of Circumcision and the Sabbath, and Now Writes the Present One on the Jewish Meats.

Although, most holy brethren, the day in which I receive your letters and writings is most ardently longed for by me, and to be reckoned among the chief and happiest — for what else is there now to make me more joyous?2 — still I think that the day is to be deemed not less notable, and among special days, wherein I return to you similar communications, with the affection of love that I owe you, and write you letters with a corresponding interest. For nothing, most holy brethren, holds me bound with such bonds nothing stirs and arouses me with such a stimulus of care and anxiety, as the fear lest you should think that any disadvantage is suffered by you by reason of my absence; and this I strive to remedy, in labouring to show myself present with you by frequent letters. Although, therefore, the duty which I owe, and the charge I have undertaken, and the very ministerial office imposed upon me, require of me this necessity of writing letters, yet you still further enhance it, by stirring me up to write through means of your continual communications. And inclined although I am to those periodical expressions of love, you urge me the more by showing that you stand fast continually in the Gospel: whence it results, that by my letters I am not so much instructing you who are already informed, as inciting you who are already prepared. For you, who not only hold the Gospel pure and purged from all stain of perverse doctrine, but also energetically teach the same, seek not man for a master, since you show yourselves by these very things to be teachers. Therefore as you run, I exhort you; and as you watch, I stir you up; and as you contend against “the spiritual things of wickedness,” (Eph_6:12) I address you; and as you press “in your course to the prize of your calling in Christ,” (Phi_3:14) I urge you on, — that, treading under foot and rejecting as welt the sacrilegious calumnies of heretics as also the idle fables of Jews, you may hold the sole word3 and teaching of Christ, so as worthily to claim for yourselves the authority of His name. But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former letters,4 wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of what is the true circumcision, and what the true Sabbath; and their ever increasing blindness is confuted in this present epistle, wherein I have briefly discoursed concerning their meats, because that in them they consider that they only are holy, and that all others are defiled.5

Chap. II.

Argument. — He First of All Asserts That the Law Is Spiritual; and Thence, Man’s First Food Was Only the Fruit Trees, and the Use of Flesh Was Added, That the Law That Followed Subsequently6 Was to Be Understood Spiritually.7

Therefore, first of all, we must avail ourselves of that passage, “that the law is spiritual;” (Rom_7:14) and if they deny it to be spiritual, they assuredly blaspheme; if, avoiding blasphemy, they confess it to be spiritual, let them read it spiritually. For divine things must be divinely received, and must assuredly be maintained as holy. But a grave fault is branded on those who attach earthly and human doctrine to sacred and spiritual words; and this we must beware of doing. 

Moreover, we may beware, if any things enjoined by God be so treated as if they were assumed to diminish His authority, test, in calling some things impure and unclean, their institution should dishonour their ordainer. For in reprobating what He has made, He will appear to have condemned His own works, which He had approved as good; and He will be designated as seeming capricious in both cases, as the heretics indeed would have it; either in having blessed things which were not clean, or in subsequently reprobating as not good, creatures which He had blessed as both clean and good. And of this the enormity and contradiction will remain for ever if that Jewish doctrine is persisted in, which must be got rid of with all our ability; so that whatever is irregularly delivered by them, may be taken away by us, and a suitable arrangement of His works, and an appropriate and spiritual application of the divine law, may be restored. But to begin from the beginning of things, whence it behoves me to begin; the only food for the first men was fruit and the produce of the trees. For afterwards, man’s sin transferred his need from the fruit-trees to the produce of the earth, when the very attitude of his body attested the condition of his conscience. For although innocency raised men up towards the heavens to pluck their food from the trees so long as they had a good conscience, yet sin, when committed, bent men down to the earth and to the ground to gather its grain. Moreover, afterwards the use of flesh was added, the divine favour supplying for human necessities the kinds of meats generally fitting for suitable occasions. For while a more tender meat was needed to nourish men who were both tender and unskilled, it was still a food not prepared without toil, doubtless for their advantage, lest they should again find a pleasure in sinning, if the labour imposed upon sin did not exhort innocence. And since now it was no more a paradise to be tended, but a whole world to be cultivated, the more robust food of flesh is offered to men, that for the advantage of culture something more might be added to the vigour of the human body. All these things, as I have said, were by grace and by divine arrangement: so that either the most vigorous food should not be given in too small quantity for men’s support, and they should be enfeebled for labour; or that the more tender meat should not be too abundant, so that, oppressed beyond the measure of their strength, they should not be able to bear it.8 But the law which followed subsequently ordained9 the flesh foods with distinction: for some animals it gave and granted for use,10 as being clean; some it interdicted as not clean, and conveying pollution to those that eat them. Moreover, it gave this character to those that were clean, that those which chew the cud and divide the hoofs are clean; those are unclean which do neither one nor other of these things. So, in fishes also, the law said that those indeed were clean which were covered with scales and supplied with fins, but that those which were otherwise were not clean. Moreover, it established a distinction among the fowls, and laid down what was to be judged either an abomination, or clean. Thus the law ordained the exercise of very great subtlety in making a separation among those animals which the ancient appointment had gathered together into one form of blessing. What, then, are we to say? Are the animals therefore unclean? But what else is it to say that they are not clean, than that the law has separated them from the uses of food? And what, moreover, is that that we have just now said? Then God is the ordainer of things which are not clean; and the blame attached to things which are made will recoil upon their Maker, who did not produce them clean; to say which is certainly characteristic of extreme and excessive folly: it is to accuse God as having created unclean things, and to charge upon the divine majesty the guilt of having made things which are abomination, especially when they were both pronounced “very good,” (Gen_1:31) and as being good have obtained the blessing from God Himself “that they should increase and multiply.” Moreover also they were reserved by the command of the Creator in Noah’s ark for the sake of their offspring, that so being kept they might be proved to be needful; and being needful, they might be proved to be good, although even in that case also there is a distinction appended. But still, even then, the creation of those very creatures that were not clean might have been utterly abolished, if it had needed to be abolished on account of its own pollution.

Chap. III.

Argument. — And Thus Unclean Animals Are Not to Be Reproached, Lest the Reproach Be Thrown upon Their Author; but when an Irrational Animal Is Rejected on Any Account, It Is Rather That That Very Thing Should Be Condemned in Man Who Is Rational; and Therefore That in Animals the Character, the Doings, and the Wills of Men Are Depicted.

How far, then, must that law, which — as I have shown by the authority of the apostle — is spiritual, be spiritually received in order that the divine and sure idea of the law may be carried out? Firstly, we must believe that whatever was ordained by God is clean and purified by the very authority of His creation; neither must it be reproached, lest the reproach should be thrown back upon its Author. Then too that the law was given to the children of lsrael for this purpose, that they might profit by it, and return to those virtuous manners which, although they had received them from their fathers, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those ten commandments on the tables teach nothing new, but remind them of what had been obliterated — that righteousness in them, which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a smothered fire. But they could profit by the perception that those vices were especially to be avoided in men which the law had, condemned even in beasts.7 For when an irrational animal is rejected on any account, it is rather that very thing which is condemned in the man, who is rational. And if in it anything which it has by nature is characterized as a defilement, that same thing is most to be blamed when it is found in man opposed to his nature. Therefore, in order that men might be purified, the cattle were censured — to wit, that men also who had the same vices might be esteemed on a level with the brutes. Whence it results, that not only were the animals not condemned by their Creator because of His agency;10 but that men might be instructed in the brutes to return to the unspotted nature of their own creation. For we must consider how the Lord distinguishes clean and not clean. The creatures that are clean, it says, both chew the cud and divide the hoof; the unclean do neither, or only one of the two. All these things were made by one Workman, and He who made them Himself blessed them. Therefore I regard the creation of both as clean, because both He who created them is holy, and those things which were created are not in fault in being that which they were made. For it has never been customary for nature, but for a perverted will, to bear the blame of guilt. What, then, is the case? In the animals it is the characters, and doings, and wills of men that are depicted.11 They are clean if they chew the cud; that is, if they ever have in their mouth as food the divine precepts. They divide the hoof, if with the firm step of innocency they tread the ways of righteousness, and of every virtue of life. For of those creatures which divide the foot into two hoofs the walk is always vigorous; the tendency to slip of one part of the hoof being sustained by the firmness of the other, and so retained in the substantial footstep. Thus they who do neither are unclean, whose walk is neither firm in virtues; nor do they digest the food of the divine precepts after the manner of that chewing of the cud. And they, too, who do one of these things are not themselves clean either, inasmuch as they are maimed of the other, and not perfect in both. And these are they who do both, as believers, and are clean; or one of the two, as Jews and heretics, and are blemished; or neither, as the Gentiles, and are consequently unclean. Thus in the animals, by the law, as it were, a certain mirror of human life is established, wherein men may consider the images of penalties; so that everything which is vicious in men, as committed against nature, may be the more condemned, when even those things, although naturally ordained in brutes, are in them blamed.12 For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean; because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it says, “Thou shalt not eat the camel?” (Lev_11:4)13 — except that by the example of that animal it condemns a life nerveless14 and crooked with crimes. Or when it forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice, placing its supreme good not in generosity of mind, but in the flesh alone. Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women. And who would use the body of the weasel for food? But in this case it reproves theft. Who would eat the lizard? But it hates an aimless waywardness of life. Who the eft? But it execrates mental stains. Who would eat the hawk, who the kite, who the eagle? But it hates plunderers and violent people who live by crime. Who the vulture? But it holds accursed those who seek for booty by the death of others. Or who the raven? But it holds accused crafty wills. Moreover, when it forbids the sparrow, it condemns intemperance; when the owl, it hates those who fly from the light of truth; when the swan, the proud with high neck; when the sea-mew, too talkative an intemperance of tongue; when the bat, those who seek the darkness of night as well as of error. These things, then, and the like to these, the law holds accursed in animals, which in them indeed are not blame-worthy, because they are born in this condition; in man they are blamed, because they are sought for contrary to his nature, not by his creation, but by his error.

Chap. IV.

Argument. — To These Things Also Was Added Another Reason for Prohibiting Many Kinds of Meats to the Jews; to Wit, for the Restraint of the Intemperance of the People, and That They Might Serve the One God.

To these considerations, then, thus enumerated, were added also other reasons for which many kinds of meats were withheld from the Jews; and that this might be so, many things were called unclean, not as being condemned in themselves, but that the Jews might be restrained to the service of one God; because frugality and moderation in appetite were becoming to those who were chosen for this purpose. And such moderation is always found to be approximate to religion, nay, so to speak, rather related and akin to it; for luxury is inimical to holiness. For how shall religion be spared by it, when modesty is not spared? Luxury does not entertain the fear of God; since while pleasures hurry it on, it is carried forward to the sole daring of its desires: for the reins being loosened, it increases in the application of expense without measure, as if it were its food, exceeding its patrimony with its modesty; or as a torrent rushing from the mountain-peaks not only overleaps what is opposed to it, but carries with it those very hindrances for the destruction of other things. Therefore these remedies were sought for to restrain the intemperance of the people, that in proportion as luxury was diminished, virtuous manners might be increased. For what else did they deserve, than that they should be restrained from using all the pictures of divers meats, who dared to prefer the vilest meats of the Egyptians to the divine banquets of manna, preferring the juicy meats of their enemies and masters to their liberty? They were truly worthy that the slavery which they had coveted should pamper them, if the food that was more desirable and free was so ill pleasing to them.

Chap. V.

Argument. — But There Was a Limit to the Use of These Shadows or Figures; for Afterwards, when the End of the Law, Christ, Came, All Things Were Said by the Apostle to Be Pure to the Pure, and the True and Holy Meat Was a Right Faith and an Unspotted Conscience.

And thus there was a certain ancient time, wherein those shadows or figures were to be used, that meats should be abstained from which had indeed been commended by their creation, but had been prohibited by the law. But now Christ, the end of the law, has come, disclosing all the obscurities of the law — all those things which antiquity had covered with the clouds of sacraments. For the illustrious Master, and the heavenly Teacher, and the ordainer of the perfected truth, has come, under whom at length it is rightly said: “To the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” (Tit_1:15) Moreover, in another place: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.” (1Ti_4:4, 1Ti_4:5) Again, in another place: “The Spirit expressly says that in the last days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by them which believe and those who know God.” (1Ti_4:1, 1Ti_4:2, 1Ti_4:3) Moreover, in another passage: “Everything that is sold in the market-place eat, asking nothing.” (1Co_10:25) From these things it is plain that all those things are returned to their original blessedness now that the law is finished, and that we must not revert to the special observances of meats, which observances were ordained for a certain reason, but which evangelical liberty has now taken away, their discharge being given. The apostle cries out: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy.” (Rom_14:17) Also elsewhere: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.” (1Co_6:13) God is not worshipped by the belly nor by meats, which the Lord says will perish, and are “purged” by natural law in the draught.15 For he who worships the Lord by meats, is merely as one who has his belly for his Lord. The meat, I say, true, and holy, and pure, is a true faith, an unspotted conscience, and an innocent soul. Whosoever is thus fed, feeds also with Christ. Such a banqueter is God’s guest: these are the feasts that feed the angels, these are the tables which the martyrs make. Hence is that word of the law: “Man cloth not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Deu_8:3) Hence, too, that saying of Christ: “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work.” (Joh_4:34) Hence, “Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of my loaves and were filled. But labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to life eternal, which the Son of man will give you; for Him hath the Father sealed.” (Joh_6:26, Joh_6:27) By righteousness, I say, and by continency, and by the rest of the virtues, God is worshipped. For Zecharias also tells us, saying: “If ye eat or drink, is it not ye that eat or drink?” (Zec_7:6, LXX) — declaring thereby that meat or drink attain not unto God, but unto man: for neither is God fleshly, so as to be pleased with flesh; nor is He careful16 for these pleasures, so as to rejoice in our food.17 God rejoices in our faith alone, in our innocency alone, in our truth alone, in our virtues alone. And these dwell not in our belly, but in our soul; and these are acquired for us by divine awe and heavenly fear, and not by earthly food. And such the apostle fitly rebuked, as “obeying the superstitions of angels, puffed up by their fleshly mind; not holding Christ the head, from whom all the body, joined together by links, and inwoven and grown together by mutual members in the bond of charity, increaseth to God;” (Col_2:18, Col_2:19) but observing those things: “Touch not, taste not, handle not; which indeed seem to have a form of religion, in that the body is not spared.” (Col_2:21, Col_2:23) Yet there is no advantage at all of righteousness, while we are recalled by a voluntary slavery to those elements to which by baptism we have died.

Chap. VI.

Argument. — But, on the Ground That Liberty in Meats Is Granted to Us, There Is No Permission of Luxury, There Is No Taking Away of Continence and Fasting: for These Things Greatly Become the Faithful, — To Wit, That They Should Pray to God, and Give Him Thanks, Not Only by Day, but by Night.

But from the fact that liberty of meats is granted to us, it does not of necessity follow that luxury is allowed us; nor because the Gospel has dealt with us very liberally, has it taken away continency. By this, I say, the belly is not provided for, but the form of meats was shown: it was made manifest what was right, not that we might go into the gulf of desire, but to give a reason for the law. But nothing has so restrained intemperance as the Gospel; nor has any one given such strict laws against gluttony as Christ, who is said to have pronounced even the poor blessed, and the hungering and thirsting happy, the rich miserable; to whom, obeying the government of their belly and their palate, the material of their lusts could never be wanting, so that their servitude could not cease; who think it an argument of their happiness to desire as much as they can, except that they are thus able to attain less than they desire. For, moreover, preferring Lazarus in his very hunger and in his sores themselves, and with the rich man’s dogs, He restrained the destroyers of salvation, the belly and the palate, by examples. The apostle also, when he said, “Having food and raiment, we are therewith content,” (1Ti_6:8) laid down the law of frugality and continency; and thinking that it would be of little advantage that he had written, he also gave himself as an example of what he had written, adding not without reason, that “avarice is the root of all evils;” (1Ti_6:10) for it follows in the footsteps of luxury. Whatever the latter has wasted by vice, the former restores by crime; the circle of crimes being re-trodden, that luxury may again take away whatever avarice had heaped together. Nor yet are there wanting, among such things, those who, although they have claimed to themselves the sound of the Christian name, afford instances and teachings of intemperance; whose vices have come even to that pitch, that while fasting they drink in the early morning, not thinking it Christian to drink after meat, unless the wine poured into their empty and unoccupied veins should have gone down directly after sleep: for they seem to have less relish of what they drink if food be mingled with the wine. Thus you may see such in a new kind, still fasting and already drunk, not running to the tavern, but carrying the tavern about with them; and if any one of them offers a salute, he gives not a kiss, but drinks a health. What can they do after meat, whom meat finds intoxicated? Or in what kind of state does the sun at his setting leave them, whom at his rising he looks upon as already stupid with wine? But things which are detestable are not to be taken as our examples. For those things only are to be taken by which our soul may be made better; and although in the Gospel the use of meats is universally given to us, yet it is understood to be given to us only with the law of frugality and continence. For these things are even greatly becoming to the faithful, — to wit, those who are about to pray to God and to give Him thanks, not only by day, but by night also; which cannot be if the mind, stupefied by meat and wine, should not prevail to shake off heavy sleep and the load heaped upon the breast. 

Chap. VII.

Argument. — Moreover, We Must Be Careful That No One Should Think That This Licence May Be Carried to Such an Extent as That He May Approach to Things Offered to Idols.

But it must be very greatly guarded against in the use of food, and we must be warned lest any should think that liberty is permitted to that degree that even he may approach to what has been offered to idols. For, as far as pertains to God’s creation, every creature is clean. But when it has been offered to demons, it is polluted so long as it is offered to the idols; and as soon as this is done, it belongs no longer to God, but to the idol. And when this creature is taken for food, it nourishes the person who so takes it for the demon, not for God, by making him a fellow-guest with the idol, not with Christ, as rightly do the Jews also.18 [But see 1Co_8:4, etc.] And the meaning of these meats being perceived, and the counsel of the law being considered, and the kindness of the Gospel grace being known, and the rigour of temperance being observed, and the pollution of things offered to idols being rejected, we who keep the rule of truth throughout all things, ought to give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord, to whom be praise, and honour, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

A letter written to Cyprian by Novatian the Roman presbyter, in the name of the Roman clergy, will be found translated (Ep. xxx.) at p. 308, this volume.

FOOTNOTES

1 Entitled “A letter of Novatian, the Roman Presbyter.”

2 “Liberiorem,” translated, according to a plausible emendation, as “hilariorem.”

3 Traditionem.

4 These letters are not extant, but they are mentioned by Jerome, de vir. Illustr., ch. lxx.

5 [1Co_6:13. A passage probably connected with the Jewish superstition. But see the Peshito-Syriac version on Mar_7:19. Compare Murdock’s version ad loc., ed. 1855.]

6 Which, distinguishing between meats, granted certain animals as clean, and interdicted certain others as not clean, especially as all animals were declared “very good,” and even unclean animals were reserved for offspring in Noah’s ark, although they otherwise might have been got rid of, if they ought to have been destroyed on account of their uncleanness.

7 [The divers animals are also parables illustrating human passions and appetites. See Jones of Nayland, vol. xi. p. 1.]

8 This sentence is very unintelligible, but it is the nearest approach to a meaning that can be gathered from the original.

9 [Gen_9:3. The Noachic covenant was Catholic, and fore-shadowed Act_10:15, although clean and unclean beasts were recognised as by natural classification. Gen_7:2. Argue as in Gal_3:17.]

10 Sui culpa.

11 [The moral uses of the animal creation are recognised in all languages; as when we say of men, a serpent, a fox, a hog, an ass, etc.: so otherwise, a lion, a lamb, an eagle, a dove, etc.]

12 [Novatian was a keen analyst, and his allegorical renderings are logical generally, though sometimes fanciful.]

13 [Jones of Nayland, vol. iii., Disquisition, ed. 1801.]

14 “Enervem,” but more probably “informem.”

15 [Or lower bowel, Mar_7:19; Mat_15:17. See cap. 1 note 5, p. 645, supra. It throws off refuse, leaving food only to the system.]

16 “Attonitus” is assumed to be rightly read “attentus.”

17 [1Ti_4:4, 1Ti_6:17. Against the Encratites (vol. 1. p. 353), but not against moderation (vol. 2. p. 237, this series).]

18 scil. abstain.

A Roman Council Celebrated Under Stephen.

From the Synodal Roll.

A divine and sacred provincial synod, gathered together at Rome by Stephen, the blessed martyr and father1 which excommunicated those who in an African synod had, without reason, conceded that they who came to the Catholic Church from any heresy should be re-baptized. (Reference is made to this council in Epistles of Cyprian,  No. lxxiii., and at large in Epistles lxix. to lxxiv., pp. 375-396, supra.)

Carthaginian Councils.

The Third Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, on the Baptism of Infants; Held Anno Domini 253.

This document is translated at p. 353, Ep. lviii.

The Fourth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian; Held Anno Domini 254. About Basilides and Martial, Bishops of Spain, Who Had Received Certificates.

This document is translated at p. 369, Ep. lxvii.

The Fifth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the First About Baptism; Held Anno Domini 255, the Third Year of St. Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated at p. 375, Ep. lxix.

The Sixth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the Second About Baptism, from a Province of Africa and Numidia; Held Anno Domini 256, in the Third Year of Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated at p. 378, Ep. lxxi.

The Seventh Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the Third About Baptism, from Three Provinces of Africa; Held Anno Domini 256, in the Third Year of Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated and given in full on p. 565 of the present volume. 

FOOTNOTES

1 “Papa” [as applied to all bishops. See p. 154, supra.]

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop.

Introductory Notice1

The writer of the following treatise was undoubtedly a contemporary of Cyprian, and wrote in the early part of the reign of Valerian (254-256), during an interval of peace to the Church. This much may be collected from the fact that he names one, and only one, persecution after that of Decius – namely, that of Gallus and Volusianus – and speaks of those who had lapsed under the former, as having been stedfast and victorious in the latter. (ch. (or sec.) 6, p. 659, infra.) He is generally believed to have been an Africa, and Tillemont is only withheld from attributing the work to Cyprian himself by what he judges to be a difference of style. But although from the exordium it may be concluded that the writer was a bishop, yet, from his manifest uncertainty as to the fitting way to treat those who had lapsed, it is evident that Cyprian cannot have been the author; for that prelate, when the persecution of Gallus and Volusianus was just threatening, had already decided upon receiving to communion the penitents who had yielded to temptation under Decius. (Epistles, liii. p. 336, supra.)

Ceillier2 says that this treatise was written about the year 255, while Novatian was still alive, (ch. (or sec.) 1, p. 657, infra.) and when the schism of Felicissimus was all but extinct.

Erasmus first published it among the known works of Cyprian in the year 1520.

FOOTNOTES

1 [By Dr. Wallis, editor of vol. xiii., Edinb. series.]

2 Hist. Gén. des Auteurs, tom. iii. ch. i. art. 4, sec. 2, note 4.

Note.

The American editor subjoins as follows: Cyprian, and Cornelius afterward, had decided, with their councils, that the lapsed should be classed, and dealt with accordingly, as (1) Libellatici, those who had compounded with the heathen, and bought off from offering sacrifice; and (2) Sacrificati, those who had actually offered sacrifice to idols. Different degrees of discipline were awarded, but all were admitted to pardon finally. 

That the Hope of Pardon Should Not Be Denied to the Lapsed.

1. While I was meditating and impatiently tossing in my mind what I ought to do concerning those pitiable brethren who, wounded, not of their own will, but by the onset of a raging devil, have lived until now, that is, through a long course of time, in the endurance of their punishment; lo, there appeared opposed to me another enemy, and the adversary of his own paternal affection – the heretic Novatian – who not only, as it is signified in the Gospel, passed by the prostrate wounded man, as did the priest or the Levite, but by an ingenious and novel cruelty rather would slay the wounded man, by taking away the hope of salvation, by denying the mercy of his Father, by rejecting the repentance of his brother. Marvellous, how bitter, how harsh how perverse are many things! But one more easily perceives the straw in another’s eye than the beam in one’s own. Let not the abrupt madness of that perfidious heretic move or disturb us however, beloved brethren, who, although he is placed in such great guilt of dissension and schism, and is separated from the Church, with sacrilegious temerity does not shrink from hurling back his charges upon us: for although he is now by himself made unclean, defiled with the filth of sacrilege, he contends that we are so. And although it is written that the dogs should remain without, and the apostle has taught that these same dogs must be shunned, as we read, for he says, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers,” (Phi_3:2) he does not cease stirring up his frenzy with barkings, after the manner of wolves seeking the gloomy darkness, where with his brutal cruelty he may easily rend in his dark caves the sheep snatched away from the Shepherd. Certainly he declares that he and his friends whom he collects are gold. Nor do we doubt but that deserters of the Church who have become apostates could now easily be converted into gold, but it must be that gold in which the first sins of the people of Israel were designated. But the gold and silver vessels which were wrested from the Egyptians continue in the Lord’s power, that is, in Christ’s Church; in which house if thou hadst continued, Novatian, thou hadst perchance been also a precious vessel; but now thou neither perceivest nor complainest that thou art changed into chaff and straw.

2. Why, therefore, shouldst thou be lifted up with vain things? Thou wilt gain loss rather than profit. Why, from the very fact that thou art become poorer, believest thou thyself rich? Hear in the Apocalypse the Lord’s voice rebuking thee with righteous reproaches: “Thou sayest,” says He, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and blind, and poor, and naked.” (Rev_3:17) Let him think for certain that he possesses these riches of poverty, whoever he may be, that, forsaking the Church of Christ, with his darkened reason does not shrink from being turned to those rash leaders of schisms and authors of dissension, whom John calls antichrists, whom the Evangelist likens to chaff, whom the Lord Christ characterizes as thieves and robbers, as He Himself declares in the Gospel, saying that “he who entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but goeth down by some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (Joh_10:1) Moreover, in the same He also says, “All who have come are thieves and robbers.” (Joh_10:8) Who are such but the deserters of the faith, and the transgressors of God’s Church, who strive against God’s ordinance; whom the Holy Spirit rightly rebukes by the prophet, saying, “Ye have taken counsel, but not by me; and have made a confederacy, but not by my Spirit, to add sin to sin.” (Isa_30:1) What now can those most perverse friends of Novatian, even now the most unhappy1 few, reply to these things, who have broken forth to such a folly of madness as to have no reverence either for God or man? Among them, shamelessly, and without any law of ordination, the episcopate is sought after; but among us in its own Sees, and in those of the throne delivered to it by God, it is renounced. [Ep. xl. p. 319, supra: et alibi.] There the Truth says, “They reject me, that they may sacrifice to me; nor do they offer the holy oblations of the children of Israel, nor do they approach to offer the holy of holies, but they shall receive their ignominy in the error wherein they have erred.” (Eze_44:10-13) Let it be enough in a few words to have proved what they are. Hear, therefore, O Novatians, among whom the heavenly Scriptures are read rather than understood; well, if they are not interpolated. [see p. 602, note 19, supra.] For your ears are closed, and your hearts darkened, seeing that ye admit no light from spiritual and saving warnings; as Isaiah gays, “The servants of God are blinded.” (Isa_42:19) And deservedly blinded, because the desire of schismatics is not in the law; which law points out to us the one and only Church in that ark to wit, which was fashioned, by the providence of God, under Noah before the deluge, in which – to answer you quickly, O Novatian – we find that there were shut up not only clean animals, but also unclean; which ark was saved alone, with those who were in it, whereas the other things which were not found therein perished in the deluge. From that ark there were loosed two birds, a raven and a dove; and this raven truly bore the figure or type of impure men, and men who would be in perpetual darkness through the world’s broad road, and of apostates who should arise, feeding on unclean things, and not turning themselves eventually to the Church; and as we read, we find that it was sent forth, and returned no more. Whoever should be found to resemble this bird, then, that is, the impure spirit, will no more be able to return to the Church, seeing that the Lord will forbid them, even if they should wish it, as He commanded Moses, saying, “Everything leprous2 and impure, cast abroad outside the camp.” (Num_5:2) But the dove sent forth that returned, is signified by the man who does not delay, because be would have no rest for his feet. And Noah received it into the ark; and when it was sent forth again on the seventh day, received it, bearing in its mouth an olive leaf.

3. And I, beloved brethren, – as I not heedlessly meditate these things, and not in harmony with human wisdom, but as it is permitted to our minds by the condescension of the heavenly Lord, needfully and pertinently to conceive, – say that that dove signifies to us of itself a double type. Formerly, that is, from the beginning of the divine administration, it suggests its own figure, the first indeed and chief – that is, the figure of the Spirit. And by its mouth the sacrament of baptism which is provided for the salvation of the human race, and that by the heavenly plan it is celebrated in the Church only.3 Moreover, three times sent forth from the ark, flying about through the air over the water, it already signified the sacraments of our Church. Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter, and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples, “Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mat_28:19) [for the next sentence see Act_2:33] That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah’s days through the dove, now operates in the Church spiritually through the disciples.

4. Let us now take the second character also of the dove sent forth from the ark, that is to say, in the time of the deluge, when all the abysses broke forth; when the cataracts of heaven were opened upon the earth, on account of the wickedness of men which they daily practised before the Lord; as said Moses, “And the Lord God saw that the wickednesses of men were overflowing upon the earth, and that all of them were remembering for evil from the beginning of their days; and He said, I will destroy man whom I have made from off the face of the earth, from man even unto cattle, and from the creeping thing even unto the fowls of the air.” (Gen_6:5-7) Therefore in the time of the flood the dove is sent forth from the ark, when the waters were violently rushing with all their force upon the earth.

5. That ark bore the figure of the Church, as we have said above, which was stricken hither and thither to such a degree by the tumultuous waters. Therefore that deluge which happened under Noah showed forth the figure of the persecution which now lately was poured forth over the whole world. Moreover, by the waters, the cataracts broken forth meeting together on all sides, and growing, were signified the peoples which grew up for the desolation of the Church; as the Apocalypse teaches, saying, “The waters which thou sawest are peoples, and nations, and kingdoms.” (Rev_17:15) Moreover, the dove which could not find rest for its feet, bore the likeness of the lapsed, who fell forgetful of the divine announcements, either ignorant in simplicity, or feigning in audacity. Of whom the Lord had intimated the future destruction in the Gospel in these words, saying, “He who heareth my words and doeth them not, I will liken him to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: the tempests came and beat upon that house, and it fell; and great was its destruction.” (Mat_7:26, Mat_7:27) And lest we should seem to have made the comparison inconsiderately of that dove bearing the image of the lapsed, the prophet rebukes the city as a dove, that is, the character of the lapsed, saying, “The dove hearkens not to the voice; that is, the illustrious and redeemed city receives not teaching, and trusted not in the Lord.” (Zep_3:1, Zep_3:2, Zep_3:3, LXX)

6. Moreover, that that dove could not find rest for her feet, as we have said above, this signified the footsteps of those who deny; that is, those, wounded by the poison of the shining serpent, who sacrifice, turned towards their fall; which could not any further step upon the asp and the basilisk, and tread upon the dragon and the lion. For this power the Lord gave to His disciples, as He says in the Gospel:” Lo, I give unto you power to tread on all the power of the enemy, and upon serpents and scorpions; and they shall not harm you.” (Luk_10:19) When, therefore, these so many and such malignant spirits are attacking and bestirring themselves for the destruction of the lapsed, a way of salvation is provided for the wounded, that with whatever strength they have they may drag themselves with their whole body, and betake themselves to their camp, wherein being received, they may heal their wounds with spiritual medicaments. Thus the dove received, after the intervention of a few days, is again sent forth from the ark; and returning, not only shows its firm footsteps, but moreover the signs of its peace and victory, in those olive leaves which it bore in its mouth. Therefore that twofold sending forth shows to us a twofold trial of persecution: the first, in which they who have lapsed have fallen conquered; the second, in which they who have fallen have come out conquerors. For to none of us is it doubtful or uncertain, beloved brethren, that they who in the first struggle – that is, in the Decian persecution – were wounded; afterwards, that is in the second encounter, persevered so bravely, that, despising the edicts of the princes of the world,4 they maintained that unconquered; in that they did not fear, after the example of the good Shepherd, to give up their life, and to shed their blood, and not to shrink from any barbarity of the raging tyrant.

7. Behold how glorious, how dear to the Lord, are the people whom these schismatics do not shrink from calling “wood, hay, stubble;” (1Co_3:12) the equals of whom, that is, those who are even still placed in the same guilt of their lapse, they presume must not be admitted to repentance. This they judge from that utterance of the Lord, where He says, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat_10:33) Oh grief! why do they strive against the Lord’s precepts, that this offspring of Novatian, following the example of his father the devil, should now endeavour to put in force those things which Christ will do in the time of His judgment? that is, when Scripture says, “Vengeance is mine; and I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Heb_10:30)

8. We will answer them as to that utterance of the Lord, which they ill understand, and ill explain to themselves. For that He says, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven,” its meaning is assuredly with respect to future time – to the time at which the Lord shall begin to judge the secrets of men – to the time at which we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ – to the time at which many shall begin to say, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?” (Mat_7:22, Mat_7:23) And yet they shall hear the voice of the Lord saying, “Depart from me, all ye that have worked iniquity: I know you not.” (Mat_7:22, Mat_7:23) Then shall it be fulfilled that He says, “I also will deny them.” But whom will the Lord Christ chiefly deny, if not all of you heretics, and schismatics, and strangers to His name? For ye who were some time Christians, but now are Novatians, no longer Christians, have changed your first faith by a subsequent perfidy in the calling of your name. I should wish you to reply to your own proposition. Read and teach: whom of those who had failed or denied Him, while He was still with them, did our Lord deny? Yet also to the others of the disciples who had remained with Him He saith, “Will ye also go away?” (Joh_6:67) Even Peter, whom He had previously foretold as about to deny Him, when he had denied Him, He did not deny, but sustained; and He Himself soothed him when subsequently bitterly bewailing his denial.

9. What sort of folly is thine, Novatian, only to read what tends to the destruction of salvation, and to pass by what tends to mercy, when Scripture cries, and says, “Repent, ye who err: be converted in heart;” (Eze_18:30) and when the same prophet also exhorts, and says, “Be converted unto me with all your heart, in fasting, and weeping, and mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your garments; be ye converted to the Lord your God: for He is merciful, and one who pities with great compassion?” (Joe_2:12, Joe_2:13)

10. Thus we have heard that the Lord is of great compassion. Let us hear what the Holy Spirit testifies by David: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my commandments; if they should profane my righteousness, and should not keep my precepts; I will visit their crimes with a rod, and their sins with stripes. But my mercy will I not utterly disperse from them.” (Psa_89:30 et seq.) Words like to these we read that the Lord said also by Ezekiel: “Son of man, the house of Israel has dwelt on its own land, and they have defiled it by their crimes: their uncleanness has become like that of a menstruous woman before my face. I have poured out my anger upon them, and I have scattered them among the nations; and I have judged them according to their sins, because they have defiled my holy name; and because it was said of them, This is the people of the Lord, I have spared them, because of my holy name, which the house of Israel despised among the nations.” (Eze_36:17-23) And in conjunction with this he says, “Therefore say to the people of Israel, Thus saith the Lord, I spare you not, O house of Israel; but I will spare you on account of my holy name, which ye have defiled among they nations: and ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall be sanctified in you.” Also the Lord to the same: “Son of man, say unto the people of Israel, Wherefore have ye spoken, saying, We are pining away in our sins, and how shall we be able to be saved? Say unto them, I live, saith the Lord: for I do not desire the death of the sinner; but I desire that the sinner should turn from his evil way, and live: therefore return ye from your evil way: why do ye give yourselves over to death, O house of Israel?” (Eze_33:10, Eze_33:11) So, too, by Isaiah the prophet: “I will not be angry with you for ever, nor will I abstain from defending you always.” (Isa_57:16) And because Jeremiah the prophet, in the person of the sinful people, prays to the Lord, saying, “Amend us, O Lord, but in judgment, and not in anger, lest Thou make us few;” (Jer_10:24) Isaiah also added, and said, “For his sin I have slightly afflicted him; and I have stricken him, and have turned away my face from him: and he was afflicted, and went away sadly in his ways.” (Isa_57:17) And because he labours, he added and said, “I have seen his ways, and I have healed him; and I have given him a true exhortation, peace upon peace;” (Isa_57:19) that to those who repent, and pray, and labour, restoration is possible, because they would miserably perish, and because they would decline from Christ.

11. Moreover, this is proved in the Gospel, where is described that woman who was a sinner, who came to the house of a certain Pharisee whither the Lord had been bidden with His disciples, and she brought a vessel of ointment, and stood at the Lord’s feet, and washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and pressed kisses upon them; so that that Pharisee was provoked, and said, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of a woman this is who touches him; for she is a sinner.” (Luk_7:39 et seq.) Whence immediately the Lord, the remitter of sins and the receiver of the penitent, says, “Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he answered, saying, Master, say on. And the Lord, There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; one who had5 five hundred pence, and the other fifty. When they had nothing to pay, he forgave both. And He asked, Which of these loved most? And Simon answered, Assuredly he to whom he forgave most. And He added, saying, Seest thou that woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no kiss; but she hath not ceased to kiss my feet; thou washedst not my feet, but she has washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair; thou didst not anoint my feet with oil, but she hath anointed them. Wherefore I say unto thee, Simon, that her sins are forgiven her.” Behold, the Lord grants the debt with His liberal kindness to both debtors; behold Him who pardons sins; behold the woman who was a sinner, penitent, weeping, praying, and receiving remission of her sins!

12. And now blush if thou canst, Novatian; cease to deceive the unwary with thy impious arguments; cease to frighten them with the subtlety of one particular. We read, and adore, and do not pass over the heavenly judgment of the Lord, where he says that He will deny him who denies Him. But does this mean the penitent? And why should I be taking pains so long to prove individual cases of mercies? since the mercy of God is not indeed denied to the Ninevites, although strangers, and placed apart from the law of the Lord, when they beseech it on account of the overthrow announced to their city. Nor to Pharaoh himself, resisting with sacrilegious boldness, when formerly he was stricken with plagues from heaven, and, turning to Moses and to his brother, said, “Pray to the Lord for me, for I have sinned.” (Exo_9:28) At once the anger of God was suspended from him. And yet thou, O Novatian, judgest and declarest that the lapsed have no hope of peace and mercy, nor inclinest thine ear to the rebuke of the apostle, when he says,” Who art thou, who judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall stand. God is mighty to establish him.” (Rom_14:4) Whence pertinently and needfully the Holy Spirit, in the person of those same lapsed people, rebukes you when He says, “Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy: because if I have fallen, I shall also rise again; and if I shall walk in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against Him, until He justify my cause, and execute judgment and justice, and bring me forth to the light. I shall behold His righteousness; and she that is mine enemy shall see me, and shall cover herself with confusion.” (Mic_7:8-10)

13. I beseech thee, hast thou not read, “Boast not, and speak not loftily, and let not arrogancy proceed out of your mouth: for the Lord lifteth the poor from the earth; He raiseth up the beggar from the dunghill, and maketh him to sit with the mighty ones of the people?” (1Sa_2:3-8) Hast thou not read, that “the Lord resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble?” (Jam_4:6) Hast thou not read, “Whoso exalteth himself shall be humbled?” (Mat_23:12) Hast thou not read, that “God destroys the remembrance of the proud, and does not forsake the memory of the lowly?” Hast thou not read, that “with what judgment a man shall judge he must be judged?” (Mat_7:2) Hast thou not read, that “he who hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes?” (1Jo_2:11) Whence, then, this Novatian has become both so wicked and so lost, so mad with rage of discord, I cannot discover, since he always in one household – that is, the Church of Christ – would have bewailed the sins of his neighbours as his own;6 would have borne the burthens of his brethren, as the apostle exhorts would have strengthened the faltering in the faith with heavenly counsel. But now, from the time when he began to practise that heresy of Cain which only delights in slaying, he does not even of late spare himself. But if he had read that “the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day on which he shall have erred, and the wickedness of the wicked shall not harm him from the day in which he shall have been converted,” (Eze_33:12) he would long ago have repented in ashes, who is always opposed to penitents; who labours more readily in the destruction of those things which are built and standing, than in the building up of those which are prostrate; who has once more made heathens of many most wretched brethren of ours, terrified by his false oppositions, by saying that the repentance of the lapsed is vain, and cannot avail them for salvation, although the Scripture cries aloud and says, “Remember whence thou hast fallen, and repent, or else I will come to thee except thou repent.” (Rev_2:5) And indeed, writing to the seven churches, rebuking each one of them with its own crimes and sins, it said, Repent. To whom but to them, doubtless, whom He had redeemed at the great price of His blood?

14. O impious and wicked as thou art, thou heretic Novatian! who after so many and great crimes which in past times thou hadst known to be voluntarily committed in the Church, and before thou thyself wast an apostate in the family of God, hadst certainly taught that these might be abolished from memory if well-doing followed; according to the faith of the Scripture which says, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and will do righteousness, he shall live in eternal life, and shall not die in his wickedness.” (Eze_18:21) For the sins which he has committed shall be abolished from memory by the good deeds which succeed. Thou reconsiderest now, whether the wounds of the lapsed who have fallen, stripped bare by the devil, ought to be cured; dashed down, as they are, by the “violence of the flood which the serpent sent forth from his mouth after the woman.” (Rev_12:15) But “What shall I say?” says the apostle. “Do I praise you? In this I praise you not; that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” (1Co_11:17) For where there are “rivalries and dissensions among you, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?” (1Co_3:3) Nor indeed ought we to wonder why this Novatian should dare now to practise such wicked, such severe things against the person of the lapsed, since we have previous examples of this kind of prevarication. Saul, that once good (1Sa_9:2) man, besides other things, is subsequently overthrown by envy, and strives to do everything that is harsh and hostile against David. That Judas, who was chosen among the apostles, who was always of one mind and faithful in the house of God, himself subsequently betrayed God.7

And indeed the Lord had foretold that many should come as ravening wolves in the skins of sheep. Who are those ravening wolves but such as conspire with treacherous intent to waste the flock of Christ? As we read it written in Zechariah: “Lo, I raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit that which is turned away, and will eat the flesh of the chosen, and tear their claws in pieces.” (Zec_11:16) Similarly also in Ezekiel he rebukes shepherds of this kind, to wit, robbers and butchers (I will speak as he had thought8), saying, “O shepherds, wherefore do ye drink the milk, and eat up the curdled milk, and have brought that which is strong to nothing, and have not visited the weak, have not healed the halting, and have not recalled the wandering, and have permitted my people to wander among thorns and briers? For these things, says the Lord, lo, I will come against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep of their hands; and I will drive them away, that they may not feed my sheep; and my sheep shall no more be for them to devour, and I will seek them out as a shepherd his flock in the day in which there shall be darkness and cloud. Thus I will seek out my sheep, and I will seek them out in every place wherever they are scattered; and I will seek out what had perished, and I will recall what had wandered, and what had halted I will heal, and what is weak I will watch over; and I will feed my sheep with judgment.” (Eze_34:1-31)

15. Who is it that says these things? Certainly He who, having left the ninety and nine sheep, went to seek that one which had wandered from His flock; as David says, “I have gone astray like a sheep which was lost,” (Psa_119:176) which being found Christ brings back, bearing on His shoulder the tender sinful one; and He, rejoicing and exulting, having called His friends and domestics, says, “Rejoice with me; for my sheep which was lost is found. I say,” says He, “unto you, that there will be such joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luk_15:6-10) And in continuation, He says: “Or what woman, having ten denarii, if she should lose one of the denarii, does not light a lamp, and all the day long clean out her house, seeking till she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the denarius that I had lost. I say unto you, that such joy shall be in the sight of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luk_15:6-10) But, on the other hand, they who do not repent of their wickedness, let them know from the answer of the Lord Himself what remaineth for them; for we read in the Gospel, that “certain men came from the Galileans to the Lord, telling Him of those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices; to whom the Lord answered, saying, Think ye that those Galileans had been sinners above other Galileans, because they suffered such things? No; for I say unto you, unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, think ye that they were debtors to death above all men who dwell in Jerusalem? No; I say unto you,” said He, “that unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luk_13:1-5)

16. Let us then arouse ourselves as much as we can, beloved brethren; and breaking away from the slumber of indolence and security, let us be watchful for the observance of the Lord’s precepts. Let us with all our hearts seek for what we have lost, that we may be able to find; because “to him that seeketh,” says the Scripture, “it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Luk_11:10) Let us cleanse our house with spiritual cleanliness, that every secret and hidden place of our breast, truly enlightened by the light of the Gospel, may say, “Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this great evil in Thy sight.” (Psa_51:4) Because the death of sinners is evil, and in hell there is no repentance. Let us have in contemplation especially the day of judgment and retribution, and what must be believed by all of us, and firmly maintained, that “there is no acceptance of persons with God;” (Rom_2:11) since He commanded in Deuteronomy, that the person must not be accepted in judgment: “Thou shalt not accept,” says He, “the person, neither shalt thou judge according to the least nor according to the greatest.” (Deu_1:17) Like words to these He also said by Ezekiel: “All souls,” said He, “are mine; as the soul of the father, so is the soul of the son: the soul that hath sinned, it shall die.” (Eze_18:4) It is then He who must be revered by us; He must be held fast; He must be propitiated by our full and worthy confession, “who has the power of sending soul and body to the Gehenna of fire,” (Mat_10:28) – as it is written, “Behold, He cometh with many thousands of His messengers, to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to condemn all flesh, for all the deeds of the wicked which they have wickedly done, and for all the impious words which sinners have spoken about God.” (Jud_1:14, Jud_1:15)

17. Like things to these also says Daniel: “I beheld a throne placed, and the Ancient of days sat upon it, and His clothing was as it were snow, and the hairs of His head as it were white wool: His throne was a flame of fire, its wheels were burning fire. A river of fire came forth before Him: thousand thousands ministered to Him, and thousand thousands stood before Him: He sat to judgment, and the books were opened.” (Dan_7:9, Dan_7:10) And John still more plainly declares, both about the day of judgment and the consummation of the world, saying, “And when,” said he, “He had opened the sixth seal, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as of blood; and the stars fell to the earth, even as a fig-tree, shaken by a mighty wind, casteth her unripe figs. And the heaven departed as a book when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved from their places. And the kings of the earth, and all the great men, and the tribunes, and the rich men, and the strong men, and every slave, and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the caverns of the mountains; saying to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall upon us, and hide us from the sight of the Father that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: because the day of destruction cometh; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev_6:12-17) Also in the same Apocalypse John says that this too was revealed to him. “I saw,” says he, “a great throne, and one in white who sat upon it, from whose face the heaven and the earth fled away; and their place was not found. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the sight of the Lord’s throne: and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is (the book) of life: and every one was judged according to those things that were written in the book, according to their own works.” (Rev_20:11-13) Moreover, too, the apostle, giving good advice, thus exhorts us, saying, “Let no one deceive you with vain words: for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience. Be not partakers with them.” (Eph_5:6, Eph_5:7)

18. Let us, then, with the whole strength of our faith, give praise to God; let us give our full confession, since the powers of heaven rejoice over our repentance, all the angels rejoice, and Christ also rejoices, who once again with full and merciful moderation exhorts us, laden with sins, overwhelmed with crimes, to cease from wickedness, saying, “Turn ye, and return from your impieties, and your iniquities shall not be to you for a punishment. Cast away from you all your impieties which ye have committed against me; and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. And why do ye deliver yourselves over to death, O house of Israel? For I do not desire the death of the sinner.” (Eze_18:30-32) “I am He, I am He who blots out thy crimes, and I will not remember them. But do thou have in mind, and let us judge; tell thou thy wickednesses first, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa_43:25, Isa_43:26) While the way of mercy, brethren, is open,9 let us entreat God with full atonements; let us humble ourselves, that we may be exalted; let us acquiesce in the divine exhortation, whereby we may escape the day of the Lord and His anger. For thus He says: “Look, my son, upon the nations of men, and know who hath hoped in the Lord, and has been confounded; or has remained in His commandments, and has been forsaken; or has called upon Him, and He has despised him. For the Lord is loving and merciful, and forgiving in time of tribulation their sins to all those that seek after Him in truth.” (Sirach 2:10, 11) Therefore He says, “First tell thou thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” Let there be first in your hand that prayer full of confession.10

FOOTNOTES

1 Infelicissimi. This is supposed to be a play upon the name of Felicissimus, referred to in Cyprian’s letter, [xlviii. p. 325, supra].

2 Varium.

3 This passage is altogether corrupt and unintelligible; some force is necessary even to give it an appearance of meaning.

4 Scil. Gallus and Volusianus (Pamel.).

5 “Habebat,” but probably “debebat” – owed.

6 This refers to Novatian’s letter in the name of the Roman people. [See p. 308. Compare p. 320,  note 209.]

7 [A misconception of Judas, who seems to have been hypocritical from the first. Joh_6:64.]

8 This parentheses is unintelligible. [i.e., not shepherds, but “butchers,” in the prophet’s thought, who speaks as follows, etc.]

9 [A virtual refutation of the dogma of purgatory, and all the trading in masses which it involves. The pious Hirsher, in his Kirchlichen Zustände der Gegenwart (Tübingen, 1849; a translation of which, by the American editor of this series, was published, Oxford, 1852), bewails the corrupting influences of this system, though he died in the Papal communion.]

10 [The Lord’s prayer; Mar_11:25, Elucidation III., p. 559, supra.]

Introductory Notice1

The following treatise on Re-baptism has been attributed by some authorities to the pen of one Ursinus,2 a monk, who is said to have written in the fourth century. But internal evidence seems to point to a bishop as having been the writer; (sec. x.) and it seems very probable that it was written while the baptismal controversy was still agitating the Church, from the manner in which he refers to it. Moreover, the bitter attack contained in the first chapter was probably levelled against Cyprian, as the leader of the party in favour of the re-baptism of heretics. And this would hardly have been the case, at least the attack would not have been characterized by the same rancour, if Cyprian had already suffered martyrdom, and the controversy had lost its acrimony and intensity.

Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.

The difficulty arising to the translator from a loose and rambling style, and very involved argument, has been enhanced by a text singularly uncertain; but he ventures to think that there are points in the treatment of the subject which will not be without interest to the theological student of the present day, although its immediate purpose has passed away. 

FOOTNOTES

1 [By Dr. Wallis, editor of vol. xiii., Edinb. series.]

2 Gennadius, de Script. Eccles., cap. xxvii.

A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.

Argument. – That They Who Have once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized.

1. I observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,1 and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation. The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether, indeed, a repetition of baptism would be necessary for them, as if they should receive nothing if they had not obtained baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. And therefore some things were talked about as having been written and replied on this new question, wherein both sides endeavoured with the greatest eagerness to demolish what had been written by their antagonists. In which kind of debate, as it appears to me, no controversy or discussion could have arisen at all if each one of us had been content with the venerable authority of all the churches,2 and with becoming humility had desired to innovate nothing, as observing no kind of room for contradiction. For everything which is both doubtful and ambiguous, and is established in opinions differing among those of prudent and faithful men, if it is judged to be against the ancient and memorable and most solemn observance of all those holy and faithful men who have deserved well, ought assuredly to be condemned; since in a matter once arranged and ordained, whatever that is which is brought forward against the quiet and peace of the Church, will result in nothing but discords, and strifes, and schisms. And in this no other fruit can be found but this alone; that one man, whoever he is, should be vain-gloriously declared among certain fickle men to be of great prudence and constancy: and, being gifted with the arrogance of heretics, whose only consolation in destruction is the not appearing to sin alone, should be renowned among those that are most similar and agreeable to himself, as having corrected the errors and vices of all the churches. For this is the desire and purpose of all heretics, to frame as many calumnies of this kind as possible against our most holy mother the Church, and to deem it a great glory to have discovered anything that can be imputed to her as a crime, or even as a folly. And since it becomes no faithful man of sound mind to dare to hold such a view, especially no one who is ordained in any clerical office at all, and much more in the episcopal order, it is like a prodigy for bishops themselves to devise such scandals, and not to fear to unfold too irreverently against the precept of the law and of all the Scriptures, with their own disgrace and risk, the disgrace of their mother the Church – if they think that there is any disgrace in this matter; although the Church has no disgrace in this instance, save in the error of such men as these themselves. Therefore it is the more grievous sin in men of this kind, if that which is blamed by them in the most ancient observance, as if it were not rightly done, is manifestly and forcibly shown as well to have been rightly observed by those who were before us, as to be rightly observed also by us; so that even if we should engage in the controversy with equal arguments on both sides, yet, since that which was innovated could not be established without dissension among the brethren and mischief to the Church, assuredly it ought not, – right or wrong, as they say, that is, contrary to what is good and proper – rashly to be flung like a stain upon our mother the Church; and the ignominy of this audacity and impiety ought with reason to be attached to those who should attempt this. But since it is not in our power, according to the apostle’s precept, “to speak the same thing, that there be not schisms among us;” (1Co_1:10) yet, as far as we can, we strive to demonstrate the true condition of this argument, and to persuade turbulent men, even now, to mind their own business, as we shall even attain a great deal if they will at length acquiesce in this sound advice.3 And therefore we shall, as is needful, collect into one mass whatever passages of the Holy Scriptures are pertinent to this subject. And we shall manifestly harmonize, as far as possible, those which seem to be differing or of various meaning; and we shall to the extent of our poor ability examine both the utility and advantage of each method, that we may recommend to all the brethren, that the most wholesome form and peaceful custom be adopted in the Church.

2. To such, then, as approach to a discussion of saving and modern, that is, of spiritual and evangelical baptism, there occurs first of all the announcement universally well known, made and begun by John the Baptist, who, somewhat departing from the law, that is, from the most ancient baptism of Moses, and preparing the way of the new and true grace, both preoccupied the ears of the Jews gradually by the baptism of water and of repentance which for the time he practised, and took possession of them with the announcement of a spiritual baptism that was to come, exhorting them, and saying, “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;” (Mat_3:11) and for this reason we also ought to make a beginning of this discourse from this point. For in the Acts of the Apostles, the Lord after His resurrection, confirming this same word of John, “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for that promise of the Father which, saith He, ye have heard from me; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Act_1:4, Act_1:5) And Peter also related these same words of the Lord, when he gave an account of himself to the apostles, saying: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them as on us at the beginning; and I remembered the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, He gave them a like gift as to us, who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand the Lord?” (Act_11:15-17) And again: “Men and brethren, ye know how from ancient days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did unto us.” (Act_15:7, Act_15:8) And on this account we ought to consider what is the force and power of this saying. For the Lord says to them who would have to be subsequently baptized because they should believe, that they must be baptized not in like manner as by Him in water, unto repentance, but in the Holy Ghost. And of this announcement, as assuredly none of us can doubt it, it is plain on what principle men were baptized in the Holy Spirit. For it was peculiarly in the Holy Spirit Himself alone that they who believed were baptized. For John distinguished, and said that he indeed baptized in water, but that one should come who would baptize in the Holy Ghost, by the grace and power of God; and they are so by the Spirit’s bestowal and operation of hidden results. Moreover, they are so no less in the baptism of the Spirit and of water. They are so, besides, also in the baptism of every one in his own proper blood4 Even as the Holy Scriptures declare to us, from which we shall adduce evident proofs throughout each individual instance of those things which we shall narrate.

3. And to these things thou perchance, who art bringing in some novelty, mayest immediately and impatiently reply, as thou art wont, that the Lord said in the Gospel: “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5) Whence it manifestly appears that that baptism alone is profitable wherein also the Holy Spirit can dwell; for that upon the Lord Himself, when He was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended, and that His deed and word are quite in harmony, and that such a mystery can consist with no other principle. To which reply none of us is found either so senseless or so stubborn as to dare, contrary to right or contrary to truth, to object, for instance, so to the doing of things in their integrity, and by all means in the Church, and the observation of them according to the order of discipline perpetually by us. But if, in the same New Testament, those things which in that matter we come upon as associated, be sometimes found in some sort divided, and separated, and arranged, and ordered just as if they were by themselves; let us see whether these solitary instances by themselves may not sometimes be such as are not imperfect, but, as it were, entire and complete. For when by imposition of the bishop’s hands the Holy Spirit is given to every one that believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip’s baptism, the apostles did to them by laying on of hands; in this manner also they conferred on them the Holy Spirit. And that this might be the case, they themselves prayed for them, for as yet the Holy Spirit had not descended upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Moreover, our Lord after His resurrection, when He had breathed upon His apostles, and had said to them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” (Joh_20:22) thus and thus only bestowed upon them the Spirit.

4. And this being found to be so, what thinkest thou, my brother? If a man be not baptized by a bishop, so as even at once to have the imposition of hands, and should yet die before having received the Holy Spirit, should you judge him to have received salvation or not? Because, indeed, both the apostles themselves and the disciples, who also baptized others, and were themselves baptized by the Lord, did not at once receive the Holy Spirit, for He had not as yet been given, because that Jesus had not as yet been glorified. And after His resurrection no small interval of time elapsed before that took place, – even as also the Samaritans, when they were baptized by Philip, did not receive the gift until the apostles invited from Jerusalem to Samaria went down to them to lay hands upon them, and conferred on them the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. Because in that interval of time any one of them who had not attained the Holy Spirit, might have been cut off by death, and die defrauded of the grace of the Holy Spirit. And it cannot be doubted also, that in the present day this sort of thing is usual, and happens frequently, that many after baptism depart from this life without imposition of the bishop’s hands, and yet are esteemed perfected believers. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and reading the prophet Isaiah, and was in doubt, having at the Spirit’s suggestion heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed and was baptized; and when he had gone up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more. For he went on his way rejoicing, although, as thou observest, hands were not laid on him by the bishop, that he might receive the Holy Spirit. But if thou admittest this, and believest it to be saving, and dost not gainsay the opinion of all the faithful, thou must needs confess this, that even as this principle proceeds to be more largely discussed, that other also can be more broadly established; that is, that by the imposition of hands alone of the bishop – because baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ has gone before it – may the Holy Spirit also be given to another man who repents and believes. Because the Holy Scripture has affirmed that they who should believe in Christ, must needs be baptized in the Spirit; so that these also may not seem to have anything less than those who are perfectly Christians; lest it should be needful to ask what sort of a thing was that baptism which they have attained in the name of Jesus Christ. Unless, perchance, in that former discussion also, about those who should only have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, thou shouldst decide that they can be saved even without the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to be bestowed in this manner only, but by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; or even shouldst say that it is not the bishop alone who can bestow the Holy Spirit.

5. And if this be so, and the occurrence of any of these things cannot deprive a man who believes, of salvation, thou thyself also affirmest that the fact of the mystery of the faith being divided in a manner, and its not being, as thou contendest, consummated, where necessity intervenes, cannot take away salvation from a believing and penitent man. Or if thou sayest that a man of this kind cannot be saved, we deprive all bishops of salvation, whom thou thus engagest, under risks as assured as possible, to be bound themselves to afford help to all those who live under their care, and are in weak health, in their districts, scattered up and down, because other men of less degree among the clerics who venture cannot confer the same benefit; so that the blood of those who shall appear to have departed from this life without the benefit would have, of necessity, to be required at the hands of the bishops. And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Act_10:44-48) Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: “And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith.” (Act_15:9) And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water, – as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied, – forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.5

6. And this also, – looking at it from the opposite side of this discussion, – those disciples of our Lord themselves attained, upon whom, being previously baptized, the Holy Spirit at length came down on the day of Pentecost, descending from heaven indeed by the will of God, not of His own accord, but effused for this very office, and moreover upon each one of them. Although these were already righteous, and, as we have said, had been baptized by the Lord’s baptism even as the apostles themselves, who nevertheless are found on the night on which He was apprehended to have all deserted Him. And even Peter himself, who boasted that he would persevere in his faith, and most obstinately resisted the prediction of the Lord Himself, yet at last denied Him, that by this means it might be shown to us, that whatever sins they bad contracted in the meantime and in any manner, these same sins, by the faith in them subsequently attested as sincere, were without doubt put away by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as I think, was it for any other reason that the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, except that the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism might afford to him who should be baptized no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation, as Peter relates in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: “For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” (Act_4:12) As also the Apostle Paul unfolds, showing that God hath exalted our Lord Jesus, and “given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus all should bow the knee, of things heavenly and earthly, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father.” And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men; so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. Which none of us may disallow, although this invocation, if it be standing bare and by itself, could not suffice for affording salvation, lest on this principle we should believe that even Gentiles and heretics, who abuse the name of Jesus, could attain unto salvation without the true and entire thing. Yet it is extremely useful to believe that this invocation of the name of Jesus, together with the correction of error and the acknowledgment of the belief of the truth, and with the putting away of all stain of past conversation, if rightly performed with the mystery of God among men of this kind, obtains a place which it would not have had, and finally, in the true faith and for the maintenance of the integrity of the sign, is no hindrance, when its supplement which had been wanting is added; and that it is consistent with good reason, with the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops; even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel against former decisions after so long a series of so many ages. For not for any other reason Peter – who had already been baptized and had been asked what he thought of the Lord by the Lord Himself, and the truth of the revelation of the Father in heaven being bestowed on him bad confessed that Christ was not only our Lord, but was the Son of the living God – was shown subsequently to have withstood the same Christ when He made announcement of His passion, and therefore was set forth as being called Satan. For no other reason except because it would come to pass that some, although varying in their own judgment, and somewhat halting in faith and doctrine, although they were baptized in the name of Jesus, yet, if they had been able to rescind their error in some interval of time, were not on that account cut off from salvation; but at any time that they had come to the right mind, obtained by repentance a sound hope of salvation, especially when they received the Holy Spirit, to be baptized by Whom is the duty of every man, they would have intended some such thing. Even as we do not apprehend that Peter in the Gospel suffered this alone, but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that “all ye shall be offended in me,” (Mar_14:27) all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord’s resurrection with the Holy Spirit. So that not without reason we also in the present day may believe that men, amended from their former error, may be baptized in the Holy Spirit, who, although they were baptized with water in the name of the Lord, might have had a faith somewhat imperfect. Because it is of great importance whether a man is not baptized at all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or indeed whether in some respect he halts when he is baptized with the baptism of water, which is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account.

7. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mat_28:19) Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behoves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church. But to what effect are those words of Christ, who said that He would deny, and not know, those who should say to Him in the day of judgment,” Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out demons, and in Thy name done many wonderful works,” when He answered them, even with emphasis,6 “I never knew you; depart from me, ye who work iniquity,” (Mar_14:27) unless that it should be shown to us, that even by those who work iniquity might these good works also be done, by the superfluous7 energy of the name of Christ? Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others, which may afterwards be filled up with the remaining things. Otherwise such an invocation would not avail if it should remain alone, because after the death of a man in this position there cannot be added to him anything at all, nor supplemented, nor can, in anything, avail him in the day of judgment, when they shall begin to be reproached by our Lord with those things which we have above mentioned, none of whom notwithstanding in this present time may by any man be so hardly and cruelly prohibited from aiding themselves in those ways which we have above shown.

8. But these things thou wilt, as thou art wont, contradict, by objecting to us, that when they baptized, the disciples were baptized perfectly, and rightly, and not as these heretics; and this thou must needs assume from their condition, and His who baptized them. And therefore we reply to this proposition of thine, not as accusers of the Lord’s disciples, but as we are constrained, because it is necessary that we should investigate by reasons where and when, and in what measure, salvation has been bestowed on each of us. For that our Lord was born, and that He was the Christ, appeared by many reasons to be believed, not unjustly, by His disciples, because He had been born of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and in the city of Bethlehem; and because He had been announced to the shepherds by the angels at the same moment that there was born to them a Saviour; because His star being seen in the east, He had been most anxiously sought for and adored by the Magi, and honoured with illustrious presents and distinguished offerings; because while still a youth, sitting in the temple with the doctors of the law, He wisely, and with the admiration of all, had disputed; because when He was baptized He had been glorified, as had happened to none others, by the descent of the Holy Spirit from the opened heavens, and by its abode upon Him; and moreover by the testimony of His Father, and also of John the Baptist; because, beyond the inferior capacity of man, He understood the hearts and thoughts of all men; because He cured and healed weaknesses, and vices, and diseases, with very great power; because He bestowed remissions of sins, with manifest attestation; because He expelled demons at His bidding; because He purified lepers with a word; because, by converting water into wine, He enlarged the nuptial festivity with marvellous joyfulness; because He restored or granted sight to the blind; because He maintained the doctrine of the Father with all confidence; because in a desert place He satisfied five thousand men with five loaves; because the remains and the fragments filled more than twelve baskets; because He everywhere raised up the dead, according to His mercy; because He commanded the winds and the sea to be still; because He walked with His feet upon the sea; because He absolutely performed all miracles. 

9. By which things, and by many deeds of this kind tending to His glory, it appeared to follow as a consequence, that in whatever manner the Jews think about Christ, and although they do not believe concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, that even they themselves thought that such and so great a one would without any death endure to eternity, and would possess the kingdom of Israel, and of the whole world for ever; and that it should not be destroyed. Whence, moreover, the Jews dared to seize Him by force, and anoint Him for the kingdom, which indeed He was compelled to evade; and therefore His disciples thought that in no other way would He bestow upon them eternal life, except He Himself had first continued this temporal life into that eternal one in His own experience. In fine, when they were passing through Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and after three days He shall rise again.” (Mar_9:30) and they were greatly grieved, because, as we have said, they had formed a very different notion previously in their minds and hearts. And again, this also was the speech of the Jews, in contradiction against Him, when He taught them of Himself, and announced future things to them, and they said, “We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou that the Son of man must be lifted up?” (Joh_12:34) And so there was this same presumption concerning Christ in the mind of the disciples, even as Peter himself, the leader and chief of the apostles, broke forth into that expression of his own incredulity. For when he, together with the others, had been asked by the Lord what he thought about Him, that is, whom he thought Him to be, and had first of all confessed the truth, saying that He was the Christ the Son of the living God, and therefore was judged blessed by Him because he had arrived at this truth, not after the flesh, but by the revelation of the heavenly Father; yet this same Peter, when Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after the third day rise again from the dead; nevertheless that true confessor of Christ, after a few days, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be propitious to Thyself: this shall not be;” (Mat_16:22) so that on that account he deserved to hear from the Lord, “Get thee behind me, Satan;8 thou art an offence unto me, because he savoured not the things which are of God, but those things which are of men.” Which rebuke against Peter became more and more apparent when the Lord was apprehended, and, frightened by the damsel, he said, “I know not what thou sayest, neither know I thee;” (Mat_26:70) and again when, using an oath, he said this same thing; and for the third time, cursing and swearing, he affirmed that he knew not the man, and not once, but frequently, denied Him.9 And this disposition, because it was to continue to him even to the Lord’s passion, was long before made manifest by the Lord, that we also might not be ignorant of it. Again, after the Lord’s resurrection, one of His disciples, Cleopas, when he was, according to the error of all his fellow-disciples, sorrowfully telling what had happened to the Lord Himself, as if to some unknown person, spoke thus, saying of Jesus the Nazarene, “who was a prophet mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and fastened Him to the cross. But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel.” (Luk_24:20, Luk_24:21) And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of themselves, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once. And thus, as far as concerns the disciples themselves, they are found to have had a faith neither sound nor perfect in such matters as we have referred to; and what is much more serious, they moreover baptized others, as it is written in the Gospel according to John.

10. Besides, what wilt thou say of those who are in many cases baptized by bishops of very bad character, who yet at length, when God so wills it, convicted of their crimes, are even deprived of their office itself, or absolutely of communion? Or what wilt thou decide of those who may have been baptized by bishops, whose opinions are unsound, or who are very ignorant – when they may not have spoken clearly and honestly, or even have spoken otherwise than is fit in the tradition of the sacrament, or at least may have asked anything, or asking, have heard from those who answered what ought by no means to be so asked or answered? And still this does not greatly injure that true faith of ours, although, moreover, these more simple men may deliver the mystery of the faith without the elegance and order that thou wouldst use. And thou wilt assuredly say, with that marvellous carefulness of thine, that these too should be baptized again, since this is especially the thing which is wanting to them, or hinders their being able to receive, uncorrupted, that divine and inviolable mystery of the faith. And yet, O excellent man, let us attribute and allow to the heavenly agencies their power, and let us concede to the condescension of the divine majesty its appropriate operations; and understanding how great is the advantage therein, let us gladly acquiesce in it. And thus, as our salvation is founded in the baptism of the Spirit, which for the most part is associated with the baptism of water, if indeed baptism shall be given by us, let it be conferred in its integrity and with solemnity, and with all those means which are written; and let it be administered without any disconnection of anything. Or if, by the necessity of the case, it should be administered by an inferior cleric, let us wait for the result, that it may either be supplied by us,10 or reserved to be supplied by the Lord. If, however, it should have been administered by strangers, let this matter be amended as it can and as it allows. Because outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism. And for that reason, they who repent and are amended by the doctrine of the truth, and by their own faith, which subsequently has been improved by the purification of their heart, ought to be aided only by spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of the bishop’s hands, and by the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the perfect seal of faith has been rightly accustomed to be given in this manner and on this principle in the Church. So that the invocation of the name of Jesus, which cannot be done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting; although such an invocation, if none of those things of which we have spoken should follow it, may fail and be deprived of the effect of salvation. For when the apostle said that there was “one baptism,” (Eph_4:5) it must needs have been by the continued effect of the invocation of the name of Jesus, because, once invoked, it cannot be taken away by any man, even although we might venture, against the decision of the apostles, to repeat it by giving too much, yea, by the desire of superadding baptism. If he who returns to the Church be unwilling again to be baptized, the result will be that we may defraud him of the baptism of the Spirit, whom we think we must not defraud of the baptism of water.

11. And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word,11 and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” (Mat_10:32) because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess; because the Lord, by confessing him, in turn Himself graces His confessor before his Father with the glory of his martyrdom, as He promised. But this assuredly ought not to be taken too liberally, as if it could be stretched to such a point as that any heretic can confess the name of Christ who notwithstanding denies Christ Himself; that he believes on another Christ, when Christ avows that it cannot avail him at all; forasmuch as the Lord said that He12 must needs be brought to confession by us before men, which cannot be done without Him, and without veneration of His name. And therefore both13 ought to stand by the confessor, sound, and sincere, and uncontaminated, and inviolated, without any choice being made of the confessor himself, whether he is righteous or a sinner, and a perfect Christian or an imperfect one, who has not feared to confess the Lord at his own greatest peril. And this is not contrary to the former discussion, because there is left therein time for the correction of many things which are bad, and because certain things are conceded to the very name only of our Lord; while martyrdom cannot be consummated except in the Lord and by the Lord Himself, and therefore nobody can confess Christ without His name, nor can the name of Christ avail any one for confession without Christ Himself.

12. Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be considered, that it may be made clearer. For the invocation of the name of Jesus can only be an advantage if it shall be subsequently properly supplemented, because both prophets and apostles have so declared. For James says in the Acts of the Apostles: “Men and brethren, hearken: Simon hath declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will raise it up anew; that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called upon them, saith the Lord, who doeth these things.” (Act_15:13-17) Therefore also the residue of men, that is, some of the Jews and all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, may and of necessity must seek the Lord, because that very invocation of the name affords them the opportunity, or even imposes on them the necessity, of seeking the Lord. And with these they prescribe the Holy Scriptures – whether all or only some of them – to discuss still more boldly concerning the truth than with the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord Jesus, the Son of the living God, has not been invoked, as it likewise has not upon the Jews who only receive the Old Testament Scriptures. And thus men of both of these kinds, that is, Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized. But heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit; and in Jesus, which is “the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved,” death is reasonably despised, although, if they continue as they are, they cannot be saved, because they have not sought the Lord after the invocation of His name upon them, – even as those who, on account of false Christs, perchance have refused to believe, of whom the Lord says, “Take heed that no man lead you into error. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall lead many into error.” (Mat_24:4, etc.) And again He says: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or lo there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, even the very elect shall be deceived.” (Mat_24:23, Mat_24:24) And these miracles, without doubt, they shall then do under the name of Christ; in which name some even now appear to do certain miracles, and to prophesy falsely. But it is certain that those, because they are themselves not of Christ, therefore do not belong to Christ, in like manner as if one should depart from Christ, abiding only in His name, he would not be much advantaged; nay, rather, he is even burdened by that name, although he may have been previously very faithful, or very righteous, or honoured with some clerical office, or endowed with the dignity of confession. For all those, by denying the true Christ, and by introducing or following another – although there is no other at all – leave themselves no hope or salvation; not otherwise than they who have denied Christ before men, who must needs be denied by Christ; no consideration for them being made from their previous conversation, or feeling, or dignity, equally as they themselves have dared to do away with Christ, that is, their own salvation, they are condemned by the short sentence of this kind, because it was manifestly said by the Lord, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father which is in heaven.” As this word “whosoever,” also in the sentence of confession, most fully shows us that no condition of the confessor himself can stand in the way, although he may have been before a denier, or a heretic, or a hearer, or one who is beginning to hear, who has not yet been baptized or converted from heresy to the truth of the faith, or one who has departed from the Church and has afterwards returned, and then when he returned, before the bishop’s hands could be laid upon him, being apprehended, should be compelled to confess Christ before men; even as to one who again denies Christ, no special ancient dignity can be effectual to him for salvation.

13. For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged, all those things which he has previously done being wiped away and obliterated.14 And therefore, although in martyrdom there is so great a change of things in a moment of time, that in a very rapid case all things may be changed; let nobody flatter himself who has lost the occasion of a glorious salvation, if by chance he has excluded himself therefrom by his own fault; even as that wife of Lot, [vol. 1. p. 505, note 106, this series] who in a similar manner in time of trouble only, contrary to the angel’s command, looked behind her, and she became a pillar of salt. On which principle also, that heretic who, by confessing Christ’s name, is put to death, can subsequently correct nothing, if he should have thought anything erroneously of God or of Christ, although by believing on another God or on another Christ he has deceived himself: he is not a confessor of Christ, but in the name only of Christ; since also the apostle goes on to say, “And if I shall give up my body so that I may be burnt up with fire, but have not love, I profit nothing.” (1Co_13:3) Because by this deed he profits nothing who has not the love of that God and Christ who is announced by the law and the prophets and in the Gospel in this manner: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy thought; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ;” (Mat_22:37) – even as John the evangelist said, “And every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; for God is love;” (1Jo_4:7, 1Jo_4:8) even as God also says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (Joh_3:16) – as it manifestly appears that he who has not in him this love, of loving us and of being loved by us, profits nothing by an empty confession and passion, except that thereby it appears and is plain that he is a heretic who believes on another God, or receives another Christ than Him whom the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament manifestly declare, which announce without any obscurity the Father omnipotent, Creator of all things, and His Son. For it shall happen to them as to one who expects salvation from another God. Then, finally, contrary to their notion, they are condemned to eternal punishment by Christ, the Son of God the Father omnipotent, the Creator whom they have blasphemed, when God shall begin to judge the hidden things of men according to the Gospel by Christ Jesus, because they did not believe in Him, although they were washed in His name.

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, “But I have another baptism to be baptized with.” (Luk_12:50) Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: “Are ye able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?” (Mar_10:38) Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, “From his belly flowed rivers of living water;” (Joh_7:38) which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord’s passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier’s spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe on Him: “But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (Joh_7:39) And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind,15 although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;” (1Jo_5:6) – that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men’s own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. For Peter says: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet; It shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy, and their young men shall see visions, and their old men shall dream dreams: and upon my servants, and upon my handmaidens, will I pour out of my Spirit;” (Act_2:17-18) – which Spirit we discover to have been communicated in the Old Testament, not indeed everywhere nor at large, but with other gifts; or, moreover, to have sprung of His own will into certain men, or to have invested them, or to have been upon them, even as we observe that it was said by the Lord to Moses, about the seventy elders, “And I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them.” (Num_11:17) For which reason also, according to His promise, God put upon them from another of the Spirit which had been upon Moses, and they prophesied in the camp. And Moses, as a spiritual man, rejoiced that this had so happened, although he was unwillingly persuaded by Jesus the son of Nave to oppose this thing, and was not thereby induced. Further, also in the book of Judges, and in the books of Kings too, we observe that upon several, there either was the Spirit of the Lord, or that He came unto them, as upon Gothoniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Saul, David, and many others. Which comes to this result, that the Lord has taught us most plainly by them the liberty and power of the Holy Spirit, approaching of His own will, saying, “The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou hearest His voice, and knowest not whence He cometh or whither He goeth.” (Joh_3:5)16 So that the same Spirit is, moreover, sometimes found to be upon those who are unworthy of Him; not certainly in vain or without reason, but for the sake of some needful operation; as He was upon Saul, upon whom came the Spirit of God, and he prophesied. However, in later days, after the Spirit of the Lord departed from him, and after a malign spirit from the Lord vexed him, because then he had come, after the messengers whom he had previously sent before with care, with intent to kill David; and they therefore fell into the chorus of the prophets, and they prophesied, so that they neither were able nor willing to do what they had been bidden. And we believe that the Spirit which was upon them all effected this with an admirable wisdom, by the will of God. Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. We are counselled that either we ought duly to maintain the integrity of baptism, or if by chance baptism is given by any one in the name of Jesus Christ, we ought to supplement it, guarding the most holy invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, as we have most abundantly set forth; guarding, moreover, the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men.

16. But since the first part of this argument seems to be unfolded, we ought to touch on its subsequent part, on account of the heretics; because it is very necessary not to pass over that discussion which once falls into our hands, lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; thou hast neither part nor lot in this work; for thy heart is not right with God.” (Act_8:20, Act_8:21) And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be – of Anaxilaus – whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.

17. Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to thee, thou wilt assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no; and yet it will behove thee, in whatever way thou canst, to aid even this man if he repent. For of this adulterous, yea, murderous baptism, if there is any other author, it is then certainly a book devised by these same heretics on behalf of this same error, which is inscribed The Preaching of Paul;17 in which book, contrary to all Scriptures, thou wilt find both Christ confessing His own sin – although He alone did no sin at all – and almost compelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John’s baptism. Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly ; – all which things thou wilt find gathered together into that book. But they who are not ignorant of the nature of the Holy Spirit, understand that what is said of fire is said of the Spirit Himself. For in the Acts of the Apostles, according to that same promise of our Lord, on the very day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit had descended upon the disciples, that they might be baptized in Him, there were seen sitting upon each one tongues as if of fire, that it might be manifest that they were baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire – that is, with that Spirit which was, whether fire, or as fire, such as was the fire which burned in the bush, and did not consume the bush; and such as is that fire which is the Spirit of the Angel, as saith the Scripture, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning fire;” (Psa_104:4) whom if thou shouldst resemble, or be a companion or sharer with, thou shalt be able to dread no fire, not even that which, going before the Lord in the day of judgment, shall burn up the whole world, save those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

18. And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, “The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou knowest not whence He cometh, or whither He goeth.” (Joh_3:18) But in the beginning of the mystery of the faith and of spiritual baptism, the same Spirit was manifestly seen to have sat upon the disciples as it had been fire. Moreover, the heavens being opened, to have descended upon the Lord like a dove; because many things, yea, almost all things which were to be, are manifest – which, however, were only invisible nevertheless, – now also are shown to the eyes and to the incredulity of men, either partially, or at times, or in figure, for the strengthening and confirming of our faith. But neither should I omit that which the Gospel well announces. For our Lord says to the paralytic man, “Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee,” (Mat_9:2) that He might show that hearts were purified by faith for the forgiveness of sins that should follow. And this remission of sins that woman also which was a sinner in the city obtained, to whom the Lord said, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” (Luk_7:48) And when they who were reclining around began to say among themselves, “Who is this that forgiveth sins?” (Luk_7:50) – because concerning the paralytic the scribes and Pharisees had murmured crossly – the Lord says to the woman, “Thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.” (Luk_7:50) From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who cometh after me is greater than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” (Luk_3:16) Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that “three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” (1Jo_5:8)18 And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Act_1:5) Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintian a chief place.

Note by the Edinburgh Translator.

Letters of Cyprian to Quintus, to Jubaianus, to Pompey, on “the baptism of heretics;” and to Magnus on “baptizing the Novatians, and those who obtain grace on a sick-bed,” may be found translated in Ep. lxx. (p. 377, supra), Ep. lxxii. (p. 379, supra), Ep. lxxiii. (p. 386, supra), and Ep. lxxv. (p. 397, supra), respectively; and the Letter of Firmilian to Cyprian against the Letter of Stephen, at p. 390, supra, Ep. lxxiv. All these letters are repeated, in extenso, in the Monumenta Veterum.

Eusebius says, by way of introduction to the fragment of a letter written to Stephen by Dionysius of Alexandria, as follows: “Dionysius indited to Stephen the first of those letters which were written on the subject of baptism, when no small controversy had arisen whether they who are converted from any kind of heresy ought to be purged by baptism (because an ancient custom had prevailed, that in receiving such there should only be hands laid upon them, with prayers). Cyprian, who then ruled the Church of Carthage, was the first who judged that they must not be admitted to communion unless they were first purified from error by baptism. But Stephen, thinking that nothing should be innovated contrary to the tradition which had already obtained in that matter from the beginning, was indignant at this. And as Dionysius had already written many letters to him on this argument, he intimates to him finally, that all the churches everywhere, now that the fury of persecution was abated, detesting the turbulent novelty of Novatian,19 had established peace with one another.”20

FOOTNOTES

1 [“In the name,” etc., implies as Jesus Christ commanded, St. Mat_28:19.]

2 [This was assumed by the Westerns to be the general rule, whereas it was only local. See p. 408,  note 510, supra.]

3 [The bitterness with which Vincent follows up the assumption that there was a general custom of all the churches, shows how sadly this controversy became envenomed in the West. Cap. vi. is a blemish on his Commonitory.]

4 There is something needed to make the connection of this passage complete.

5 [It was a notable compliance with the example of Christ, Mat_3:15. “They had received,” etc., yet that was no reason why the ordinances of Christ should be slighted.]

6 “Jurejurando.”

7 [Query, superabounding?]

8 [Isa_14:12. The sin of Lucifer had, very possibly, been this of rebelling against the Incarceration and the introduction thereby of an order of beings higher than himself. Hence our Lord recognised in Peter’s words the voice of the old adversary, and called him “Satan.” A premonition of his lapse.]

9 [It has been profoundly felt, that, as the Church of Rome in her early rectitude (Rom_1:8) reflected Peter’s confession, so in her lapse (Rom_11:20, Rom_11:21) she reflects this terrible rebuke. If she was once identified with Peter’s Rock, so now, alas! with Peter’s Satan.]

10 Scil. the bishop. [The plural of “solidarity.” See p. 128,  note 25, supra, and Elucidation XI. p. 159.]

11 By him who hears the word is meant a catechumen (Rigaltius). [Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 317. He quotes the Apostolical Constitutions (Alexandria), “Let the catechumens be three years hearing the word,” etc.]

12 The original interpolates “non.”

13 [Scil. baptisms (?) i.e., of water and of blood.]

14 [Eze_33:12. On the principle that what is deepest in man’s heart proves, finally, the character; Phi_2:12. A very solemn consideration in human accountability. (1Pe_1:17), but not to be disjoined from 2Co_6:10.]

15 Unius atque ejusdem species.

16 [Greek, πνευμα. Syriac as here rendered.]

17 Rigaltius says that Jerome mentions this document, and regards it as apocryphal. And Eusebius refers to the Περίοδοι Πέτρου, which, according to the common reading of Peter for Paul in the text, may point to the same document. [vol. 2. 341, note 181; and vol 4. p. 246.]

18 [It is noteworthy that he quotes the Latin formula, and not that (εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) of the Greek. Now, the Latin, repeating (in 1Jo_5:8) the formula (hi tres unum sunt) which belongs to the dubious protasis, is so far evidence that such a verse existed in the old Greek. It is important that the Latin is not conformed to the received formula of the apodosis, “the three agree in one.”]

19 Eusebius calls him Novatus.

20 See H. E., book viii. chaps ii., iii., and iv.; and vol. 6., this series.

THe Early Church Fathers:

Ante-Nicene Fathers

Volume 6

Fathers of the Third Century:

Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius

Contents

Introductory Notice

Translators

I. Gregory Thaumaturgus

A Declaration of Faith

A Metaphrase on the Book of Ecclesiastes

Canonical Epistle

The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen

A Sectional Confession of Faith

On the Trinity

Twelve Topics on the Faith

On the Subject of the Soul

Four Homilies

On All the Saints

On the Gospel According to Matthew

II. Dionysius the Great

Extant Fragments

Exegetical Fragments

III. Julius Africanus

Extant Works

IV. Anatolius and Minor Writers

Anatolius of Alexandria

Alexander of Cappadocia

Theognostus of Alexandria

Pierius of Alexandria

Theonas of Alexandria

Phileas

Pamphilus

Malchion

V. Archelaus

The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes

VI. Alexander of Lycopolis

Of the Manichaeans

VII. Peter of Alexandria

The Genuine Acts of Peter

The Canonical Epistle

Fragments

VIII. Alexander of Alexandria

Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius

IX. Methodius

The Banquet of the Ten Virgins

Concerning Free-Will

From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Fragments

Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna

Oration on the Palms

Three Fragments from the Homily on the Cross and Passion of Christ

Some other Fragments

X. Arnobius

The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen

Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A.

Gregory Thaumaturgus

Dionysius

Anatolius and Minor Writers

Archelaus

Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A., Oxon.

Alexander of Lycopolis

Peter of Alexandria

Alexander of Alexandria

Rev. William R. Clark, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton

Methodius

Archdeacon Hamilton Bryce, LL.D., D.C.L., and Hugh Campbell, M.A.

Arnobius