On the Holy Spirit 1.1–5.12

I praised your love of learning and the industry of your character, and I was delighted beyond measure by the attentive and sober quality of your mind, by which you think it necessary to leave unexamined no expression of all those that are used about God in every need of speech, my dear friend, most honoured of all to me, brother Amphilochius. For you have listened well to the Lord's exhortation, "Everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds"; and by your diligence in asking you would, I think, rouse even the laziest to share what he has. But this I admire in you still more: that you do not put your questions to test us, as most people do now, but in order to find out the truth itself. For there is now a great abundance of people who eavesdrop on us and question us; but to come upon a soul that loves learning and seeks the truth as a cure for ignorance is very hard. For like a hunters' snare and an ambush of soldiers, the questions of most people keep their deceit hidden and prepared: they put forward arguments not to gain anything useful from them, but so that, if they find answers that do not agree with their own desire, they may seem to have a just pretext for war.

But if "to the fool who asks, wisdom will be reckoned," how highly shall we value the "intelligent hearer," whom the prophet yoked together with the "wonderful counsellor"? Surely it is right to count him worthy of every welcome and to lead him further on, sharing his zeal and toiling through everything with him as he presses on to perfection. For not to listen carelessly to theological expressions, but to try to track down the meaning hidden in each word and each syllable, is the mark not of those who are idle in piety but of those who know the goal of our calling: that what is set before us is to become like God, as far as is possible for human nature. But there is no likeness without knowledge, and knowledge does not come without teaching. Speech is the beginning of teaching, and syllables and words are the parts of speech. So the examination of syllables has not fallen outside our goal. Nor, because the questions are small, as they might seem to someone, are they for that reason worth overlooking; but since the truth is hard to hunt, we must track it from every side. For if the grasp of piety, like the arts, grows by small additions, those who are being introduced to knowledge must despise nothing; for if someone overlooks the first elements as trifling, he will never lay hold of the perfect things of wisdom. "Yes" and "no" are two syllables; yet the best of goods, truth, and the furthest limit of wickedness, falsehood, are often contained in these small words. And why do I say this? Before now someone who merely nodded his head in bearing witness for Christ has been judged to have fulfilled all piety. If this is so, what theological expression is so small that, whether it is used rightly or wrongly, it does not tip the scale greatly one way or the other? For if "not one iota or one stroke will pass from the law," how could it be safe for us to pass over even the smallest things? The things you yourself asked us to examine are both small and great: small in the brevity of their utterance, and perhaps for that reason easily despised; great in the force of what they signify, like the mustard seed, which, though it is the smallest of the seeds of shrubs, when it is given fitting care rises to a sufficient height, as the power sown within it unfolds. And if anyone laughs when he sees our—to speak with the psalm—"prating" about syllables, let him know that he is reaping a useless fruit of his laughter; but let us, neither yielding to the reproaches of men nor defeated by their disparagement, not abandon the search. For I am so far from being ashamed of these things as small that, if I should reach even a small fraction of their worth, I would congratulate myself on having been counted worthy of great things, and I would say that the brother who searches with us had gained no small profit from it. Seeing, then, a very great contest in small words, I do not shrink from the toil in hope of the rewards, believing that the discussion will bear fruit for me and that its benefit will be lasting for those who hear. Therefore now, with the Holy Spirit himself, so to speak, I will set out on the explanation. And, if you wish, so that I may set myself on the road of the discussion, I will turn back a little to the beginning of the problem.

Recently, as I was praying with the people and completing the doxology to God the Father in both ways—now "with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit," now "through the Son, in the Holy Spirit"—some of those present objected, saying that we had used strange expressions which were, at the same time, opposed to each other. You asked, chiefly for the benefit of those very people, or, if they are wholly incurable, for the safety of those who meet them, that some clear teaching be set out about the force of these syllables. We must speak briefly, then, giving the discussion an agreed starting point.

The petty precision of these men about syllables and words is not a simple matter, as might seem to someone, nor does it lead to a small evil; it holds a deep and shadowy design against piety. For they are eager to show that the way Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of is unlike, so that from this they will have an easy proof also of the difference in their nature. For they have an old sophism, devised by Aetius, the champion of this heresy, who wrote somewhere in his letters that things unlike in nature are spoken of in unlike ways, and conversely that things spoken of in unlike ways are unlike in nature. And as witness to his argument he drew in the Apostle, who says: "One God and Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." As the expressions are to one another, he says, so also will the natures signified by them be; but "through whom" is unlike "from whom"; therefore the Son too is unlike the Father. On this disease hangs the prating of these men about the terms before us. Hence to God the Father, as a special inheritance, they assign "from whom"; to God the Son they have set apart "through whom"; and to the Holy Spirit "in whom"; and they say that this use of the syllables is never interchanged, so that, as I said, along with the difference of expression the difference of nature may also be shown. But it has not escaped notice that in their subtlety about words they are preserving the force of their impious argument. For they want "from whom" to signify the maker, "through whom" the assistant or the instrument, and "in whom" to show the time or the place; so that the maker of all things may be thought no more venerable than an instrument, and the Holy Spirit may appear to contribute to existing things nothing more than what place or time contributes.

They were led into this deception, however, also by the observation of outsiders, who assigned "from which" and "through which" to things separate in nature. For these think that "from which" shows the matter, and "through which" presents the instrument, or in general the subordinate service. Or rather—for what prevents us from taking up their whole account and briefly exposing both its incoherence with the truth and these men's disagreement with the outsiders themselves?—those who have spent their leisure on vain philosophy, explaining the nature of cause in many ways and dividing it into its proper meanings, say that some causes are principal, some cooperating or joint causes, and some hold the place of "that without which not." To each of these they also assign a peculiar expression, so that the maker is signified in one way and the instrument in another. To the maker they think "by which" is fitting; for they say it is properly said that the bench was made by the carpenter. To the instrument, "through which"; for, they say, it was made through the adze and the auger and the rest. Likewise they posit "from which" as proper to the matter, for the product is from wood; and "according to which" shows the design, or the model set before the craftsman. For either he first sketched the construction in his mind and so brought his image into effect, or he looks to a model already set out and directs his work to its likeness. "On account of which" they want to belong to the end, for the bench was made on account of people's use of it; and "in which" presents the time or the place. For when was it made? In this time. And where? In this place. Even if these contribute nothing to what is made, yet without them nothing can be made; for those who act need both place and time. Having learned and admired these observations, drawn from vanity and empty deceit, these men transfer them even to the simple and untechnical teaching of the Spirit, to the belittling of God the Word and the setting aside of the Holy Spirit. For the expression that outsiders set apart for lifeless instruments, or for wholly menial and lowly service—I mean "through which"—this they did not hesitate to transfer to the Master of all things; and they, Christians, are not ashamed to assign to the creator of the universe the expression used for a saw or a hammer.

We, for our part, acknowledge that the word of truth also uses these expressions in many places; but we say that the freedom of the Spirit is by no means enslaved to the pettiness of outsiders; rather, it varies its expressions to suit the needs of each occasion as it arises. For "from which" does not always signify matter, as they think; rather, Scripture more usually uses this expression of the supreme cause, as in "One God, from whom are all things," and again, "But all things are from God." Yet the word of truth also often uses this term of matter, as when it says, "You shall make the ark from incorruptible wood"; and, "You shall make the lampstand from pure gold"; and, "The first man was from the earth, made of dust"; and, "You were formed from clay, as I also was." But these men, in order, as we said, to present the difference of nature, have laid down the rule that this term belongs to the Father alone. They took the starting points of their observation from outsiders, but did not follow them precisely in everything: to the Son, in keeping with their rules, they applied the name of instrument, and to the Spirit that of place—for they say "in the Spirit" and "through the Son"—but to God they gave "from whom," here no longer following the foreigners but passing over, as they say, to apostolic usage, as it is said, "But from him you are in Christ Jesus," and, "But all things are from God." What, then, is the conclusion of this technical theory? The nature of a cause is one thing, that of an instrument another, and that of a place another. Therefore the Son is alien in nature to the Father, since the instrument too is alien to the craftsman; and the Spirit is alien, inasmuch as place or time is separated from the nature of instruments or of those who handle them.

Such, then, are their views. We shall show what we proposed: that the Father did not take "from whom" and throw "through whom" to the Son, nor, in turn, does the Son, as their rules would have it, refuse the Holy Spirit a share in "from whom" or "through whom," as their novel allotment has decreed. "One God and Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." These are not the words of one laying down rules but of one distinguishing the hypostases. For the Apostle spoke this way not to introduce a strangeness of nature, but to present the notion of Father and Son without confusion. That the expressions are not set against each other, and do not, like ranks in war drawn up against an opposing line, set at war the natures to which they are attached, is clear from this: blessed Paul brought both together on one and the same subject, saying, "For from him and through him and to him are all things." That this refers to the Lord anyone would say who pays even a little attention to the intent of the passage. For the Apostle first set out from the prophecy of Isaiah, "Who has known the mind of the Lord? And who became his counsellor?", and then added, "For from him and through him and to him are all things." That this was said by the prophet about God the Word, the creator of all creation, you may learn from what comes before it: "Who measured the water with his hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth with a handful? Who set the mountains in a balance and the glades on a scale? Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who became his counsellor?" For "who" here does not signify the wholly impossible but the rare, as in, "Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?", and, "Who is the man who desires life?", and, "Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord?" So too here: "Who is the one who knows the mind of the Lord and shares his counsel?" "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things." He it is who holds the earth together and has grasped it in his hand; who brought all things into order and arrangement; who gave the mountains their balance and the waters their measures, and allotted to all things in the world their proper order; who encompasses the whole heaven with a small part of his whole power, which the prophetic word figuratively named a span. Hence the Apostle fittingly added, "From him and through him and to him are all things." For from him comes to existing things the cause of their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through him all things have their continuance and constitution, since he created all things and measures out to each created thing what is needed for its preservation. That is why all things are turned toward him, looking with irresistible longing and unspeakable affection to the author and giver of life, as it is written, "The eyes of all hope in you"; and again, "All things wait for you"; and, "You open your hand and fill every living thing with good pleasure."

If they object to this interpretation of ours, what argument will save them from plainly running into themselves? For if they will not grant that the three expressions—"from him," "through him," and "to him"—are said of the Lord, they must necessarily assign them to God the Father. And from this their observation will plainly collapse, for not only "from whom" but also "through whom" is found applied to the Father. If this shows nothing lowly, why ever do they set it apart for the Son as inferior? But if it always indicates service, let them answer us: the God of glory and Father of Christ is the servant of what ruler? So they are overturned by their own arguments, while our position will be kept strong on both sides. For if the view prevails that the passage is about the Son, "from whom" will be found to suit the Son; and if someone insists on referring the prophet's words to God, he will again grant that the expression "through whom" befits God, and each will have equal dignity, since both are used alike of God. And so, either way, they will appear equal in honour to each other, being applied to one and the same person. But let us return to our subject.

Writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle says: "But speaking the truth in love, let us grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together through every joint of its supply, according to the working in the measure of each single part, makes the growth of the body." And again, in the letter to the Colossians, it is said to those who do not have the knowledge of the Only-begotten: "holding fast the head"—that is, Christ—"from whom the whole body, supplied through the joints and ligaments, grows with the growth of God." For that Christ is head of the church we have learned elsewhere, when the Apostle says, "And he gave him as head over all things to the church"; and, "From his fullness we have all received." And the Lord himself says, "He will take from what is mine and declare it to you." In general, to one who reads carefully, the uses of "from whom" will prove to be many and various. For the Lord too says, "I perceived power going out from me." Likewise we have observed "from whom" used of the Spirit in many places. "The one who sows to the Spirit," it says, "will reap from the Spirit eternal life"; and John: "By this we know that he is in us: from the Spirit whom he has given us"; and …

We must now show that Scripture admits the expression "through whom" alike of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For the Son it would be superfluous to bring testimonies, both because it is well known and because our opponents themselves maintain this very point; but we show that "through whom" is used also of the Father. "God is faithful," it says, "through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son"; and, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God"; and again, "So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God"; and, "Just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father"; and Isaiah says, "Woe to those who make deep counsel, and not through the Lord." One may also cite many testimonies of this expression for the Spirit: "But to us," it says, "God revealed it through the Spirit"; and elsewhere, "Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit"; and again, "For to one is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom."

We can say the same things about the syllable "in": Scripture has admitted its use also of God the Father. In the Old Testament: "In God," it says, "let us do mightily"; and, "In you is my praise continually"; and again, "In your name I will rejoice." In Paul: "In God, who created all things"; and, "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father"; and, "if somehow I may at last succeed, in the will of God, in coming to you"; and, "You boast in God." And there are more than can easily be counted. But our aim is not a display of many testimonies but a refutation, to show that their observations are unsound. I will pass over showing that this usage is applied to the Lord or to the Holy Spirit, since it is well known. But this must be said: for an intelligent hearer, the argument from the contrary is a sufficient refutation of what they propose. For if, by their reasoning, the difference in expression showed a varied nature, let the sameness of the expressions now shame them into confessing that the essence is invariable.

Not only in theology are the uses of the expressions interchanged; often they even take each other's place in what they signify, when one takes over the meaning of the other. For example, "I have gotten a man through God," says Adam, meaning the same as "from God"; and elsewhere, "All that Moses commanded Israel through the command of the Lord"; and again, "Is not the interpretation of them through God?"—Joseph, speaking about the dreams to those in prison, clearly said "through God" instead of "from God." And conversely Paul has used the preposition "from whom" instead of "through whom," as when he says "born from a woman" instead of "through a woman." For elsewhere he clearly distinguished this for us, saying that it belongs to a woman to have been made from the man, and to a man to be born through the woman, when he says, "For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the woman." Yet here, at once showing the variety of usage and correcting in passing the error of some who think that the Lord's body was spiritual, he preferred the more emphatic expression, in order to show that the God-bearing flesh was formed from the human lump. For "through a woman" would suggest the notion of a birth merely passing through her, while "from the woman" sufficiently indicates the community of nature between the child and her who bore him. He is not contradicting himself anywhere, but showing that the expressions easily pass over into each other's place. Since, then, even where "through whom" was defined as properly used [the other expression is substituted], how [can they] set the terms apart?