Exposition of the True Faith 1–11

Having sufficiently gone through the refutation of the Jews and the Greeks, we next set out in turn the sound account of the faith. For after the demonstration of the truth it was surely necessary that those who come to it should also know how one ought to think about it. For it is not simply the glorifying of the Father and the Son that procures salvation for us; rather, the sound confession of the Trinity bestows the enjoyment of the good things laid up for the godly; since one will hear even those of other opinions singing the praises of the Father and the Son, but not offering their worship with a right understanding. Hence we necessarily needed the exposition of this writing, to lead those who read it to a pure understanding of the truth.

The divine Scriptures teach, and the teachings of the fathers instruct, that we worship one God. For there must be one supreme cause of all things, so that nothing standing outside should harm the things that come to be. For if anything existed from the beginning outside God, one would necessarily have to confess it either God or some other power. But if one were to say “God”, he would cross out the divine words that cry openly: “I am God, the first, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no God.” And if not God, he would say, clearly, angels or powers. But so too he will set aside the divine Scriptures, which say that these too were made by God: “Praise God from the heavens … praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his powers.” And shortly after: “For he spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.” It would be agreed, then, that nothing coexisted with the God of all from the beginning, since all things have been shown to have been brought forth by him. In truth, then, the God of all is one, known in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For since the Father begot the Son from his own substance, and brought forth the Spirit from the same, they would rightly, sharing in the same and one substance, be counted worthy of the same and one Godhead.

“How, then,” someone will say, “if the one who begets differs from the one begotten, and what proceeds from him from whom it has proceeded (and the Father is unbegotten, from whom the Son has been begotten and from whom the Spirit has come forth), are the Son and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father?” Because “unbegotten”, “begotten” and “proceeding” are not names of substance, but modes of existence. The mode of existence is characterized by these names, while the substance is signified by the name “God”; so that the difference of the Father from the Son and the Spirit is according to the mode of existence, and the sameness according to the account of the substance. For the one has his being unbegottenly, the other begottenly, and the third by proceeding; but if the being according to substance of each hypostasis is signified, it is indicated by the common name of the Godhead. What I say would become clearer thus. He who considers the existence of Adam, how he was brought into being, will find that he was not begotten; for he was not from another man, but was formed by the divine hand. The forming shows the mode of existence, for it signifies how he came to be; and likewise the mode of existence characterizes the forming, for it shows equally that he came into being by being formed. But if you seek the substance itself, by which he is joined in fellowship with those who came from him, you will find the subject to be man. Just as, then, the forming shows the mode of existence, and the mode of existence characterizes the forming, while the account of the substance shows the subject to be man, so we shall find in the case of God the Father. For if you seek the mode of his existence, seeing that he has been begotten of no other, unbe… the designation, you will find that it expresses the mode of existence. But if you wish to know the substance itself, by which he is joined in fellowship with the Son and the Spirit, you will indicate it by the name “God”. So “unbegotten” and the mode of existence make each other known, while “God” indicates the substance. For as Adam, though he did not undergo begetting, is joined in fellowship with those begotten from him by sameness of substance, so no argument will be able to tear apart the community of substance of the Father with the Son and the Spirit on account of “unbegotten”. So “unbegotten”, “begotten” and “proceeding” do not indicate substance, but signify the hypostases; for they suffice for us to distinguish the persons and to show distinctively the hypostasis of Father, of Son and of Holy Spirit. For like a seal, “unbegotten”, when spoken, at once marks off the hypostasis of the Father; and again, hearing the designation “begotten” as a sign, we receive the notion of the Son; and again through the meaning of “proceeding” we are taught the distinct person of the Spirit. These things suffice to prove that “unbegotten”, “begotten” and “proceeding” do not indicate the substance itself, but are marks of the hypostases, besides signifying the mode of existence.

It would remain to show concerning the substance how it is one of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We see, then, in common usage that the begotten are of the same substance as those who beget. But rather we must begin from above, so that no question falling into the middle should break the continuity of the argument. And first let us divide the things that exist; for we shall find all things divided into created and uncreated. For whatever exists among beings is either uncreated nature or created. The uncreated is lordly and free from all necessity; the other is servile and follows lordly laws. And the one, by its own authority, both does and is able to do whatever it wishes; the other is able to do and does only the service it has received from the Godhead itself. The division being so, set the divine words in the midst and consider carefully with me with which they teach us to rank the Son and the Spirit. For with the nurslings of the church we must not direct divine things by human reasonings, but make our exposition of the words according to the intent of the Spirit's teaching. And let David teach us first. For he, composing a hymn to the God of all from the whole of creation, … then dealing with all things in heaven and enumerating all the powers in it, and likewise giving an account of the earth and all things on it, does not include the Son and the Spirit in this doxology, clearly as being joined to the divine nature. For if he had known them to be of created substance, he would not have left them alone unnamed, whom he would rightly have mentioned first and most of all the powers. Likewise also the blessed Paul, possessed by divine love, showing his burning love toward God, and bearing witness to the firmness of his affection, speaks thus: “For I am persuaded that neither life, nor world, nor death, nor angels, nor powers, nor principalities, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” For he too likewise, having enumerated world and life and death, and angels, principalities and powers, things present and things to come, height and depth, when he found nothing of created nature left over, still holding to his impulse to cry out and bear witness, added something hyperbolic and completed the statement by bringing in another creation. Having shown, then, by the hyperbole of his words his unshakeable longing toward God, would he not have included the Son and the Spirit in his enumeration with the rest, if he had known them to be of created substance? That the Son and the Spirit are not joined to created nature, then, is to be known from these and such passages. It would be possible to set out very many other such testimonies too; but since the discourse is to sons of the church, and our aim is to speak briefly, I think what has been said sufficient.

It would remain to show that the Son and the Spirit are ranked with the divine nature. And first I will mention the most important. Our Lord Jesus Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, when about to make his ascent to heaven, … taught the apostles the discipling of the nations and the teaching of baptism, saying … “Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And the blessed Paul, writing to the Corinthians, adds at the end of the letter, as a seal to his teaching: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” And again to the Ephesians he says: “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” See how, teaching the building in Christ, through which we become a temple of Christ, as it is written, “I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God,” he introduces the three persons together: “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” he says, and shortly after, “in whom you also are built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” For by such teaching he taught that Christ, God and Spirit, the one Godhead and energy, dwells in us who are counted worthy of grace. And this is clear also from what he says elsewhere: “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts.” For see, Paul again, mentioning one divine indwelling, is shown to include Father and Son and Holy Spirit; and everywhere in his teaching he appears to rank the three persons together. Writing to the Corinthians in the second letter he says thus: “He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who has also sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts”; clearly here too he joins in his teaching the Father as God, Christ as Son, and the Holy Spirit. And again to the Galatians: “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father”; likewise again handing on to us jointly the notion of Father … and Son and Spirit. And see how he sets the marks of their utmost union. For he did not say simply, “God sent the Spirit,” but “of his Son”; now joining it to the Son, now assigning it to the Father, as when he says, “But you have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God”; and again the Son calls it the Spirit of truth, since he himself is the truth; and again he teaches that it is of the Father: “which proceeds from the Father.” And in short the divine Scripture everywhere confirms the thought that we should hold an inseparable notion of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

But neither is the activity of the Son and the Spirit in the creation of all things separated from the Father … let him be our teacher: “And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works …” … of “Lord”, both the Father and the Son and the Spirit; none the less, for the sake of the ungrateful also: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the … of his mouth all their power.” Nor have we learned from the divine Scripture that the Son and the Spirit fall short of the authority of the Father; and how, hear the writing: “But our God,” it says, “in heaven and on earth has done whatever he willed.” This David says of the Father. This the Son, showing … And the blessed Paul, bearing witness to this of the Holy Spirit as well, writes as follows: “All these things are worked by one and the same Spirit” … What argument … that the Son and the Spirit, being [joined] both in the account of creation and in that of authority, are not of the divine and blessed substance?

And let no one charge us with having proposed some things and gone through others, if the sameness of … For the argument of ranking presents nothing other than [the fellowship] of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Let the objector consider with care; for he will find … that we took the account of the substance in the order of union, and divided nature into uncreated and created, and that the marks of the uncreated were confessed by us: that it is lordly and free from all necessity, and does and is able to do whatever it wishes by its own authority; while the created, by contrast, follows lordly laws, and is able to do and fulfils only the service it has received from the Godhead. The division being so, and confirming that there is nothing between Godhead and creation, whatever differs from creation clearly does not differ from the divine. If, then, it has been shown by us at length that the Son and the Spirit differ from creation, since they are numbered with no creature, but are everywhere joined with the Father, how is it not the height of folly to think them not of the uncreated substance? For one of the two must necessarily fall: one must either, showing them to be of the created, separate them from the uncreated, or, proving them to be of the uncreated, necessarily separate them from the created. But they have appeared both separated from the created and joined to the uncreated; and it was agreed that there is nothing between these. It would remain that they share the substance of him with whom they have been joined everywhere. For as has been said (it is good to take it up again for a more complete proof), in the discipling of the world in Christ, in the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and also in the divine instruction, in the creation of all things, and indeed in sovereign authority, similar and identical things have been handed down concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit; [what does this show but] their fellowship with one another? We ought, then, to confess one God, known in Father and Son and Holy Spirit; distinguishing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the hypostases of the one Godhead, and understanding “God” as what the hypostases have in common according to substance. For the Monad is understood in Trinity, and the Trinity is known in Monad.

And how this is, I would neither wish another to ask, nor could I persuade myself to venture words about things ineffable with a tongue of clay and defiled flesh. For even if a pure mind has been set in us, by which we often grasp in reason things beyond us, yet, weighed down by the flesh yoked to it, it is too weak for a clear grasp of the greater things, since “the earthy tent weighs down the much-thinking mind.” In no way, then, would it be possible for men to attain that first and blessed substance. And why do I speak of the divine substance? Not even of the things performed mystically about it. “For nothing of things divine is clear to men,” as one of the wise men of the Greeks said; and I accept what was said as true. For when I hear Paul, the vessel of election, who ascended to the third heaven, who heard ineffable words which it is not lawful for human tongues to speak, who had speaking within him the giver of words, bearing witness to the partial knowledge in himself and saying, “Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I have been known”; and again, “We know in part and we prophesy in part”: how shall I believe that perfect knowledge of divine things is possible for men? For if those who attained Paul's measure had a dim and partial [knowledge] (for “through a mirror and in a riddle” hints at dimness), who is so daring in his folly as to bear witness to himself of perfect knowledge of divine things? We too, then, knowing that the ineffable cannot be traversed, will say to the God of all the words of David: “Your knowledge has become too wonderful for me; it is mighty, and I cannot attain to it.” But these things are holy to say and holier to think; for to give way before divine things would be the mark of a godly and sober man.

So far, then, as divine things allow a safe inquiry … and for godly worship we think of them in a manner worthy of God (for it is not that, because the divine is wholly incomprehensible, we ought not to inquire about it at all but spend our lifetime at ease; rather, according to the measure of knowledge apportioned to each by the Lord, we should make the examination with love, knowing that it remains strictly incomprehensible, yet joining ourselves to it by contemplation as far as we can contain it), we think, then, that the Son was begotten of the Father as light shines forth from light. For the image suffices to present the co-eternity, the sameness of substance, and the impassibility of the begetting. For in whom would the radiance of light show a time …? For the radiance of light does not come about by cutting, or flowing, or separation, but proceeds impassibly from its very substance. And we hold the same knowledge concerning the Holy Spirit too: that as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit; except that it will differ in its mode of existence. For the one shone forth as light from light; the other came forth also as light from light, yet not by begetting but by procession; so co-eternal with the Father, so the same in substance, so impassibly proceeding from there. So we understand the Monad in the Trinity and know the Trinity in the Monad. Having made these distinctions, and having received this measure of knowledge from the Lord, we set out what we have grasped for the sons of the church … the radiance …; since it is prudent to attend carefully to what we have set out. For we have devised nothing elegant, or overweening, or showing boastfulness; but gathering as far as we could what is more godly and fitting to divine knowledge, we have set out the knowledge of the one Godhead in three perfect hypostases. And holding these views about the blessed and divine Trinity, let us proceed in our discourse to the grace that comes from the economy. For the account of the economy is ineffable; yet this too must be examined by us again, as far as we can, with the same reasoning as the first.

When the Word saw that the re-forming of his own creatures, and of Adam's [nature], must come about, then, without leaving the heavens, he came down to us. For the descent was not of a body, but a will of divine activity. And using a … virgin, descended from the family of David because of the promises made to him, for the need of the economy, and entering her womb like a divine seed, he forms for himself a temple, the perfect man, taking a part of her nature and giving it substance for the forming of the temple. And having put it on in the highest union, God and man together, … he lives blamelessly, and willingly [undergoing] death … the transgression, and by the death that was not owed abolishing the death that was owed; but as God he raises what was dissolved, and abolishes death itself utterly. One, then, is the Son, both the one who was dissolved and the one who raised what was dissolved. For as man he was dissolved; as God he raised. When, then, you hear contrary statements about the one Son, distribute what is said fittingly to the natures: if something great and divine, assigning it to the divine nature; if something small and human, reckoning it to the human. For thus [you will remove] the … of the statements, and [confess] the one Son, both before all ages and recent, according to the divine Scriptures.

And let no one ask me the manner of the union. For I shall not be ashamed to confess ignorance; on the contrary, I shall rather boast, believing things ineffable and being an initiate of things whose comprehension both word and mind fall short of. So let no one hope to learn anything clear about these things either from me or from anyone else. But if you wish to know as much as our mind has contained about this, … there is no grudging toward children of the church; but having remarked this much on what is said, that those who undertake the exposition need help and co-operation from above, I will go on to such comprehension as is possible. Some, then, have understood the union as that of soul with body, and have expounded it so. And the example is apt, if not in every respect, at least in some. For as man is one but has in himself two different natures, and reasons with the one and carries out with the other what has been reasoned (for reasoning with his soul, say, about the building of a ship, he brings to completion with his hands what he has thought), so the Son, being one and two natures, worked the divine signs by the one and accepted the lowly things by the other. For as from the Father and God he works the miracles; as from the virgin and man he willingly endured, by nature, the cross and the passion and the like. If one accepts the example thus far, the image holds well. But if one compares the whole with the whole example, the differences will appear. For man, even if he shows two natures in himself, is not two natures, but is from the two. For as the body is composed of fire and air and water and earth, but you would no longer say that the body is fire, nor air, nor any of the others, for it is not the same as the things from which it is … so man too, even if he is of soul and body, is other than the things from which he is. You would learn what I mean more clearly thus. We build a house from different materials; but no one would say that the house is the same as the materials from which it is; for the stones and timbers and the rest are not simply the house. For if this were so, one would rightly call the materials a house even when they lay separate before the building. But such a joining of the materials to one another is what naturally makes the house for us. When the house is pulled down, the materials remain just the same, keeping their own character; but we say the house has perished, which such a joining of the materials had made. So too with man. For even if he is of soul and body, he would not be the same as the things from which he is, but other; so that man is completed as a third thing, another, from the very union of soul with body. And this is clear from the fact that when they are separated the body remains, keeping its own character (for it is three-dimensional even when dead), and the soul likewise remains rational even when separated; but the man whom the union of both made has perished. But Christ was not made Christ from Godhead and humanity as something other than the two; he is both, God and man: understood as God by the working of wonders, shown as man by the like passions of his nature. Besides, in many people the soul is seized beforehand by the body's sufferings, and often suffers before the body; it suffers with it continually, as appears, often in anguish over the cutting of the body, altered before the body suffers, and after the cutting receiving the pains no less feelingly. This no one accustomed to think rightly, unless utterly deranged in mind, would dare to say or admit of the Godhead of Christ. So the example of man is to be accepted in one respect but avoided in the rest.