Exposition of the True Faith

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.

But we too confessed long ago that we do not understand clearly the comprehension of this truth, and now no less we acknowledge it, confessing the knowledge according to the measure given to us, as far as [concerns] a more godly and clear account … we are eager to lead [the comparison] up from the example, and we wish to liken the union not to some small and cheap image, but to a great one, befitting the begetting from the Father. For since the Word came into the world as light, shining forth from the unbegotten light, I wish the example of the union also to be light. Let the Word, then, be understood as the primal light, which came to be at the first word of God through the Word himself; and the human body as the body of the sun, to which in an ineffable manner the Word was united. And do not think that the sun is another light besides the one that came to be first. For the sun did not come to be to fill up what was lacking, as though the first light were insufficient for the illumination of the universe; for the craftsman is not such as neither to foresee what is perfect nor to create the radiance for the need it serves. The primal light, then, is one; and the sun was made as a body for it; gathered upon this, the light, which before was poured out everywhere, is made … And through the body it completes for us blamelessly the course of the hours of the day. For if it had not been bound to a body, but had been poured whole through the whole air, it would neither have marked off for us the measures of the day nor shown an ordered motion and the [established course]. If you say to me that even before the sun was made there were day and night, first you will likewise agree that the nature of light was sufficient to illumine all things; and then, seeking in common the cause of the sun's creation, you will find it to be none other than the one just stated by us. For formerly the light, poured whole through the whole air, neither ran an even course nor marked off the measures of the day, but by contracting gave way to the night; so that it is truer than anything that the light is one thing and the solar body that received it another. The light being so related to the solar body, consider the argument with care. For just as after the union of the firstborn light with the solar body no one would separate them from each other, nor call the one by itself the sun and the other again light divided, but the light together with the body becomes one sun, so in the case of the true light and the all-holy body no one would say, after the union, that the divine Word is the Son separately and the man the Son separately; but one and the same … both the light received and the body that received it. Again, as there is one light and one sun, but two natures, the one of light and the other of the solar body, so here too there is one Son and Lord and Christ and Only-begotten, but two natures, the one beyond us and the other ours. And again, as in the case of light no one could separate its activity from the very body that receives it, but distinguishing by reason would recognize the nature to which the activity properly belongs, so in the case of the one only-begotten Son of God no one could separate any activity from the one sonship, but by reason would recognize to which nature what happens belongs. Having thus made the example of the divine union, as … Of these things, if anything seems to you to be somewhat nearer the truth, praise him who has given the measure of knowledge; but if you have learned something more godly from another, praise again the same guardian; for he, being the same, has worked in another. Let these things suffice, then: having set out the right confession as far as we could, bidding farewell to the sons of the church and confessing our thanks to him who supplied the word, [let us bring] the discourse to the life of quiet …

But I see some calling the discourse back, pointing out the course of another inquiry, and forcing it to run again, perhaps also … But [the discourse] imitates a spring, … has risen up for the race, and has not yet peeped out of the gates, and awaits the starter's signal. Wishing to mark out the question for you, it is ready to rush forward and overthrow unbelief, to shut the God-fighting tongues, to distinguish what one must inquire about divine things and what one must believe, and to be proclaimed victor by the law of the race. “How,” he says, “is the Word everywhere according to substance, and how in his own temple? For if he is there as in all things, the temple will have nothing more than all things. And where shall we put the saying, ‘In whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’? But if one grants that he is more in the temple, he is not present to all things according to substance, which is proper to God.”

To ask “how” in the case of God is a clear proof of unbelief. … For how is he the creator of heaven, how of earth, and of sea, of air and of plants and of all living things, and of you yourself, who inquire so exactly about God? But you will surely say that the power of God is present to the things that come to be … as to existing things, even before they came to be; since what is accidental does not exist by itself but in underlying subjects. And if this is ridiculous, then, since the power was present by substance to all things that came to be, its possessor had nothing more than they … the word rushed forward and overthrew unbelief. Look around …

Tell us, you who are thought to champion Christianity, … seeking and putting forward such things, … the notions of mixture and confusion, and of change from body into Godhead, and such things, saying that the Word became … and at another time … holding no sound view at all of the deviations of your mind. Tell us, then, how the Word, becoming flesh, did not leave the heavens. You will surely say that, remaining God, he so became flesh. Tell us again, then, how, remaining, he became. For if he remained what he was, how did he become what he was not? And if he became what he was not, how did he remain what he was? Are you at a loss over this? Be at a loss over the manner of the union also. But you believe that, remaining, he became; believe also that the Word is present everywhere by substance, and is in his own temple in a special way. … If this, the body remains a body, since God is not a body, but it has received a share in divine dignity, not divine nature, by the good pleasure of the Word. But if the Word through the union changed the body into his own substance, let us ask again how the body was changed into the substance of the Word. Did it, when changed into the substance of the Word, provide an addition to that substance? Then the substance would have been deficient before this, if it received an addition. Or did it receive nothing from this? Then what was changed would be nothing. And how did nothing pass into the divine substance? “But the Word,” they will say, “did not dissolve the body into his own substance, but made it into a divine one.” Let them answer us again: divine as another besides his own, or the same as his own? For if the same as his own, we shall proclaim two divine substances of the Word: one, which he had as begotten from the Father; another, according to which he made the body itself. But if another besides his own, and not divine, they will surely say created. For there could be nothing between Godhead and creation. And what was the need of change for the body, if it was again remade into a created substance?

You are dizzy at the difficulties, and perhaps you fear that something said may undo the account of our faith. But when I, in my inquiry, am at a loss, then I will cry aloud the wonder of the mystery of the Christians: that our things are beyond mind, beyond reason, beyond the comprehension of created nature. And when you too, inquiring into such things, meet some difficulty, bring faith as a ready solution to what is inquired into, reckoning that where God is concerned, even if something of what is said is not known, whether because of the transcendence of his nature or because of the manner of the economy, no harm comes from this to those who do not know. And how do you not fear the daring of attempting to set divine things straight? Or have you not heard the divine words which, restraining those like you from such attempts, set before us the image of the clay and the potter, teaching by it that we must not be curious or inquisitive about divine things, but yield to the divine will as the clay to the potter? Be cautious at last, then, and lull your reasonings to rest with a very gentle mind … let faith alone resolve the difficulties for you, and tremble at the divine words, as it is written, so that, being made worthy of the divine rest, you may hear from the God of all those blessed words that say: “On whom shall I look but on the humble and quiet and him who trembles at my words?” … of the God-fighting tongues, the discourse runs, hastening to the distinction. But you, sons of the church, who make your inquiry piously, and put forward the questions on difficulties not to test but to learn if possible, prepare your mind thus with me. The form of the divine teaching is many-branched, but it is gathered as in a summary into the learning and keeping of the commandments, and into the knowledge and worship of God. The lovers of godliness, then, will try to be ignorant in no respect of the keeping and learning of the commandments, and before these of the worship of God. But the knowledge of divine things … let them worship as unattainable, lest the things of the faith be emptied for us. Knowing thus what must be inquired into and what believed, we set the discourse on the contests of the race: “Enter now into the contests, O word …”

We confess that we do not have clear knowledge of the truth; since this is a great part of victory. But examining what is attainable by human nature, I will easily resolve the question for you. For how, he says, is the Word in his own temple by substance, and likewise in all beings, and what more will the temple have than all? Let us hear, then, the Word saying, “Who is in the bosom of the Father”; … by substance he is present to all things indivisibly; and we do not say that he is in the Father as he is in the rest, not because his substance is contracted when it comes to be in others, but because of the measure of the recipients, who are too weak for the divine reception. So, saying that he is inseparably in his own temple, and confessing that the fullness of the Godhead, as it were, dwells there, we say that he is present to all things by substance, and not alike. For a defiled body does not receive the rays of the Godhead; learn what is said from an example. For I would not shrink from … The sun is common to us every day, set before all; it does not shed less on one and more on another, but sends forth its activity in common to all equally. But if someone has strong eyes, he receives more of its ray, not because of the sun, as though it spread itself more on him than on the rest, but because of the proper power of his sight. But he who is weak in his eyes will not be able even to look at the radiance of the light, because of the weakness of his eyes. So understand with me the sun of righteousness: present to all equally by substance, as being God; but all of us, like weak eyes bleared with the filth of sins, too weak to receive the light; and his own temple like a most pure eye, able to contain the whole brightness of the light, as formed by the Holy Spirit and wholly separated from sin. For as the sun, falling equally on all by its activity, is not received alike by all, so the Word, present to all by substance, is not present alike to the others and to his own temple.

… So, having run the race, let the word be adorned with the crowns of victory, and let it lead the defeat of its adversaries in triumph. But let us, with Christ leading us, sing the song of victory, crying the good contest: “O word, you have fought, you have finished the race, you have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for you the crown of righteousness.” Or rather let us praise him who supplied the victory, the most divine Word, the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world, in whom we live and move and have our being, through whom are all things, through whom we undo such twists of arguments, the guardian, the president, the benefactor; to whom we continually offer a sacrifice of praise, and pour out to him as God sincere prayers, and offer the fragrance of our deeds, thinking of him, attending to him, praising him in all things, the blessed hope and giver of the kingdom on high.