The Church Fathers: Sola Scriptura or Catholic? Part Seven: St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus

St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379)

Your dream, I think, reveals more perfectly the necessity of making provision for spiritual contemplation, and cultivating that mental vision by which God is wont to be seen.  Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty.  You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.  (Letter 283)

But if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,’ to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it’. (FC, Vol. IX, Ascetical Works, Concerning Faith p. 59; quotation is from William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here; book quoted from is The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999])

What then?  After all these efforts were they tired?  Did they leave off?  Not at all.  They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead.  In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert.  Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree.  What is my reply?  I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.  If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here.  If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.  (Letter 189)

What mind ought a prelate to have in those things which he commands or appoints? To which the reply is, Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should speak or order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacrilegious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doctrine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God. (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCVIII. PG 31:1149-1152. Translation by William Goode, Vol. III, p. 132; quotation is from William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here)

Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided. (FC, Vol. 9, Basil, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 72, pp. 185–186; quotation is from William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here; book quoted from is The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999])

Rule Twenty–six: That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked. (FC, Vol. IX, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 26, p. 106; quotation is from William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here; book quoted from is The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999])

What is the mark of a Christian? Faith working by charity. What is the mark of faith? A sure conviction of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any process of reasoning, nor by the alleging of natural requirements, nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin,’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin. (FC, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 80, Cap. 22, pp. 203–204; quotation is from William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here; book quoted from is The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999])

WHEN, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, I learned of your piety’s command, worthy as it is of the love you bear God in Christ, whereby you sought from us a written profession of our holy faith, I hesitated at first as to my answer, sensible as I am of my own lowliness and weakness. But when I recalled the words of the Apostle, ‘supporting one another in charity,’ 136 and, again, ‘For with the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,’ 137 I considered it a very hazardous act to deny your request and not to make that salutary profession. Moreover, I placed my confidence in God through Christ as it is written: ‘Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God,’ 138 who rendered the men of apostolic days, and now us, at your instigation, sufficient to become ministers of the New Testament, ‘not in the letter but in the spirit.’ 139 At any rate, you yourselves know that a faithful minister must preserve unadulterated and unalloyed whatever has been entrusted to him by his good master for dispensation to his fellow servants. 140 Consequently, I also am obliged in the common interest to place before you, in accordance with God’s good pleasure, what I have learned from the Holy Scriptures. . . .

Now, while I was compelled to fight the heresies that arose from time to time, I thought it appropriate to the specific nature of the impiety sown by the Devil that I should check or confute if I could the blasphemies which were brought forward [by the opposing side]—and in this I was imitating the example of my predecessors—by arguments gleaned from various sources as the need of those weak in faith required; and in many cases these were not written down, yet were not out of harmony with sound Scriptural teaching. In fact, the Apostle often was not above using even pagan utterances which were congruent with his special purpose. 147 In this present case, however, I have regarded it as befitting our joint intent, yours and mine, to obey in the simplicity of a sound faith that injunction of yours springing from your love in Christ and to declare what I have learned from the Holy Scripture, making a sparing use of titles and words which are not found literally in Holy Writ, even though they preserve the sense of the Scripture. In addition, I shall wholly avoid as alien and foreign to our holy faith everything which introduces an unusual sense as well as an unfamiliar text, and also whatever is not found in the teaching of the saints. Now, then, faith is a whole-hearted assent to aural doctrine with full conviction of the truth of what is publicly taught by the grace of God. This faith Abraham had, as is testified in the words: ‘he staggered not by distrust; but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God; most fully knowing that whatsoever he has promised he is able also to perform.’ 148 But, if ‘the Lord is faithful in all his words’ 149 and ‘All his commandments are faithful, confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity,’ 150 to delete anything that is written down or to interpolate anything not written amounts to open defection from the faith and makes the offender liable to a charge of contempt. For our Lord Jesus Christ says: ‘My sheep hear my voice,’ 151 and, before this, He had said: ‘But a stranger they follow not but fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers.’ 152 And the Apostle, using a human parallel, more strongly forbids adding to or removing anything from Holy Writ in the following words: ‘yet a man’s testament if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it.’ 153 So, then, we have determined in this way to avoid now and always every utterance and sentiment not found in the Lord’s teaching, since the purpose at hand, yours and mine, is, as I said before, widely different from that of these disputes by which we were induced on other occasions to write or speak otherwise. Whereas the object of my zeal then was the refutation of heresy and the foiling of the Devil’s wiles, now the task at hand is simple exposition and profession of a sound faith; wherefore the type of discourse which I formerly employed is not appropriate for me now. As a man would not take in hand the same implements for waging war as he does for working his farm (for the tools of those who labor for their livelihood in sweet security differ from the full accoutrement of those drawn up for battle), so he who delivers an exhortation on sound doctrine would not say the same things as he who is engaged in putting his adversaries to rout. The speech which refutes and that which exhorts represent different genres. . . .

But, before I take up the matter itself of the profession of faith, the following warning should be given: It is impossible to express in one word or one concept, or to grasp with the mind at all, the majesty and glory of God, which is unutterable and incomprehensible, and the Holy Scripture, although for the most part employing words in current use, speaks obscurely ‘as through a glass’ 155 even to the clean of heart. 156 The beholding face to face and the perfect knowledge 157 have been promised to those who are accounted worthy in the life to come. But now, even if a man be a Paul or a Peter, even though he truly sees what he sees and is not misled nor deceived by his imagination, yet he sees through a glass and in a dark manner, and he looks forward with great joy to perfect knowledge in the future of that which he receives now in part with thanksgiving. . . .

From such passages as these we learn that Holy Writ contains a store of knowledge as limitless as is the incapacity of human nature to grasp in this life the meaning of the holy mysteries. Even though more knowledge is always being acquired by everyone, it will ever fall short in all things of its rightful completeness until the time when that which is perfect being come, that which is in part will be done away. 163 . . . I have neither the leisure nor the skill at present, however, to collect from the Holy Scripture, even at your urging, all the references made throughout to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but I think it will satisfy even your conscience if I place before you a few selected passages to show how our thoughts derive from the Scriptures and to provide grounds for certainty both for you yourselves and any others who desire to place their confidence in us; for, just as many proofs declare to us only one divine doctrine, so also, a fair-minded person will recognize in the few proofs I give the divine character which is in all. . . .

I beg and implore you, therefore, to be content with the words of the saints and of the Lord Himself and to desist from curious inquiry and unseemly controversies, to think on those things that are worthy of our heavenly calling, to live in a manner befitting the Gospel of Christ, relying on the hope of eternal life and the heavenly kingdom prepared for all those who keep the commandments of God the Father according to the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit and in truth. At the bidding of your piety, then, I have felt bound in duty to declare and make clear before concluding my belief in these truths both for your benefit and through you for those who are my brethren in Christ, so as to produce in you and in them full conviction in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and also to prevent anyone’s mind from being confused by the diverse methods of exposition we employ, although always we are motivated by the necessity of opposing the arguments trumped up by adversaries of the truth. My aim, furthermore, is to see to it that no one becomes unsettled by the opposition of those who attribute to me sentiments that are alien to my mind, or who again and again falsely represent as my opinion the expression of their own wicked passions, in an effort to carry off to their side the more naive [among their listeners]. These you must be wary of as enemies to the evangelical and apostolic faith and charity. Recall the words of the Apostle: ‘But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.' 192 Thus, and by observing the following warning also: 'Beware of false prophets' 193 and this likewise: ‘that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us,’ 194 —we shall walk according to the rule of the saints, ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ, our Lord himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.’ 195 ‘And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things, that your whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful who hath called you, who also will do it,’ 196 provided we keep His commandments by the grace of Christ in the Holy Spirit.  (FC, Vol. IX, Saint Basil, Ascetical Works, Concerning Faith, pp. 57, 59, 63; quotation was found in William Webster, "Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers: The Material Sufficiency of Scripture," found here, but quotation taken from The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999], found here [formatting slightly adapted])

But since the question now raised by those who are always endeavouring to introduce novelties, but passed over in silence by the men of old, because the doctrine was never gainsaid, has remained without full explanation (I mean that which concerns the Holy Ghost) I will add a statement on this subject in conformity with the sense of Scripture.  As we were baptized, so we profess our belief.  As we profess our belief, so also we offer praise.  As then baptism has been given us by the Saviour, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, so, in accordance with our baptism, we make the confession of the creed, and our doxology in accordance with our creed.  We glorify the Holy Ghost together with the Father and the Son, from the conviction that He is not separated from the Divine Nature; for that which is foreign by nature does not share in the same honors. All who call the Holy Ghost a creature we pity, on the ground that, by this utterance, they are falling into the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against Him.  I need use no argument to prove to those who are even slightly trained in Scripture, that the creature is separated from the Godhead.  The creature is a slave; but the Spirit sets free. [2521] The creature needs life; the Spirit is the Giver of life. [2522]   The creature requires teaching.  It is the Spirit that teaches. [2523] The creature is sanctified; it is the Spirit that sanctifies. [2524] Whether you name angels, archangels, or all the heavenly powers, they receive their sanctification through the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself has His holiness by nature, not received by favour, but essentially His; whence He has received the distinctive name of Holy.  What then is by nature holy, as the Father is by nature holy, and the Son by nature holy, we do not ourselves allow to be separated and severed from the divine and blessed Trinity, nor accept those who rashly reckon it as part of creation.  Let this short summary be sufficient for you, my pious friends.  From little seeds, with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, you will reap the fuller crop of piety.  "Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser." [2525]   I will put off fuller demonstration till we meet.  When we do, it will be possible for me to answer objections, to give you fuller proofs from Scripture, and to confirm all the sound rule of faith.  For the present pardon my brevity.  I should not have written at all had I not thought it a greater injury to you to refuse your request altogether than to grant it in part.  (Letter 159.2)

16.  But their contention is that to use the phrase "with him" is altogether strange and unusual, while "through him" is at once most familiar in Holy Scripture, and very common in the language of the brotherhood. [817]   What is our answer to this?  We say, Blessed are the ears that have not heard you and the hearts that have been kept from the wounds of your words.  To you, on the other hand, who are lovers of Christ, [818] I say that the Church recognizes both uses, and deprecates neither as subversive of the other.  For whenever we are contemplating the majesty of the nature of the Only Begotten, and the excellence of His dignity, we bear witness that the glory is with the Father; while on the other hand, whenever we bethink us of His bestowal [819] on us of good gifts, and of our access [820] to, and admission into, the household of God, [821] we confess that this grace is effected for us through Him and by [822] Him.

It follows that the one phrase "with whom" is the proper one to be used in the ascription of glory, while the other, "through whom," is specially appropriate in giving of thanks.  It is also quite untrue to allege that the phrase "with whom" is unfamiliar in the usage of the devout.  All those whose soundness of character leads them to hold the dignity of antiquity to be more honourable than mere new-fangled novelty, and who have preserved the tradition of their fathers [823] unadulterated, alike in town and in country, have employed this phrase.  It is, on the contrary, they who are surfeited with the familiar and the customary, and arrogantly assail the old as stale, who welcome innovation, just as in dress your lovers of display always prefer some utter novelty to what is generally worn.  So you may even still see that the language of country folk preserves the ancient fashion, while of these, our cunning experts [824] in logomachy, the language bears the brand of the new philosophy.

What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son.  But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.  For "the brightness" is always thought of with "the glory," [825] "the image" with the archetype, [826] and the Son always and everywhere together with the Father; nor does even the close connexion of the names, much less the nature of the things, admit of separation.  (On the Holy Spirit 7.16)

22.  Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (On the Holy Spirit 9.22)

24.  But we must proceed to attack our opponents, in the endeavour to confute those "oppositions" advanced against us which are derived from "knowledge falsely so-called." [924]

It is not permissible, they assert, for the Holy Spirit to be ranked with the Father and Son, on account of the difference of His nature and the inferiority of His dignity.  Against them it is right to reply in the words of the apostles, "We ought to obey God rather than men." [925]

For if our Lord, when enjoining the baptism of salvation, charged His disciples to baptize all nations in the name "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," [926] not disdaining fellowship with Him, and these men allege that we must not rank Him with the Father and the Son, is it not clear that they openly withstand the commandment of God?  If they deny that coordination of this kind is declaratory of any fellowship and conjunction, let them tell us why it behoves us to hold this opinion, and what more intimate mode of conjunction [927] they have.

If the Lord did not indeed conjoin the Spirit with the Father and Himself in baptism, do not [928] let them lay the blame of conjunction upon us, for we neither hold nor say anything different.  If on the contrary the Spirit is there conjoined with the Father and the Son, and no one is so shameless as to say anything else, then let them not lay blame on us for following the words of Scripture.

25.  But all the apparatus of war has been got ready against us; every intellectual missile is aimed at us; and now blasphemers' tongues shoot and hit and hit again, yet harder than Stephen of old was smitten by the killers of the Christ. [929]   And do not let them succeed in concealing the fact that, while an attack on us serves for a pretext for the war, the real aim of these proceedings is higher.  It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on.  But the object of attack is faith.  The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of "sound doctrine" [930] is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it.  So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors--they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. [931]   But we will not slacken in our defence of the truth.  We will not cowardly abandon the cause.  The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father.  Our opponents think differently, and see fit to divide and rend [932] asunder, and relegate Him to the nature of a ministering spirit.  Is it not then indisputable that they make their own blasphemy more authoritative than the law prescribed by the Lord?  Come, then, set aside mere contention.  Let us consider the points before us, as follows:

26.  Whence is it that we are Christians?  Through our faith, would be the universal answer.  And in what way are we saved?  Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism.  How else could we be?  And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away "that form of doctrine" [933] which we received?  Would it not rather be ground for great groaning if we are found now further off from our salvation "than when we first believed," [934] and deny now what we then received?  Whether a man have departed this life without baptism, or have received a baptism lacking in some of the requirements of the tradition, his loss is equal. [935]   And whoever does not always and everywhere keep to and hold fast as a sure protection the confession which we recorded at our first admission, when, being delivered "from the idols," we came "to the living God," [936] constitutes himself a "stranger" from the "promises" [937] of God, fighting against his own handwriting, [938] which he put on record when he professed the faith. For if to me my baptism was the beginning of life, and that day of regeneration the first of days, it is plain that the utterance uttered in the grace of adoption was the most honourable of all.  Can I then, perverted by these men's seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light, which bestowed on me the boon of the knowledge of God, whereby I, so long a foe by reason of sin, was made a child of God?  But, for myself, I pray that with this confession I may depart hence to the Lord, and them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism.  (On the Holy Spirit 10)

65.  The word "in," say our opponents, "is exactly appropriate to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him.  Why then, they ask, have we introduced this new phrase, saying, "with the Spirit" instead of "in the Holy Spirit," thus employing an expression which is quite unnecessary, and sanctioned by no usage in the churches?  Now it has been asserted in the previous portion of this treatise that the word "in" has not been specially allotted to the Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son.  It has also been, in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated that, so far from detracting anything from the dignity of the Spirit, it leads all, but those whose thoughts are wholly perverted, to the sublimest height.  It remains for me to trace the origin of the word "with;" to explain what force it has, and to shew that it is in harmony with Scripture.

66. [1268]   Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church [1269] some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" [1270] by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;--no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church.  For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. [1271]   For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?  Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying [1272] of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?  For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.  Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized.  On what written authority do we do this?  Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition?  Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil [1273] itself taught?  And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? [1274]   And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels?  Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence.  What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.  What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one?  The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight.  Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar.  In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all.  This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity.  "Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world.  One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader:  Thus we all look to the East [1275] at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, [1276] Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. [1277]   We pray standing, [1278] on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason.  On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk. anastasis) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, [1279] and are bound to "seek those things which are above," [1280] but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. [1281] For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred.  Now "one" and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. [1282]   Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither.  Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come.  For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days.  And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point.  On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future.  Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven.

67.  Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church.  Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source?  If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.  If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated.  While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness" [1283] is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;--a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?

68.  The force of both expressions has now been explained.  I will proceed to state once more wherein they agree and wherein they differ from one another;--not that they are opposed in mutual antagonism, but that each contributes its own meaning to true religion.  The preposition "in" states the truth rather relatively to ourselves; while "with" proclaims the fellowship of the Spirit with God.  Wherefore we use both words, by the one expressing the dignity of the Spirit; by the other announcing the grace that is with us.  Thus we ascribe glory to God both "in" the Spirit, and "with" the Spirit; and herein it is not our word that we use, but we follow the teaching of the Lord as we might a fixed rule, and transfer His word to things connected and closely related, and of which the conjunction in the mysteries is necessary.  We have deemed ourselves under a necessary obligation to combine in our confession of the faith Him who is numbered with Them at Baptism, and we have treated the confession of the faith as the origin and parent of the doxology.  What, then, is to be done?  They must now instruct us either not to baptize as we have received, or not to believe as we were baptized, or not to ascribe glory as we have believed.  Let any man prove if he can that the relation of sequence in these acts is not necessary and unbroken; or let any man deny if he can that innovation here must mean ruin everywhere.  Yet they never stop dinning in our ears that the ascription of glory "with" the Holy Spirit is unauthorized and unscriptural and the like.  We have stated that so far as the sense goes it is the same to say "glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost," and "glory be to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Ghost."  It is impossible for any one to reject or cancel the syllable "and," which is derived from the very words of our Lord, and there is nothing to hinder the acceptance of its equivalent.  What amount of difference and similarity there is between the two we have already shewn.  And our argument is confirmed by the fact that the Apostle uses either word indifferently,--saying at one time "in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God;" [1284] at another "when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus," [1285] with no idea that it makes any difference to the connexion of the names whether he use the conjunction or the preposition.  (On The Holy Spirit 27)

I was taught too by the children at Babylon, [1358] that, when there is no one to support the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our duty.  They from out of the midst of the flame lifted up their voices in hymns and praise to God, reeking not of the host that set the truth at naught, but sufficient, three only that they were, with one another.  Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth.  Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day.  (On the Holy Spirit 30.79)

I have received the letter which you, right honourable brethren, have sent me concerning the circumstances in which you are placed.  I thank the Lord that you have let me share in the anxiety you feel as to your attention to things needful and deserving of serious heed.  But I was distressed to hear that over and above the disturbance brought on the Churches by the Arians, and the confusion caused by them in the definition of the faith, there has appeared among you yet another innovation, throwing the brotherhood into great dejection, because, as you have informed me, certain persons are uttering, in the hearing of the faithful, novel and unfamiliar doctrines which they allege to be deduced from the teaching of Scripture.  You write that there are men among you who are trying to destroy the saving incarnation [3169] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, so far as they can, are overthrowing the grace of the great mystery unrevealed from everlasting, but manifested in His own times, when the Lord, when He had gone through [3170] all things pertaining to the cure of the human race, bestowed on all of us the boon of His own sojourn among us. . .

But who has the hardihood now once again to renew by the help of sophistical arguments and, of course, by scriptural evidence, that old dogma [3175] of Valentinus, now long ago silenced?  For this impious doctrine of the seeming [3176] is no novelty.  It was started long ago by the feeble-minded Valentinus, who, after tearing off a few of the Apostle's statements, constructed for himself this impious fabrication, asserting that the Lord assumed the "form of a servant," [3177] and not the servant himself, and that He was made in the "likeness," but that actual manhood was not assumed by Him.  Similar sentiments are expressed by these men who can only be pitied for bringing new troubles upon you. [3178] . . .

These, brethren, are the mysteries of the Church; these are the traditions of the Fathers.  Every man who fears the Lord, and is awaiting God's judgment, I charge not to be carried away by various doctrines.  If any one teaches a different doctrine, and refuses to accede to the sound words of the faith, rejecting the oracles of the Spirit, and making his own teaching of more authority than the lessons of the Gospels, of such an one beware.  (Letter 261)

My wish would be, as I have received in all simplicity, as I have assented with guileless agreement, so to deliver the doctrine to you my hearers.  I would if I could avoid being constantly questioned on the same point.  I would have my disciples convinced of one consent.  But you stand round me rather as judges than as learners.  Your desire is rather to test and try me than to acquire anything for yourselves.  I must therefore, as it were, make my defence before the court, again and again giving answer, and again and again saying what I have received.  And you I exhort not to be specially anxious to hear from me what is pleasing to yourselves, but rather what is pleasing to the Lord, what is in harmony with the Scriptures, what is not in opposition to the Fathers.  (Homily 24)

it is  proper and necessary that each one should learn that which is useful from the in-spired Scripture^ both for the establishment of his piety, and that he may not be accustomed to human traditions.  (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCV; translation by William Goode, Vol. III, p. 132; quotation was found originally, I think, in a William Webster article, but I checked and retrieved the quote from the Internet Archive version of the text, found here)

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful, composed by the Spirit for this reason, namely, that we men, each and all of us, as if in a general hospital for souls, may select the remedy for his own condition. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. 46: Homily 17 on Psalm 44; p. 283; quotation is from Dave Armstrong, "David T. King & William Webster Misinterpret the Fathers on Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great," found here; book quoted from is Fathers of the Church, vol. 46, Exegetic Homilies, translated by Sr. Agnes Clare Way [Catholic University of America Press, 2003])

 . . let us obey the Lord who says: ‘Search the Scriptures.’ Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as top the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, Concerning Baptism, Book II, Q&R; 4, p. 399; quotation is from Dave Armstrong, "David T. King & William Webster Misinterpret the Fathers on Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great," found here; quotation taken from The Fathers of the Church: St. Basil: Ascetical Works, translated by M. Monica Wagner [The Catholic University of America Press, 1999], found here)

Whatsoever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places. (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio 267; translation by William Whitaker, in his Disputation on Holy Scripture [Cambridge University Press: 1849, p. 491]; quotation is from Dave Armstrong, "David T. King & William Webster Misinterpret the Fathers on Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great," found here)

The study of inspired Scripture is the chief way of finding our duty, for in it we find both instruction about conduct and the lives of blessed men, delivered in writing, as some breathing images of godly living, for the imitation of their good works.  Hence, in whatever respect each one feels himself deficient, devoting himself to this imitation, he finds, as from some dispensary, the due medicine for his ailment.  He who is enamoured of chastity dwells upon the history of Joseph, and from him learns chaste actions, finding him not only possessed of self-command over pleasure, but virtuously-minded in habit.  He is taught endurance by Job [who, [1751] not only when the circumstances of life began to turn against him, and in one moment he was plunged from wealth into penury, and from being the father of fair children into childlessness, remained the same, keeping the disposition of his soul all through uncrushed, but was not even stirred to anger against the friends who came to comfort him, and trampled on him, and aggravated his troubles.]  Or should he be enquiring how to be at once meek and great-hearted, hearty against sin, meek towards men, he will find David noble in warlike exploits, meek and unruffled as regards revenge on enemies.  Such, too, was Moses rising up with great heart upon sinners against God, but with meek soul bearing their evil-speaking against himself.  [Thus, [1752] generally, as painters, when they are painting from other pictures, constantly look at the model, and do their best to transfer its lineaments to their own work, so too must he who is desirous of rendering himself perfect in all branches of excellency, keep his eyes turned to the lives of the saints as though to living and moving statues, and make their virtue his own by imitation.  (Letter 2.3)

By what action you can then help matters, and how you are to show sympathy for the afflicted, you do not want to be told by us; the Holy Ghost will suggest to you.  But unquestionably, if the survivors are to be saved, there is need of prompt action, and of the arrival of a considerable number of brethren, that those who visit us may complete the number of the synod, in order that they may have weight in effecting a reform, not merely from the dignity of those whose emissaries they are, but also from their own number:  thus they will restore the creed drawn up by our fathers at Nicæa, proscribe the heresy, and, by bringing into agreement all who are of one mind, speak peace to the Churches.  For the saddest thing about it all is that the sound part is divided against itself, and the troubles we are suffering are like those which once befel Jerusalem when Vespasian was besieging it.  The Jews of that time were at once beset by foes without and consumed by the internal sedition of their own people.  In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox.  For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members.  Thus we shall not only praise the blessings of others, which is all we can do now, but see our own Churches once more restored to their pristine boast of orthodoxy.  For, truly, the boon given you by the Lord is fit subject for the highest congratulation, your power of discernment between the spurious and the genuine and pure, and your preaching the faith of the Fathers without any dissimulation.  That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter. [2327]  (Letter #92 to the Italians and Gauls 3)

 1.  I have been very much distressed by a painful report which reached my ears; but I have been equally delighted by my brother, beloved of God, bishop Bosporius, [2186] who has brought a more satisfactory account of you.  He avers by God's grace that all those stories spread abroad about you are inventions of men who are not exactly informed as to the truth about you.  He added, moreover, that he found among you impious calumnies about me, of a kind likely to be uttered by those who do not expect to have to give the Judge in the day of His righteous retribution an account of even an idle word.  I thank God, then, both because I am cured of my damaging opinion of you, an opinion which I have derived from the calumnies of men, and because I have heard of your abandonment of those baseless notions about me, on hearing the assurances of my brother.  He, in all that he has said as coming from himself, has also completely expressed my own feeling.  For in us both there is one mind about the faith, as being heirs of the same Fathers who once at Nicæa promulgated their great decree [2187] concerning the faith.  Of this, some portions are universally accepted without cavil, but the homoousion, ill received in certain quarters, is still rejected by some.  These objectors we may very properly blame, and yet on the contrary deem them deserving of pardon.  To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.  On the other hand the fact that they view with suspicion a phrase which is misrepresented by an opposite party does seem to a small extent to relieve them from blame.  Moreover, as a matter of fact, the members of the synods which met to discuss the case of Paul of Samosata [2188] did find fault with the term as an unfortunate one.

For they maintained that the homoousion set forth the idea both of essence and of what is derived from it, so that the essence, when divided, confers the title of co-essential on the parts into which it is divided.  This explanation has some reason in the case of bronze and coins made therefrom, but in the case of God the Father and God the Son there is no question of substance anterior or even underlying both; the mere thought and utterance of such a thing is the last extravagance of impiety.  What can be conceived of as anterior to the Unbegotten?  By this blasphemy faith in the Father and the Son is destroyed, for things, constituted out of one, have to one another the relation of brothers.

2.  Because even at that time there were men who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousion was adopted, to extirpate this impiety.  For the conjunction of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval.  The preceding words shew this to have been the intended meaning.  For after saying that the Son was light of light, and begotten of the substance of the Father, but was not made, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever proportion of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will obtain also in that of the Son.  For very light in relation to very light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation.  Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of Them light and light; they rightly said "of one substance," in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature.  Things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, of one substance; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called "of one substance."

3.  This term also corrects the error of Sabellius, for it removes the idea of the identity of the hypostases, and introduces in perfection the idea of the Persons.  For nothing can be of one substance with itself, but one thing is of one substance with another.  The word has therefore an excellent and orthodox use, defining as it does both the proper character of the hypostases, and setting forth the invariability of the nature.  And when we are taught that the Son is of the substance of the Father, begotten and not made, let us not fall into the material sense of the relations.  For the substance was not separated from the Father and bestowed on the Son; neither did the substance engender by fluxion, nor yet by shooting forth [2189] as plants their fruits.  The mode of the divine begetting is ineffable and inconceivable by human thought.  It is indeed characteristic of poor and carnal intelligence to compare the things that are eternal with the perishing things of time, and to imagine, that as corporeal things beget, so does God in like manner; it is rather our duty to rise to the truth by arguments of the contrary, and to say, that since thus is the mortal, not thus is He who is immortal.  We must neither then deny the divine generation, nor contaminate our intelligence with corporeal senses.

4.  The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, "Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." [2190]   He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges Him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some new fangled device in order to be pleasing to men.  It is written "The Spirit is of God," [2191] and if He is of God, how can He be older than that of which He is?  And what folly is it not, when there is one Unbegotten, to speak of something else as superior to the Unbegotten?  He is not even anterior, for nothing intervenes between Son and Father.  If, however, He is not of God but is through Christ, He does not even exist at all.  It follows, that this new invention about the order really involves the destruction of the actual existence, and is a denial of the whole faith.  It is equally impious to reduce Him to the level of a creature, and to subordinate Him either to Son or to Father, either in time or in rank. These are the points on which I have heard that you are making enquiry.  If the Lord grant that we meet I may possibly have more to say on these subjects, and may myself, concerning points which I am investigating, receive satisfactory information from you.  (Letter #52 to the Canonicae)

I need hardly tell the sons of peace how great is the blessing of peace. But now this blessing, great, marvellous, and worthy as it is of being most strenuously sought by all that love the Lord, is in peril of being reduced to the bare name, because iniquity abounds, and the love of most men has waxed cold. [2385]   I think then that the one great end of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the Churches now "at sundry times and in divers manners" [2386] divided from one another.  In attempting myself to effect this, I cannot fairly be blamed as a busybody, for nothing is so characteristically Christian as the being a peacemaker, and for this reason our Lord has promised us peacemakers a very high reward.

When, therefore, I had met the brethren, and learnt how great was their brotherly love, their regard for you, and yet more their love for Christ, and their exactitude and firmness in all that concerns the faith, and moreover their earnestness in compassing two ends, the not being separated from your love, and the not abandoning their sound faith, I approved of their good disposition; and I now write to your reverence beseeching you with all love to retain them in true union, and associated with you in all your anxiety for the Church.  I have moreover pledged myself to them for your orthodoxy, and that you too by God's grace are enrolled to fight with all vigour for the truth, whatever you may have to suffer for the true doctrine.  My own opinion is that the following conditions are such as will not run counter to your own feeling and will be quite sufficient to satisfy the above mentioned brethren; namely, that you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, and not to add to that creed the statement that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor hold communion with those who so say, to the end that the Church of God may be pure and without any evil admixture of any tare.  If this full assurance is given them by your good feeling, they are prepared to offer proper submission to you.  And I myself promise for the brethren that they will offer no opposition, but will show themselves entirely subordinate, if only your excellency shall have readily granted this one thing which they ask for.  (Letter #114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390)

 XXI.  Over and over again you turn upon us the silence of Scripture. But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor an afterthought, but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and many of our own day, is already demonstrated by many persons who have treated of this subject, and who have handled the Holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime, but have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner meaning, and have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have been irradiated by the light of knowledge.  We, however in our turn will briefly prove it as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly ambitious, building on another's foundation.  But since the fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son), becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.

XXII.  Some things have no existence, but are spoken of; others which do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of.  Do you ask me for proof of this?  I am ready to give it.  According to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, has the Cherubim for His Throne.  And yet when did He become liable to passion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This then is, though not really fact, a figure of speech.  For we have given names according to our own comprehension from our own attributes to those of God.  His remaining silent apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity.  And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking is the dissolution of sleep, as visitation is of turning away.  And when He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of anger.  And His working, now here now there, we call walking; for walking is change from one place to another.  His resting among the Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God resteth nowhere as He doth upon the Saints.  His swiftness of moving is called flying, and His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving and bestowing [3725] is His hand; and, in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God has depicted for us some other corporeal one.

XXIII.  Again, where do you get your Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal?  Show me these in so many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted.  Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though the words do not actually occur?  What are these passages?--I am the first, and I am the last, [3726] and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me. [3727]   For all that depends on that Am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor ending.  When you accept this, that nothing is before Him, and that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given Him the titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate.  And to say that He has no end of Being is to call Him Immortal and Indestructible.  The first pairs, then, that I referred to are accounted for thus.  But what are the things which neither exist in fact nor are said?  That God is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have you ever known a man of such stupidity as to venture either to think or to assert any such thing?  It remains to shew what are the things which exist, both in fact and in language. God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (viz., such arguments as yours), and the subversion of faith and emptying of the mystery.

XXIV.  Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts?  But if, when you said twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense?  Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth.  As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms.  In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox--among whom I may not count you.  For since you deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence.  But now I will take up the argument again a little way further back, and shew you, though you are so clever, the reason for this entire system of secresy.

XXV.  There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of men's lives, which are also called two Testaments, [3728] or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two Earthquakes; the one from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the Gospel.  And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this Earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved. [3729] Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first movement of the endeavour.  Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)?  That no violence might be done to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion.  For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by force.  But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe.  The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority.  Wherefore God did not think it behoved Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do good to the willing.  And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice.  For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits which custom and use have made honourable.  For instance, the first cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. [3730]   Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them; [3731] in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time administered circumcision, and submitted to legal purification, he advanced till he could say, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? [3732]   His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.

XXVI.  To this I may compare the case of Theology [3733] except that it proceeds the reverse way.  For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions.  For the matter stands thus.  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, [3734] the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues.  And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. [3735]   This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority.  Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name.  He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, [3736] then again, I will send,--His own dignity.  Then shall come, [3737] the authority of the Spirit.

XXVII.  You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to keep, neither proclaiming things too suddenly, nor yet keeping them hidden to the end.  For the former course would be unscientific, the latter atheistical; and the former would be calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people.  I will add another point to what I have said; one which may readily have come into the mind of some others, but which I think a fruit of my own thought.  Our Saviour had some things which, He said, could not be borne at that time by His disciples [3738] (though they were filled with many teachings), perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned; and therefore they were hidden.  And again He said that all things should be taught us by the Spirit when He should come to dwell amongst us. [3739]   Of these things one, I take it, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later on when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour's restoration, when it would no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character.  For what greater thing than this did either He promise, or the Spirit teach.  If indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught.

XXVIII.  This, then, is my position with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers [3740] not long departed shewed.  Let him not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture saith, [3741] nor the glory of its brightness, who is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the times, at one time being of one mind and of another at another time, and thinking unsoundly in the highest matters.  For if He is not to be worshipped, how can He deify me by Baptism? but if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is derived.

XXIX.  This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence of Scripture.  But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost [3742] shall be shewn to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture.  (Oration 31.21-29)

And thus we see that God is not a body.  For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it.  (The Second Theological Oration 9)

Part Six: St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Part Eight: St. Augustine of Hippo

Back to Introduction and Table of Contents

Published on the feast of St. Thomas More, my patron saint, and also of St. John Fisher and St. Paulinus of Nola