Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos

Homily 24. Against the Sabellians, and Arius, and the Anomoeans. Judaism fights against Hellenism, and both against Christianity, just as the Egyptians and Assyrians were enemies both to each other and to Israel. So also in the realm of vice we find cowardice and rashness opposed both to each other and to courage. Such, in some way, is the battle that lies on either side against the correctness of the confession: on this side, that of Sabellius; on the other, that of those who proclaim the dissimilarity. We, just as we have fled from the Greeks and turned away from evil idolatry, condemning their polytheism as atheism, so also have we fled from the blasphemy of the Jews who deny the Son of God, fearing that threat: "Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father in heaven." Let us therefore flee, as is fitting, also those who devise kindred errors against the word of truth. For since the clever devil, who is skilled at doing evil, saw the alienation of Christians from Greeks and Jews, and that we are immediately hostile to them by our very names, he, having applied our name to each, thus attempts to introduce again the Jewish denial and the Greek polytheism. For those who say that the Only-begotten is a work of God and a creation, and then worship and deify him, by serving the creature and not the creator, directly introduce the ways of the Greeks.

Those who deny the God from God, and while confessing the Son in name, in deed and truth reject his existence, are reviving Judaism again. For when they confess the Word, they liken it to the immanent word; and when they speak of wisdom, they say it is similar to the disposition that arises in the soul of the educated; and because of this, they posit one person of Father and Son, since even a man is said to be one, not separated from the word and wisdom inherent in him. Yet the Evangelist cries out from the very beginning: "And the Word was God," giving the Son his own existence. For if the Word was in the heart, how could it be thought of as God? How could it be with God? Since neither is the word in a man a man, nor is it said to be with him, but in him. For it is neither living nor subsistent; but the Word of God is life and truth. And our word is spoken and then is no more; but what does the Psalm say about the Word of God? "Forever, O Lord, your Word abides in heaven." So this is one war; but from the other side, what and of what sort is the struggle against the truth? They concede the existence, and agree that the Son is a distinct person and the Father a distinct person; but they introduce a dissimilarity of nature. And they concede the name of Son only as a sound, but in truth they reduce it to the level of creation; not being shamed by the voice of the Lord, who shows himself to one hastening toward the contemplation of the Father. For he says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." This utterance, when rightly considered, blocks the blasphemies of both parties.

For he does not claim that the Father is himself, since he clearly distinguishes the persons in saying, "He who has seen me." For from this he shows his own person: "He has seen the Father," referring to the Father's person and plainly separating it from himself, and also in saying, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father as well." For these things do not indicate a confusion of the persons, but set forth the unchangeable nature of the divinity. Let the opponents also hear the same word: that he who has been deemed worthy of communion with the Son is not deprived of the Father. For the begetter did not beget something different, but such as he himself is. Listen, O Anomoean: "I and the Father are one." Listen also, O Sabellian: "I came forth from the Father, and I go to him." And let each of you have his own wound healed by the evangelical teaching. And you, take the unity as referring to the unchangeable nature; and you, take the "I came forth from him and I go to him" as referring to the distinction of the persons.

Let us therefore come to agreement on these matters, and let us make peace, and let us lay down the long war against piety, casting away these sharpened weapons of impiety, and reforging the spears into plowshares and the swords into sickles. Do not speak only, but follow the one who says: "I am not alone, because the Father who sent me is with me." Therefore the Father who sent is one, and the Son who was sent is another. And again, "I," he says, "bear witness concerning myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness concerning me." And, "In the law," he says, "your law, it is written that the testimony of two men is true." Count, if you wish, the persons. "I," he says, "am the one bearing witness." One. "And the one who sent me bears witness concerning me." Two. And I do not count thus rashly, but the Lord himself taught, saying: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true." And you, who wage war against God according to another form of impiety, who say that the Son is unlike in nature to God, who do not grant equality, who introduce a separation of life—be ashamed before Paul saying: "Who is the image of the invisible God," and grant that the living image is indistinguishable from the archetypal life. Confess the Father of the Son, not of a creature, the creator. And in the true confession of the Father, grant the equal honor of the begotten to him, remembering the testimony of the evangelist, that he called God his own Father, making himself equal to God. And making equal to the begetter is understood according to nature, not according to measurement of bodily magnitude.

How could he not have considered it a usurpation to be equal to God, if, as you blaspheme, he was never equal? And how could he have existed in the form of God who, according to your argument, was never similar? But such is the war on both sides for us; what, then, is the truth? Do not you fear the confession of the persons, but say Father, say also Son, not uttering two names for one thing, but learning a distinct concept from each appellation. For it is a terrible ingratitude not to accept the teachings of the Lord, who clearly distinguishes for us the difference of the persons. For if I go away, he says, I will entreat the Father, and he will send another Paraclete to you. Therefore, the Son is the one entreating, the Father is the one entreated, and the Paraclete is the one sent. So do you not clearly act shamelessly, hearing, I concerning the Son, He concerning the Father, Another concerning the Holy Spirit, and yet you confuse everything, mix everything together, and attach all the appellations to one thing? But do not you either take as a usurpation toward impiety the division of the persons. For even if they are two in number, they are not separated in nature; nor does the one who speaks of the two introduce alienation. There is one God, because the Father is one; and the Son is also one God, and there are not two gods, since the Son has identity with the Father. For I do not behold one divinity in the Father and another in the Son; nor one nature there and another here. So that the particularity of the persons may be clear to you, count the Father separately and the Son separately; but so that you may not be divided into polytheism, confess one substance in both. Thus Sabellius falls, and the Anomoean will be crushed.

When I say one substance, do not think of two divided from one, but that the Son subsisted from the beginning of the Father, not Father and Son from a single underlying substance. For we do not speak of siblings, but we confess Father and Son. And the identity of substance is because the Son is from the Father, not created by command, but born from the nature; not separated from the Father, but while he remains perfect, the Son shone forth perfect. And do not, running around, those of you who either have not fully followed what is said, or have stood around us for spite, seeking not to receive something beneficial from us, but watching to seize upon something said, say: He proclaims two gods, he announces polytheism. There are not two gods; for there are not two fathers. He who introduces two principles proclaims two gods. Such is Marcion, and anyone similar to him in impiety. And again, he who says the begotten is of a different substance relative to the begetter, this one also speaks of two gods, introducing polytheism through the dissimilarity of substance. For if one divinity is unbegotten and one is begotten, you are the one proclaiming polytheism, saying that the unbegotten is opposite to the begotten, and obviously positing the substances as opposite, if indeed the substance of the Father is unbegottenness, and the substance of the Son is generation.

Thus you speak not only of two gods, but of gods at war with one another; and worst of all, you assign the conflict not to choice, but to a natural division, which can never come to a peaceful reconciliation. But the word of truth has escaped the contradictions on both sides. For where there is one beginning, and one that comes from it, and where there is one archetype and one image, the principle of unity is not destroyed. Because the Son subsists generatively from the Father, and naturally imprints the Father in himself; as an image, he possesses the undiffering likeness, and as an offspring, he preserves the consubstantiality. For one who gazes at the royal image in the marketplace and calls the figure on the panel "king" does not confess two kings—both the image and the one of whom it is the image; nor, if he points to the one painted on the panel and says, "This is the king," does he deprive the original of the title "king." On the contrary, he confirms the honor of that one through this confession. For if the image is king, it is surely much more reasonable that the one who provided the cause for the image is king. But here, wood, wax, and the painter's art produce the image—perishable, a copy of the perishable, and a crafted likeness of the thing made. There, however, when you hear "image," understand it as a radiance of the glory. And what is the radiance, and what is the glory? The Apostle himself immediately explained, adding: "And a character of the hypostasis." Thus, the hypostasis is the same as the glory, and the character is the same as the radiance. So, with the glory remaining perfect and in no way diminished, the radiance proceeds forth perfect.

And thus the principle of the image, when piously received, presents to us the unity of the Godhead. For this one is in that one, and that one in this one. For this one is such as that one is, and that one such as this one is. Thus the two are united, in that the Son does not differ, nor is conceived according to a different form and alien character. Again, then, I say: One and one, but the nature is indivisible, and the perfection is without deficiency. Therefore, God is one, since through both a single form is contemplated, displayed completely in both. But I see that you have long been displeased with the argument, and I almost seem to hear that, while dwelling on agreed matters, I do not touch upon the much-discussed questions. For every ear is now aroused for the hearing of discourses concerning the Holy Spirit. But I would have wished, as I received simply, as I assented without artifice, so to deliver to my hearers, not always being called to account for the same things, but having those taught convinced by a single confession. Since, however, you have surrounded us, judges rather than disciples, wishing to test us, not seeking to receive anything yourselves, it is necessary for us, as in a court, to set forth the counter-argument, and to be always examined, and always to say what we have received. And we exhort you not to seek by every means what is yours.

What is pleasing to us to hear is not what is pleasing to us, but what is pleasing to the Lord, and in harmony with the Scriptures, and not in conflict with the Fathers. What we were saying about the Son, that one must confess his own person, we have to say also about the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is not the same as the Father, because it is written that God is Spirit. Nor again is there one person of the Son and the Spirit, since it is said: If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, that one is not of him; but Christ is in you. For from this some were deceived into thinking that the Spirit and Christ are the same. But what do we say? That the proper nature is indicated from this, not a confusion of persons. For the Father exists, having his being perfect and without need, root and source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the Son exists, the living Word in full divinity, and a generation of the Father without need; and the Spirit is also full, not a part of another, but perfect and complete, considered in itself. And the Son is joined to the Father without separation; and the Spirit is joined to the Son. For there is nothing that separates or cuts the eternal conjunction. No age intervenes between; nor does our soul admit any notion of separation, as if the Only-begotten were not always with the Father, or the Holy Spirit did not coexist with the Son. Therefore, when we join the Trinity, do not imagine the three as parts of one indivisible thing (for that thought is impious), but accept the inseparable communion of three incorporeal perfect beings. For where the presence of the Holy Spirit is, there also is the visitation of Christ.

Where Christ is, there also the Father is present, manifestly. Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling in you? And, "If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him." Therefore, being sanctified through the Spirit, we receive Christ dwelling in our inner man, and with Christ the Father, making common abode with the worthy. This conjunction is also manifested by the tradition of baptism and the confession of faith. For if the Spirit were alien in nature, how would it be numbered together? And if it were added to the Father and the Son at a later time, how would it be ranked with the eternal nature? But those who separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son and number it with creation render baptism incomplete and the confession of faith deficient. For the Trinity does not remain a Trinity if the Spirit is removed. And if again any one thing from creation were attached, the whole of creation would enter into the enumeration with the Father and the Son. For what prevents one from saying, "We believe in the Father and the Son and in all creation"? For if it is pious to believe in a part of creation, it is surely more solemn to include all creation in the confession. But believing in all creation, you believe not only in angels and the ministering spirits, but also if there are any opposing powers, since they too are a part of creation, you will assent to them according to the faith. Thus blasphemy against the Spirit leads you into impious and unlawful arguments.

For you have said together what ought not be said concerning the Spirit, and the abandonment by the Spirit has been signified to you. For just as he who closes his eyes has darkness as his own, so he who withdraws from the Spirit, having come to be outside the one who illumines, is confounded by the invisibility of the soul. But do not separate the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; let tradition shame you. The Lord taught thus, the apostles proclaimed, the Fathers preserved, the martyrs confirmed. Be content to speak as you were taught, and do not give me these clever things: "Unbegotten or begotten." For if it is unbegotten, it is Father; if it is begotten, it is Son; if it is neither of these, it is a creature. But I know the Spirit with the Father, yet not as Father; and I have received it with the Son, yet not as Son named. But I understand its kinship with the Father, since it proceeds from the Father; and its kinship with the Son, since I hear: "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, that one is not his." For if it were not proper to Christ, how would it appropriate to Christ? But I also hear "Spirit of truth." And the Lord is truth. And when I hear "Spirit of adoption," I come to the notion of unity in nature with the Son and Father. For how does it adopt what is foreign, and how does it appropriate what is alien? Thus, then, I neither innovate words nor set aside the dignity; but I groan and lament over those who dare to call it a creature, because through a small sophism and counterfeit fallacy they thrust themselves into the abyss. For, they say, since our intellect has grasped these three, and there is nothing among existing things that does not fall under this division of existing things.

Either it is unbegotten, he says, or begotten, or created; but it is neither the first nor the second, therefore the third. This "therefore" of yours will render you liable to the eternal curse. Have you examined everything? Have you brought everything under division by your own reasonings? Have you left nothing uninvestigated? Have you encompassed everything with your mind? Have you confined everything to your own comprehension? Do you know what is beneath the earth? Do you know what is in the deep? These are boasts of demons: "I know the number of the sand and the measures of the sea." But if you are ignorant of many things, and the things unknown are myriad times more than those known, why do you not, along with all else, confess without shame the safe ignorance concerning the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit? I, for my part, have no leisure to refute the vanity of your reasonings, nor to show how many among existing things have escaped the comprehension of your reasonings; but I would gladly ask this of those among you, and I confidently declare that you will one day repent of this godless wisdom, calling the Holy Spirit a creature. Do you not fear the unforgivable sin? Or what do you think could be more impious to blaspheme than this? For from this one utterance all the most dreadful things arise: alienation from God according to nature itself, the humiliation of servitude, liturgical ministries, deprivation of sanctification, which does not belong to it by nature, and it will befall the Spirit to partake of sanctification from the distribution according to grace, just as the other things that have been sanctified also have it.

And just as the revelation of the Spirit is given to us for our benefit, and as it is measured out to each according to the proportion of their faith, so too will the Spirit partake of sanctification, if indeed it is created according to the supposition of the Pneumatomachi. But let us not leave their folly unrefuted, those who think they have comprehended everything by their own intellect. Let them then answer us. What, then, is the substance of the perceptible sun? Is it one of the four elements, or is it composed of the four? But indeed it is neither earth, nor air, nor water, nor fire. For these move in straight lines: some borne upward, others downward. Earth and water are downward-moving due to weight; air and fire move in upward motion due to lightness; but the sun's motion is circular. Therefore it is not one of the four. But neither is it composed of these; because composite things are held together with effort, having their constitution from opposites, the opposites pulling against each other in their motion. But the sun's motion is effortless, and for this reason unceasing. So it is not composite. But among bodies, something is either simple or composite. The sun is neither a simple body—for it does not move in a straight line—nor composite—for it does not tire in its motion. Therefore the sun is not. Such are your wise distinctions, laughed at by those who have eyes. Again, how do we humans see? Is it by receiving the forms of visible things, or by emitting a power from ourselves?

But we do not receive the images of visible things (for how does the hemisphere of the sky appear in the small aperture of the pupil?), nor do we send forth anything from ourselves (for how, again, does what is emitted suffice to extend over the sky?). If we neither receive the images of visible things nor send forth any power from ourselves, then we do not see. What then? Shall I refute your syllogisms, or shall I pray that your conclusions be true? How does your technical argument about the Spirit differ from such reasonings, which you display to wretched little women or to the eunuchs who are neighbors to the women? Do not listen captiously. If the Spirit is from God, how do you bring it under creation? For you will not say that, because all things are from God. For just as Christ is said to be of God, but not a creature as we are (for we are of Christ, and Christ is of God), but we are said to be of Christ in one way, as slaves of a master, while Christ is said to be of God in another way, as Son of the Father, so also the Spirit, not because all things are from God, is itself like all things. For not because there are ministering spirits is the Holy Spirit already similar to them on account of the name. For there is one true Spirit. For just as there are many sons, but one true Son, so even if all things are said to be from God, yet properly the Son is from God, and the Spirit is from God. For the Son came forth from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But the Son is from the Father by generation, while the Spirit is from God ineffably. See, then, how great the danger is of diminishing the glory of the Paraclete.

The Son does not receive the honor directed to him when the Spirit is set aside. For that one, he says, will glorify me, not as a slave along with creation. For if he glorified along with all, it would not have been said, "That one." But now the reference to the one sets forth the glory brought forward as surpassing the others. For not as those who say, "Glory to God in the highest," but as the one who said, "Father, I glorified you, I completed the work which you gave." And as the Father glorifies the Son, saying, "And I glorified you, and again I will glorify you," so also the Son takes the Spirit into the communion of himself and the Father. Or let someone show me a greater glory than this, and I concede that those who contradict speak truly. He who sets you aside sets me aside. Why? Because of the Spirit dwelling in them, evidently. So he who does not honor the Spirit does not honor the Son; and he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. Thus, ingratitude concerning one of the things believed is a denial of the whole divinity. If the Spirit is created, it is not divine. But indeed, he says, "divine Spirit" that made me. And, "God filled Bezalel with divine Spirit of wisdom and understanding." Where, then, do you find the divine approaching? To creation, or to divinity? For if to creation, you will also call the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ a creature; for it is written about him: "His eternal power and divinity." But if to divinity, ceasing from blasphemy, recognize the dignity of the Spirit. You are so senseless that you are not even led by the word itself to the worthy conceptions of the Spirit.