Expositio rectae fidei

Chapter 29, Section 1, Paragraph 1, Subsection 1, Title 1, Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 1. Having sufficiently completed the refutation against Jews and Greeks, we accordingly set forth again the sound account of the faith. For it was necessary, after the demonstration of the truth, that those proceeding further should know how it is fitting to think concerning it. For the doxology to the Father and Son does not simply procure salvation for us, but the sound confession of the Trinity bestows the enjoyment of the goods reserved for the pious; since one may also hear those of heterodox opinion hymning the Father and Son, but not offering reverence according to a correct understanding. Hence the exposition of this writing was necessary for us, leading those who encounter it to a pure comprehension of the truth. Therefore, both the divine scriptures teach us and the teachings of the fathers instruct us to worship one God. For there must be one most ultimate cause of all things, so that nothing standing outside may corrupt what comes into being. For if something existed outside of God from the beginning, this would necessarily be confessed either as God or as another power. But if one were to call it God, he would contradict the divine voices that cry out plainly: "I am God first, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no God." But if one were to say it is not God, he would evidently mean angels or powers. But even so, he would reject the scriptures that say these came into being from God. "Praise God from the heavens," it says, "praise him in the highest places, praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his powers!" And further: "Because he spoke and they came into being, he commanded and they were created.

Therefore it would be agreed that nothing co-exists with God of all from the beginning, since it has been demonstrated that all things have been brought forth by him. Thus in truth the God of all is known in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For since the Father generated the Son from his own substance, and brought forth the Spirit from the same, it is fitting that they, partaking of the same and one substance, are deemed worthy of the same and one divinity. How then, it is said, if the begetter differs from the begotten and the processional from that from which it proceeds (and the Father is unbegotten, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds), are the Son and the Spirit the same as the Father? Because "unbegotten" and "begotten" and "processional" are not names of substance, but modes of existence; and these modes of existence are characterized by these names. The indication of substance is signified by the name "God," so that there is difference between the Father and the Son and the Spirit according to the mode of existence, but sameness according to the principle of substance. For the one has being in an unbegotten manner, the other in a begotten manner, and the other in a processional manner, and these differences are naturally observed; but by this the being according to substance of his hypostasis is signified.

and is indicated by the common name of divinity. But what I say would become clearer in this way. One who considers the matter concerning the existence of Adam, how he was brought into being, will find that he is not begotten, for he is not from any other man, but was formed by the divine hand. But the formation indicates the manner of his existence; for it signifies how he came to be. Likewise, again, the manner of his existence characterizes the formation; for it similarly indicates that he existed as having been formed. But if you were to inquire into his essence, according to which he is joined in communion with those from him, you will find that the subject is man. Just as, then, the formation indicates the manner of his existence, and the manner of his existence characterizes the formation, and the account of the essence shows the subject to be man, so also we will find it to be with God and Father. For if you were to inquire into the manner of his existence, seeing that he is begotten from no other, you will call him unbegotten; but if you were to consider the appellation "unbegotten," you will find it interpreting the manner of his existence. And if you should wish to know the essence itself, according to which he is joined in communion with the Son and the Spirit, you will indicate it by the name "God." So that "unbegotten" and the manner of his existence are mutually indicative, while "God" is indicative of the essence. For just as Adam, although he did not admit of generation, is joined in communion with those begotten from him according to the identity of essence, so no argument will be able to sever the commonality of essence of the Father with the Son and the Spirit on account of the unbegotten.

Thus the terms "unbegotten," "begotten," and "proceeding" are not indicative of essence, but are significative of the hypostases; for they are sufficient for us to distinguish the persons and to show individually the hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For just as the term "unbegotten," when spoken to us like a seal, immediately delimits the hypostasis of the Father, and again, hearing the appellation "begotten" as a sign, we conceive the Son, and again, through the signification of "proceeding," we are taught the particular person of the Spirit. And these things suffice for the demonstration that "unbegotten," "begotten," and "proceeding" do not reveal the essence itself, but are delimitative of the hypostases, in addition to signifying the mode of existence. It would remain to show how the essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one. We observe, then, in common usage that things born belong to the same essence as those who give birth. But rather we must begin from above, so that some question falling in the middle might not interrupt the continuity of the discourse. And first let us divide beings. For we will find that all things are divided into the created and the uncreated; for whatever exists is either an uncreated nature or a created one. But the uncreated is lordly and free from all necessity, while the created is servile and follows lordly laws; and the

The one acts and is able according to authority as it wishes, while the other is able and fulfills only the service which it has received from the divinity. With the division thus established, having set before us the divine utterances, we must examine with precision whom they teach us to coordinate the Son and the Spirit with; for we must not direct divine matters by human reasonings for the nurslings of the Church, but must make the exposition of the words according to the will of the teaching of the Spirit. And let David first teach us. For he, having composed a hymn to God from the whole of creation, then having treated of all things in heaven, and having enumerated all the powers in it, and likewise having made a narration concerning the earth and all things in it, does not include the Son and the Spirit in this doxology, as obviously conjoined with the divine nature; for if he had known them to be of created substance, he would not have left these alone unnamed, of which he would naturally have made mention first and foremost of all the other powers. Likewise also the blessed Paul, being possessed by divine fire and displaying the ardor of love for God and testifying to the steadfastness of his affection, speaks thus: "For I am persuaded that neither life nor world nor death, nor angels nor powers nor principalities, nor present nor future things, nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Similarly, after enumerating both cosmos and life and death, angels and powers and principalities, and present and future things, height and depth, and finding nothing left over for the created nature, still clinging to the impulse to cry out and bear witness, he added something hyperbolic and completed the discourse by introducing another creation. Therefore, having also made clear his immovable longing for God by the hyperbole of what was said, if he had known the Son and the Spirit to belong to the created substance, would he not have included their account along with the others? But that the Son and the Spirit are not joined to the created nature is to be understood from these and similar things; it was possible to adduce many other such testimonies in abundance, but since the discourse is addressed to sons of the Church and our purpose is to speak concisely, I consider what has been said sufficient. It would remain to show that the Son and the Spirit are coordinated with the divine nature. And first I will mention the most crucial point. Our Lord Jesus Christ, after the resurrection from the dead, when about to make the ascent into the heavens, instructed the apostles in the teaching of the nations and the instruction of baptism: "Go, teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And writing to the Corinthians, the blessed Paul, at the end of the epistle, as if placing a seal upon the teaching, adds: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." And again to the Ephesians he speaks thus: "He himself, Jesus Christ, being the cornerstone, in whom every building fitted together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in which you also are built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." Do you see how, teaching the building in Christ, through which we become a temple of the Lord, according to "I will dwell in them and walk among them and I will be their God," he introduces the three persons to us conjointly? For he taught, through such teaching, that Christ and God and Spirit, the one divinity, dwell in us according to energy, in those deemed worthy of grace. And this is clear from what he says in another place: "For this reason I bend my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, that he might grant you, according to the wealth of his glory, to be strengthened in power through his Spirit for the inner man, to dwell in Christ." For behold, again, mentioning divine dwelling, he is shown to encompass Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. And everywhere in his teaching he appears to arrange the three persons. For writing to the Corinthians in the second epistle, he speaks thus: "He who confirms us together with you in Christ and anointed us, God, and sealed us and gave the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.

Clearly here also he has joined together Father and God and Christ Son and Holy Spirit in the teaching. And again to the Galatians: "That you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying 'Abba, Father'"; likewise again he gives us the conception of Father and Son and Spirit in conjunction. And see how he places the distinguishing marks of the extreme conjunction. For he did not simply say, "God sent forth the Spirit," but "of his Son"; now joining it to the Son, now attributing it to the Father in the words: "But you did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God and Father"; and again calling the Spirit of his Son the Spirit of truth, since he himself is the truth, and again teaching that it is of the Father: "which proceeds from the Father." And through all things the divine scripture simply confirming for us the meaning, you have acquired the inseparable conception concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But neither did the divine word teach us that the activity of Son and Spirit in the creation of the universe is separated from the Father. And let David be your teacher for this, speaking somewhat as follows: "And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the works of your hands are the heavens"; together

having taken both the Son and the Spirit through the signification of the Lord, yet no less for the sake of the ignorant he also employed a distinction according to person in the passages where he says: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." But we have learned from divine scripture that the Son and the Spirit are not diminished in the authority of the Father; and how, listen to the text: "Our God," he says, "in heaven and on earth, did all that he willed." This David says concerning the Father. The Son shows this authority in the case of the leper: "I will," he says, "be cleansed!" The blessed Paul, bearing witness to the Holy Spirit as well, writes such things: "All these things the one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each individually as it wills." If, therefore, in the instruction of the world, in the teaching of baptism, and further in the account of creation and the power of authority, the one name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit has been handed down to us conjointly, what argument will remove the Son and the Spirit from being of the divine and blessed substance? And let no one object to us, as if we, having promised one thing, have gone through another, if indeed, having promised to show the identity of substance, we have provided the proofs that the Son and the Spirit are ranked together with the Father. For the argument of the ranking presents nothing other than the identity of substance of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and let the objector take up the distinction and examine it with precision.

For there he will find the word of the essence being fulfilled in the order of conjunction. From above, then, the beings were divided for us into two, into uncreated and created nature; and of the uncreated, proofs were acknowledged by us, that it is both lordly and free from all necessity, and further that according to its authority it both does and is able to do whatever it wills; and of the created, that it is slavish by contrast and follows lordly laws, and further that it is able to fulfill only the service which it has received from the divinity. With the division thus holding, affirming that there is nothing between divinity and creation, everything that is different from creation is clearly not different from the divine. If, then, it was shown by us through many arguments that the Son and the Spirit are different from creation, since they are numbered with no created thing, but are everywhere joined with the Father, how is it not of the utmost folly not to consider them of the uncreated essence? For of the two, one must necessarily fall away; for one must either, by showing them to be of the created, separate them from the uncreated, or, by declaring them of the uncreated, necessarily separate them from the created. But they were shown to be both separated from the created and joined with the uncreated; and nothing was acknowledged to be between these. The remaining possibility would be that they share the essence of that to which they were everywhere joined. For if, as has been said (for it is good to take it up for a more complete demonstration), both in the

given in the teaching of Christ concerning the world, both in the instruction on baptism, and further in the divine teaching and the creation of the universe, and indeed also in the authority of power, similar and identical things concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit have been handed down, who is so obtuse as to dispute their communion in essence? Therefore it is fitting to confess one God, known in Father and Son and Holy Spirit, on the one hand recognizing Father and Son and Holy Spirit as the hypostases of the one divinity, on the other understanding God as the common essence of the hypostases. For a monad is conceived in a triad, and a triad is known in a monad. And how this is so, I would neither wish another to inquire, nor could I persuade myself to dare with a clay tongue and a defiling little body the discourses concerning the ineffable. For even if a pure mind is established in us, through which we often grasp in speech things beyond us, yet weighed down by the companion flesh, it is too weak for the clear comprehension of greater things, since the earthly frame burdens the thoughtful mind. Therefore in no way is it possible for humans, being human, to reach that first and blessed essence. And what am I saying of the divine essence! But not even of the things mystically accomplished around it. For nothing of divine things is clear to humans, as some wise man of the Greeks declared; and I accept what was said as true.

When I hear Paul, the chosen vessel, who ascended to the third heaven, who heard unspeakable things which it is not lawful for human tongues to utter, who had within him the giver of words speaking, testifying that he has partial knowledge in himself and saying, "Now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I was fully known," and again, "We know in part and we prophesy in part," how can I believe that the perfect knowledge of divine things belongs to human beings? For if even those who have reached Paul's measure have only a dim and partial knowledge (for seeing through a mirror and in a riddle hints at dimness), who is so bold in folly as to claim perfect knowledge of divine things for himself? And we too, knowing the ineffable and impassable nature of the mysteries, utter the words of David to the God of all: "Your knowledge has been made wonderful to me, it has been strengthened, I cannot approach it." But it is both holy to say these things and holier to think them; for yielding to the divine would be characteristic of a pious and prudent man. Therefore, as far as the secure investigation of divine things, and as far as pious worship, we understand in a manner befitting God. For it is not because the divine is wholly incomprehensible that we should therefore not seek at all about it, but rather spend the time of life in idleness; rather, according to the measure allotted to each by the Lord, we should diligently conduct the examination of knowledge, since it is precisely incomprehensible.

persuaded, but insofar as we are able, through contemplation, to unite ourselves with him. Let us therefore understand the Son to have been generated from the Father as light shining forth from light. For the image is sufficient to represent both the coeternity and the identity of essence and the impassibility of the generation. For if it shone forth, it subsisted together with that from which it shone forth, without time. For by what interval of time could the shining forth of light be interrupted? And if it is light from light, this would indicate its identity with that from which it was generated. And if again it is light, both that which is generated and that which generates, the generation would be impassible. For the shining forth does not occur by a cutting or flowing or separation of the light, but proceeds impassibly from its very essence. Let us hold the same knowledge also concerning the Holy Spirit, that, just as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit; but it will differ in the manner of its existence. For the one, light from light, shone forth in a generative manner, while the other, also light from light, proceeded not in a generative manner but in a processional manner; thus it is coeternal with the Father, thus identical in essence, thus having proceeded impassibly from there. Thus in the Trinity we conceive the Monad, and in the Monad we recognize the Trinity. Having grasped these things and received this measure from the Lord of knowledge, we set forth what has been apprehended to the sons of the Church, exhorting them to think in this way, until they receive a more perfect shining forth of knowledge, since it is prudent to attend with care to what has been set forth by us.

We did not imagine anything clever, excessive, or boastful as a demonstration, but rather, collecting as much as possible the knowledge of the one divinity in three complete hypostases, in a manner more pious and fitting to true knowledge, we have set it forth. And thus holding these beliefs concerning the holy Trinity, let us proceed to the grace of the Word from the economy, by means of reason. For the Word of the economy is also ineffable; but we must examine this too, as far as we are able. When the Word saw that the re-formation of his own creatures was needed and that the debt of Adam’s punishment, which he incurred by transgressing, had to be paid, then, without departing from the heavens, he came down to us; for the descent was not of a body, but a will of divine energy. Using a virgin, descended from the line of David because of the promises made to him, for the need of the economy, and entering her womb like a divine seed, he fashioned a temple for himself, the perfect man, taking a part of her nature and substantializing it into the formation of the temple. Having put this on in extreme union, he came forth as both God and man, and thus fulfilled the economy concerning us. Since Adam, by sinning, subjected the race to death and made the whole nature liable to the debt, the Son, being God and man, recalls Adam’s transgression. And as man, he lives blamelessly and accepts voluntary death, through his extreme way of life.

of the deity, obliterating the transgression, and through the death not owed, abolishing the one that was owed; but as God, he raises what was dissolved and utterly destroys death itself. Therefore, the Son is both the one who was dissolved and the one who raised what was dissolved: as man, he was dissolved; as God, he raised. So when you hear the contrary utterances concerning the one Son, assign the sayings accordingly to the natures: if something is great and divine, attribute it to the divine nature; if something is small and human, reckon it to the human nature. For thus you will escape the discordance of the utterances, each nature receiving what is natural to it, and you will confess the one Son as both before all ages and recent according to the divine scriptures. And let no one ask me the manner of the union. For I will not be ashamed to confess my ignorance; on the contrary, I will rather boast, believing in the ineffable and being a mystic of those things of which both reason and intellect are powerless to grasp. So let no one expect to learn anything clear about this from me or from another. But if you wish to know as much as our intellect has comprehended about this, there is no envy toward the children of the church, but having indicated this much about what is said, that those who undertake the exposition need divine inspiration and cooperation, I proceed to the comprehension to the best of my ability. Some, then, have conceived the union as that of soul to body and have expounded it thus; and the example is fitting, if not in every respect, at least in some.

For just as a single human being has two different natures within himself, and reasons in one way and enacts what has been reasoned in another (for with the intellectual soul he conceives, for example, the construction of a ship, and with his hands he brings the conceived thing to completion), so the Son, being one and having two natures, in one nature worked the divine signs, and in the other nature received the lowly things. For insofar as he is from the Father and God, he works the miracles; insofar as he is from the Virgin and man, he willingly and naturally endured the cross and the passion and similar things. If one accepts the analogy up to this point, the image holds well; but if one compares the whole with the whole analogy, the differences will appear. For man, even if he shows two natures in himself, is not two natures, but is from the two; for just as the body is composed of fire, air, water, and earth, but one would no longer say that the body is fire or air or any of the others (for it is not identical to the things from which it is composed, since the account of the composite and of the components is different), so man, even if he is from soul and body, is other than the things from which he is. Here you may learn what I say more clearly. We build a house from different materials; but no one would say that the house is identical to the materials from which it is. For the stones and the timbers and the rest are not simply the house; for if this were so, even before the construction, one would justly call the materials themselves, when separated, a house.

he would say. But such a joining of materials to each other naturally produces a house for us. Indeed, when the house is dissolved, the materials remain, preserving their own proper nature, but we say the house has perished, which such a combination of materials had produced. So it is with the human being. Even if he consists of soul and body, he would not be identical to the things from which he is composed, but something else, so that the human being, from the very conjunction of soul and body, is produced as a third, different thing. And this is clear from the fact that, when the separation of these occurs, the body remains, preserving its own proper nature (for it is three-dimensional, even if it is dead), and the soul likewise remains rational, even if separated; but the human being, whom the conjunction of each produced, has perished. But Christ was not produced as Christ from divinity and humanity, being something other than the two, but he is both God and man, each of the two: God, understood by the working of miracles, and man, shown by the similarity of nature in suffering. Moreover, the soul, preoccupied with many of the body's passions, often suffers beforehand along with the body, and continuously suffers with it, often appearing to be distressed by the cutting of the body and altered even before the body's suffering, and after the cutting no less receiving the pains in a state of passion. This, no pious person would dare to say or accept concerning the divinity of Christ. Therefore, the example of the human being is to be accepted in some respects, but avoided in the rest.

We, however, have already previously acknowledged that we are ignorant of the clear apprehension of this truth, and now no less do we gratefully confess the knowledge granted to us according to the measure given, as we strive to refer the things of the example to a more pious and clear account, and we wish to compare the union not to some small and cheap image, but to a great one befitting the generation from the Father. Since, then, the Word has come into the world as light, having shone forth from the causeless light, I wish the example of the union also to be light. Let the Word, therefore, be conceived as the primordial light, which was produced by the first utterance of God through the Word itself, and the solar body as the human body, with which the Word was united according to an ineffable principle. And do not think that the sun is a different light from the former; for it is not as if the first light were deficient for the illumination of the whole that the sun came into being to supply the deficiency; for the craftsman is not such as to have neither foreseen the perfect nor fashioned the radiance for the need supplied from him. There is, therefore, one primordial light, and the solar body was constructed for it, upon which the light, having been concentrated, rides everywhere, having been diffused from the beginning. This also fulfills for us the course of the hours of the day through the body without fault. For if it had not been bound to the body, but were wholly in the whole air, it would have been

poured out, it would not have defined for us the measures of the day nor established orderly motion and the creator. But if you say to me that day and night existed even before the generation of the sun, first you will likewise admit that the nature of light sufficed to illuminate everything, and then, having sought the cause of the generation of the sun, you will find it to be none other than that which we have just stated. For formerly, light was wholly diffused throughout the air, and it neither traversed uniform motion nor defined the measures of the day, but, being contracted, gave way to night. Therefore, light is one thing, and the solar body which receives it is another. So, with light standing in this relation to the solar body, you may now examine the account with precision. 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 the sun distinctively and the other light separately, but one sun is said to be the light together with the body, so in the case of the true light and the holy body, after the union no one would speak of the divine Word as the Son separately, and again of the man as the Son, but will conceive of one and the same as both, as one light and one sun, both the received light and the receiving body. Again, just as there is one light and one sun, but two natures, that of light and that of the solar body, so here there is one Son and Lord and Christ and Only-begotten, but two natures, one above us and the other our own.

And again, just as in the case of light one could not separate the energy from its receptive body, but by dividing in thought one would recognize the nature to which the energy belongs, so in the case of the one only-begotten son of God, one could not separate any energy from the one sonship, but by thought one would recognize the nature to which the product is proper. Thus we, having made the pattern of the divine union, have taken refuge, as it were, in a more pious conception, and even if we have not attained the truth itself, we have at least gathered a sufficient image for pious inquiry. If any of these things should seem to you somehow closer to the truth, praise the one who has given the measure of knowledge; but if you have learned something more pious from another, praise that guardian again; for he, being long ago, has acted into another. Having therefore set forth the right confession adequately to the best of our ability, having bid farewell to the sons of the church, and having acknowledged thanks to the one who has provided the supply of discourse, we shall for the rest live our life, having put the discourse to rest in quiet conduct. But I see some calling back the discourse again and pointing out a stadium for another inquiry and forcing it to run again, perhaps also testing whether it has grown weary from the previous courses. The discourse imitates a spring, which, when drawn from more continuously, pours forth clearer streams. Whole

has leaned toward the course and has not yet thrust forward from the gates, and awaits the signal from the starter; and for you, who wish to signify the question, I am ready to urge on and cast down disbelief and to shut up the god-fighting tongues and to distinguish what one must seek concerning divine matters and what one must believe, and to be proclaimed victor by the law of the course. How then, he says, is the Logos everywhere in essence, and how is he in his own temple? For if he is in all things as there, the temple will have nothing more than all things. And where shall we place the "in which dwells the whole fullness of the divinity bodily"? But if one were to grant that he is more in the temple, he is not present to all things in essence, which is proper to God. A clear refutation of disbelief is the "how" when spoken of God. For how is he the creator of heaven, how of earth and sea, of air and plants and all animals and of you yourself, who seek everything about God with precision? But you will surely say that by abundance of power he brought forth all things. Was the power of God present to the things that come to be accidentally or essentially? If accidentally, then as they exist, even before they came to be, since the accidental does not exist by itself but subsists in certain pre-existing subjects. But if this is absurd, it remains that the power is present to all things essentially. Therefore, since the power was present essentially to all things that come to be, did the so-called temple have nothing more than them? This argument is perplexing, and that one is perplexing, and faith is the solution of both. You see how the argument, having set out, cast down disbelief; see the god-fighting tongues being shut up.

Tell us, then, you who pretend to profess Christianity, who seek and put forward such things for the abolition of the two natures, who contrive these perplexities of mixture and confusion and of change from body to divinity and the like, who sometimes say that the Word became flesh, sometimes that the flesh was substantialized into the Word, and through such perversions of your mind you are manifestly unable to think anything clearly: tell us, then, how the Word, having become flesh, did not leave the heavens. You will surely say that he remained God and thus became. Then tell us again, how he remained and became. For if he remained what he was, how did he become what he was not? But if he became what he was not, how did he remain what he was? You are at a loss for the solution; be at a loss also for the manner of the union. But you believe that he remained and became; believe also that the Word is present everywhere in essence and exists in a special manner in his own temple. Let us ask again, how after the union the body was deified. Was it changed into the substance of divinity, or did the body remain a human body, but remain incorruptible and immortal through the union of the Word? If the latter, the body remains a body, since God is not a body, but it has partaken of divine dignity, not nature, by the consent of the Word. But if the Word, through the union,

into his own substance he changed the body. Let us ask again: how was the body changed into the substance of the Word? If it was changed into the substance of the Word, did it provide an addition to that substance? Then before this the substance would have been deficient, if indeed it received an addition. But it received nothing from this. Therefore that which was changed would be nothing. And how could nothing fall into divine substance? But, they say, the Word did not dissolve the body into its own substance, but transformed it into a divine substance. Let them answer us again: is this divine substance other than his own, or the same as his own? And if it is the same as his own, we shall proclaim two divine substances of the Word: one which he had from being born of the Father, and another according to which he also made the body itself. But if it is other than his own, and not divine, they will certainly say it is created. For between divinity and creation there would be nothing intermediate. And what necessity of the change for the body, if it was again transformed into a created substance?

You are dizzy with perplexities, and perhaps you even fear that something said might dissolve the principle of our faith. But when I, in my searching, am at a loss, then I cry out the wonder of the Christian mystery, that our matters are beyond mind, beyond reason, beyond comprehension. And when you, too, in seeking such things, encounter some perplexity, offer to the matters under investigation the ready solution of faith, reasoning that wherever God is, even if something of what is said is unknown, whether due to the superiority of nature or the manner of economy, no harm from this befalls those who are ignorant. How have you not at all feared the audacity of attempting to direct divine things? Or have you not heard the divine words, which, restraining those among us from such undertakings, set before us the image of the clay and the potter, teaching us by this that we must not become meddlers or examiners of divine things, but yield to the divine will, just as the clay yields to the potter? Be cautious, then, at long last, and with a very moderate disposition, put your reasonings to rest, and let faith alone resolve the perplexities within you, and tremble at the divine words according to what is written, so that, having become worthy of divine repose, you may hear those blessed words from the God of all, saying, "Upon whom shall I look, but upon the humble and quiet one who trembles at my words?" With these things, then, having shut up the tongues of the god-fighters, the word, hastening toward the distinction, runs on.

But you, the children of the Church, who conduct your inquiry piously and bring the questions of what is perplexing not for the sake of testing but, if possible, for learning, prepare your mind for me here. The form of divine teaching is manifold, but it is summed up as in a heading into both the learning and observance of commandments, and into divine knowledge and worship. Therefore, lovers of piety will attempt to be ignorant of nothing concerning the observance and learning of the commandments, and before these, indeed, concerning divine worship. As for the knowledge of divine things, they will wish to trace it as far as possible; but if they lack strength, let them worship it as unattainable, so that the things of our faith may not be emptied. With us adhering to this, what must be sought and what must be believed, let us then, having embarked the word upon the contests of the course, hasten to declare it victorious. Let the word now embark upon the contests. We confess that we are ignorant of the clear knowledge of truth, since this is a great part of victory. But as far as is attainable by human nature, having examined this piously, I will resolve for you the matter under inquiry. For how, it is said, is the Word in its own temple according to essence and likewise in all existing things, and what more will the temple have than all things? Let us then hear the Word speaking: He who is in the bosom of the Father is present according to essence and indivisibly to all things. And we do not say that He is in the Father in the same way as He is in the rest, not because the essence is contracted when it comes to be in others, but because of the measure of those receiving, who lack the capacity for divine reception.

Thus, we say that in his own temple he is inseparable and, as it were, that the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and we affirm that he is present to all in essence, and not in the same way; for the body does not receive the rays of the Godhead. And learn what is said by an example; for I would not shrink from the magnitude of the inquiry, speaking piously to the children of the Church. The sun is common to all of us each day, and it does not strike one less and another more, but sends forth its energy equally to all. But if someone has strong eyes, he receives more of its ray, not because the sun is more extended toward him than toward others, but because of the power of his own vision; while one with weak eyes will not be able to look even at the radiance of the light itself because of the weakness of his eyes. Thus understand for me the sun of righteousness, that God is present to all equally in essence, but we all, like weak and bleary eyes with the rheum of sins, are unable to admit the light, while his own temple, like a most pure eye, receives the whole splendor of the light, having been formed from the Holy Spirit and separated once for all from sin. For just as the sun, striking all equally in energy, is not received equally by all, so the Word, present to all in essence, is not present to others and to his own temple in the same way. You see how the Word, having run the course, was declared victor.

Let him then wear the crown and go in procession, and be adorned with the garlands of victory, and celebrate the defeat of his adversaries! But we, with Christ leading, sing the victory hymn, crying out, "The noble contest, O Word, you have fought, you have completed the course, you have kept the faith; now the crown of righteousness awaits you." Rather, let us hymn the one who granted the victory, the most divine Word, the true light that illumines every man coming into the world, through whom are all things, in whom we live and move and have our being, through whom we resolve such turns of argument, the guardian, the governor, the benefactor, to whom we continually offer a sacrifice of praise and pour out as to God sincere prayers, and offer the fragrance of deeds, turning ourselves back to him, breathing him in, reasoning of him, attending to him, hymning him in all things, the blessed hope and provider of the highest kingdom.