In illud: Pone manum tuam

Of the same author, on the saying of Abraham which says: "Place your hand under my thigh," and on various testimonies. I marveled with you, O lovers of Christ, at the new things of the evangelical grace proclaimed through the old covenant. I was enlightened with you in mind, having seen the apostolic character shining forth in the prophetic utterances. I acknowledge the gain, that I may receive the reward. I saw strange mysteries proclaimed through the old: Abraham swearing by the thigh and putting forward the thigh, while calling to witness the maker of heaven and earth in the saying. For he says, "Place your hand under my thigh and swear to me by the God who made the heaven and the earth." But a question arises. For if the saying about the seed destined to flourish from the thighs of Jacob is spoken according to "A ruler will not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs," how then will the oath be found to refer to the Savior? Since Isaac had already been born and the seed had already come forth, and when the oath was made, there was no hope of seed in Abraham's thigh.

For Abraham had in himself the saving seed, concerning which Paul says: "It was spoken to Abraham and to his seed." And considering the text and interpreting it, he says: "It is not said, 'To your seeds,' as of many, but 'And to your seed,' which is Christ." It has therefore been demonstrated that Christ is the seed of Abraham according to the flesh; and fittingly the oath was made by the seed. But the question is: how did he swear by the thigh, when the saving flower had already come forth? But since once the member became an instrument and the divine seed once dwelt there, he swears as in a temple. And he who swears by the temple swears by the one who dwelt in it. Who bears witness to this word? Our Savior himself, saying to the Pharisees: "Woe to you, foolish and blind Pharisees, because you say: 'If someone swears in the temple, it is nothing; but if someone swears by the gold of the temple, he is liable.' And what immediately? 'Foolish and blind; for which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?' Therefore I say to you: 'He who swears in the temple swears by the one who dwelt in it.'

Just as a royal house, once it has received a king, even if a second or a third comes, and even if the king departs from the inhabited world, the place is once for all set apart because it once received a king, so also the members of the patriarch, by having once become instruments of the future economy, were a temple of the promised benefaction. And the oath is not unjust, but true testimony. He swears, then, by the seed, and interprets what the seed is: "Place your hand," he says, "under my thigh, and I swear you by the Lord God of heaven and earth." Therefore our savior is God of heaven and earth. For this reason also in the prophet Zechariah, when various visions were sent and appeared to the saint, this was one part of the visions: "And I looked up," he says, "with my eyes and saw; and behold, a golden lampstand entirely, and seven lamps upon the lampstand, and seven cups of the lamps, and seven flames, and on the right of the lampstand and on the left two branches of olive trees. And I said to the angel speaking to me: 'Lord, what are these?'" Since it was a vision, showing one thing and leading to another for interpretation. And the things appearing were not themselves significant of themselves, but indicative of other things, the prophet asks: "Lord, what are these?" If he were asking about the visible thing, he would be asking wrongly. Do you not know what a lampstand is and what an olive tree is? But the prophet seeks not the visible things, but the things contemplated. "What are these?" And the angel: "Do you not recognize what these are?" "No, Lord." He gratefully confesses his ignorance and is taught by the truth. This man is also a brother of the eunuch who heard from Philip.

Do you then understand what you read? And he says graciously, "How, unless someone guides me?" Do you not know what these things are? And he says, "No, lord." Who are the two branches of olive trees on the right and left of the lampstand? These are the two sons of quality, who stand beside the lord of the whole earth. Interpreting the olive trees, he interprets along with the olive trees also what the lampstand is. Pay close attention. The lampstand stood; the branches stood beside the lampstand. But the interpreting angel does not show the olive trees standing beside the lampstand, but beside God, so that the lampstand is a type of God, or rather of our savior and his incarnate economy. Do you not know what these things are? "No, lord." These branches, the two, are sons of quality, who stand beside the lord of the whole earth, not beside the lampstand according to appearance, but beside the lord of the whole earth. He introduces a seven-light lampstand because of the lord's incarnate economy. For the lampstand was truly the flesh of the Lord, which displayed the illuminations of the Holy Spirit with sevenfold grace. For a rod will come forth, says Isaiah, from the root of Jesse, and a flower will rise from it, and the spirit of God will rest upon it. Which one? That which is manifold in its energies and simple in its nature. The spirit of God will rest upon it. Here he interprets the substance, the Holy Spirit itself; but what follows speaks of the energies of the spirit: spirit of wisdom and understanding, spirit of counsel and might, spirit of knowledge and piety, spirit of fear of God.

the seven graces of the holy spirit, the seven energies that rested upon the lordly body, he shapes in the form of lamps. Why seven lamps? Because of the luminous nature of the energy of the holy spirit. Then, descending again, he says: These are the seven eyes of the Lord that look upon the whole earth. Do you see how the truth clarifies itself on its own and has no need of human reasoning? But they stand beside the Lord of the whole earth. Zechariah calls the Lord the savior of the whole earth according to the incarnate economy. Peter, speaking to Cornelius, the summit of the apostles, says: We know the word that occurred in Judea, Jesus from Nazareth, whom God anointed with the holy spirit. And again the same: The word throughout all Judea and the word that God sent, proclaiming peace to the sons of Israel; this one is Lord of all. The prophet says: Lord of the earth, but the evangelist Peter calls him Lord of all.

This is the lord of all, of all—both of those in heaven and those on earth and those beneath the earth, and of the visible and the invisible. This one is the lord of all. Hence John speaks in harmony, saying: "The one who comes from above is over all." It is necessary, however, to seek out precisely and resolve the heretical strife, since, having followed the apostolic expression badly, not understanding it piously but misinterpreting it impiously, the children of the heretics think that he received as a reward for the cross the position of being above all, and that because of his suffering and because he endured the cross, God exalted him. They follow the apostle's wording, not understanding its force; and they have followed the expression without examining the theory. The statement runs thus: "He humbled himself to the point of death, and death by the cross; therefore God also exalted him." Because of the passion, you say, as a reward for the passion God gave him the exaltation—you say this, heretic. And he gave him a name above every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee might bend—of the heavenly, the earthly, and the subterranean beings. "Do you see," he says, "that after the cross he was exalted? Do you see," he says, "that after the passion he received the exaltation as a reward?" If, then, he was exalted after the cross, as you claim, why did John the Baptist, before the passion, before the cross, say: "The one who comes from above is over all"—not "becomes"? Therefore also Jesus, speaking to the Jews, said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am." For he is always, and was, and will be, and will have no end.

We must, brothers, pay the debt we owe and not, on the pretext of digressions, deny our promises. Let the glory of Christ be proclaimed, and the majesty of the Father. Let the Holy Spirit be proclaimed, let the Only-begotten be exalted, let the Father be glorified. Let no one think that the rank is overturned if we mention the Spirit first, then the Son, then the Father; or the Son first, or the Father. For it has no order—not as being disorderly, but as transcending order. For just as God has no shape—not as being shapeless, but as unshaped—and just as God has no form—not as being formless, but as incorporeal—so the divine nature has no order—not as being disorderly, but as transcending order. I say "Father first," not first in order, but in conception, since he is the begetter of the Only-begotten, since he is the root of the holy fruit, since he is the eternal light that is the offspring of eternal light. Indeed, my brothers, if someone among us today attempted in church, among an orthodox people, among a people filled with all right knowledge, to place the Son before the Father, would he not be blasphemed by the orthodox themselves? Indeed, if someone dared to say in church, "May Christ bless you and his Father," would he not be considered disorderly, because he did not place the root first and then bring forth the fruit? Indeed, if someone said, "The Son will save us and the Father," would he not be thought to create confusion and to transgress the order? But these things were so judged by ungrateful judges; but before truth that judges and the apostolic vote that brings victory, it is indifferent whether one mentions the Son first, or the Father, or the Spirit.

Listen to Paul, the great herald, writing to the Thessalonians, how he says: "Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father will sanctify us." First Son and second Father (O soul filled with holy light), because there is no order in the holy nature; but whatever is placed first is understood as of equal honor, and the second is not diminished, and the third is not insulted. Therefore, he pronounces the names indifferently, since he knows the nature is indivisible and the kingdom undivided. Let us ask Saint Paul, from where did he take the starting points for theologizing in this way, or for doxologizing in this way, or for placing the Son before the Father, not in order, not in power, but in wording. Why did he mention the Son first and then the Father? Let Paul speak, defending himself and instructing the Church. "I utter nothing from myself; Christ dictates the doctrines through me. Or do you seek proof of the Christ speaking in me? Christ speaks through me. Do not accuse; do not seize upon the master's voice. But can you not understand Christ speaking through me? Listen to him speaking plainly through himself." For if the names of the holy Trinity were subject to order, and the first spoken was first in power, and the second second in order, and the third third in diminution, would not the Savior himself, being truth, have confused the word of truth? And where did the Savior first mention himself, and then the Father? "If anyone," he says, "keeps my commandments, I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him.

Since he surpassed in rank (the children of heretics say, and they want the son to be like some prefect of a king to the father), let them be asked: did a prefect ever dare to say about a king, "I and the king give orders"? From things among us, understand things above us. Did a created nature take precedence over the uncreated? Did a created nature, as you say, dare to say, counting itself with the incomparable superiority, "We will come and make a dwelling with him"? But through "I and the father" he showed the indifference of the names; through "We will come and make a dwelling" he showed the equal honor of the activity. Thus also in another passage, when the apostle Philip says, "Lord, show us the father, and that is enough for us," the savior answers, "Have I been with you so long and you have not known me, Philip?" The answer is contrary to the question. Did I not ask about you? I said, "Show us the father." But he says, "Have I been with you so long and you have not known me?" If he is unlike, how is the unlike shown through the unlike? How is the great seen through the small? How is the one superior in rank seen through the inferior? How is the creator seen through the servant? "Have I been with you so long?" And he did not say, "The father is with you," but "I am." For when I am, the father is. "Have I been with you so long and you have not known me?" Good is the "Have you not known me?" He says, "Show," but the savior says, "Have you not known me?" wanting to show that not sight, but knowledge presents God. "Do you not believe that I am in the father and the father is in me?" Again the "I," and then the "Father.

I am in the Father and the Father is in me." How then do you say, "Show us the Father"? That is, "How did you expect to see him as another?" "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," and the Son is known through the Father and the Father through the Son. How do you say, "Show us," as if seeking to see the Father as someone other than me? "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," not as if the nature were confused, nor as if one flask were stored inside another. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." It does not speak of a combination of bodies, but of a contemplation of concepts. I am in the Father (for the Father is not known without the Son), and the Father is in me (for the Son does not appear without the Father), just as the mind is contemplated in the word and the word in the mind. How can I know your thought except through what you utter? Your word presents your mind, and your mind in turn interprets your word. It is not possible to see the word without understanding the thought, nor to grasp the thought without the word being interpreted. For this reason the Evangelist says, "In the beginning was the Word," in order to show the impassibility of the generation. What the word is in relation to the mind, that the only-begotten Word is in relation to the Father. And here is the remarkable thing. I will take up again some of what was said earlier. It was said before that from things among us you will learn how things above us are. The word is inside with that which generated it; is it visible with the visible? It is invisible with the invisible, intelligible with the intelligible, incorporeal with the incorporeal. But when the word is about to come forth, it proceeds to the mouth and there clothes itself in voice, not that a different nature provides the voice for it, but the word itself weaves the utterance for itself.

And the one invisible in nature with the Father, having clothed himself in voice, comes forth and becomes manifest to all, who before was hidden. Then, having come forth, he fills everything and does not depart from the mind that gave him birth. For which of men, when he speaks a word and teaches others, empties himself of the word? If I utter something and it reaches the ears of others, has it left my mind desolate? Has the word not gone forth outside and remained within? Has it not filled countless ears and not withdrawn from the one that gave it birth? Then, the human word, when sent forth from the one that gave it birth, goes outside and does not abandon the one that gave it birth. But the divine Word, when he appeared in the world for our sake, did he leave the paternal bosom desolate? Not at all. But here is the remarkable thing: countless people hear one and the same divine Word, and though he enters into so many, he is not divided, but he is whole with each of us who hear, whole with all. And did the Father give birth by flux and division, and was he divided and separated, as they say? Let the Savior say to them: Search the scriptures. Search, do not corrupt. Search, not reading superficially, but tracking the depths of the meanings. God gave the scriptures, but he did not lay bare the contemplations; he left them for your course, to test your gratitude and see your zeal, to see if you serve the scriptures or force the scriptures. For just as God set forth the nature of things but hid the arts, and all things were projected by God, but art was produced from human thought, so it is with the scriptures.

But to make it clear: God gave stones, God gave the nature of stones, not a ready-made building; he gave wheat, not bread; he gave a grape cluster, not wine; he gave the nature of wool, not a garment; he gave earth that produces gold, but not gold itself. Why? Because he makes man in the image of God, he shares the creation: he himself creates, and by that image's craft he gives form to the creation. Since he makes man in his own image, he shares with him the nobility of what has come into being. He himself works as a creator, and as God, having brought all things from non-being into being, he himself introduces the nature that did not exist. But he allows the image to adorn what has been produced. Consider what man was who first fashioned a plow: how did he conceive of cutting wood, inserting iron in the middle, devising a yoke bound by harmony, straightening its rhythm, yoking oxen together? There was wood, there was iron, but the craft was not present. Who told you, man, that a plow is put together this way? Who suggested to you to soften the untamed nature of iron with fire? Who showed you how to work a small needle from such thickness? Who conceived in thought the construction of doors from stones? From where did you learn the design of roofs? Tell me, man. Much, he says, you marvel in ignorance. You see the image of God and ask to learn?

For this reason, brothers, human nature everywhere imitates its own master, adorning nature by art. But as long as it imitates within measure, it is good; when it exceeds the measures, it is insulted by its lack of measure. For example: it devised how to subdue the ox, the horse, the camel, and all the irrational animals given for service; but from greed it devised to mix things contrary to nature. It mixed a donkey with a horse, which God did not will, but from the beginning said, "Let the earth bring forth quadrupeds and reptiles according to kind." But greed mixed things contrary to nature. God, punishing the lack of measure, made the invention barren. Hence a mule does not give birth, because it is not from those that then came into being, which heard, "Increase and fill the earth." Nevertheless, even before it acts, he allows his image what it wishes, in order to show its power and to punish its lack of measure. Again, the lack of measure of desire undertook to make the form of a human, imitating, it says, God working; and it makes an image of a body and forces nature by art. And since it heard that God made man from earth and molded him, art, being at a loss to imitate its own master in truth, procures the impossible by its devices, and gathers roots and mixes colors and imitates an open eye, seeing and not seeing; an ear spread open, but not hearing; nostrils stretched straight, but unable to draw breath; a mouth well-formed, but deprived of voice; feet well-proportioned, but not having fitness for running, in order to show that it allowed the image;

so that my own activity might be shown. He did not permit touching everything, lest, falling into arrogance, she should despair of her own salvation. Nevertheless, he permitted painters to work from the earth, so that he might put to shame those who deny that God fashioned man from earth. Another art imitated the creator. It saw a body cut by iron, a part of the flesh cut off by the iron. The hollowed part must be filled, the eaten flesh must be rebuilt. There is no creator to mold flesh. What then? The art of the image, imitating the nature of the master, ran to the earth, from which the body comes; it prepares drugs, makes plasters; and one cleanses, the other builds up. And see the wonderful thing. God sits like a father and teacher, watching the works of his own image. And just as a father asks his son, "This thought, what does it mean?" not in order to learn, but in order to test, so the source of goods always, educating its own image, presents questions to it. He presented to Adam the irrational animals, the birds, to see what he would call them, not in order that he who foreknows all might learn, but in order to test whether the image was fit for understanding.

Building came, carpentry came, shipbuilding, metalworking, weaving, observation of the stars—not the meddlesome kind, but that which observes the arrangement, that which is useful for sailors, that which watches the risings of stars and recognizes the season for fair sailing, not that which fashions horoscopes and mythologizes fate, but that which follows the voice of the master: "Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven, and let them be for signs and for days and for seasons." The image advanced and tracks down nature. It seeks herbs, it finds them; it seeks roots, it grasps them. It is found to be the artisan of all things and the inventor of all things. But lest it think that it discovered these things from itself and not from the one who placed the power in nature, through a single word it shows that the teacher of all these things for our nature is God. The blessed Solomon came forward, saying: "For he himself gave me the unerring knowledge of beings, to know the constitution of the cosmos and the energy of the elements, beginnings and ends and the middle of times, cycles of the year and positions of stars, natures of animals and passions of wild beasts, differences of plants and powers of roots, all that is invisible and visible I, the human being, the image, have known." How did you know? For the wisdom that is the artisan of all things taught me. It taught you the measured things, not the unmeasured things. For see how into many unmeasured things human art poured itself out, and it was the image of God.

He observed how the instrument of the voice is produced, and, contemplating nature, he imitates nature by art. He devises the voice of the instrument, this many-reeded instrument, woven from many reeds. And see what he does, how art has made itself precise in relation to nature. He devised bellows, not producing breath from themselves, but being expanded and borrowing alien breath. Then from the two bellows into a wind-chest, sending the breath to all the reeds, he also devised that the breath flows and there is no sound until the finger shapes the note. And whence this, O man? Whence did you construct an instrument and a receptacle for breath? Why does the flowing breath not produce a sound when the pipes are open? "You are much astonished," he says, "as one inexperienced." I said earlier: I am an image of God; I saw my own nature and I imitated myself. How did you imitate yourself? I saw in myself also this borrowed breath. For the chest, being continuously expanded and contracted, receives the inflow of breath. I see two arteries sending the breath. It passes as through a pipe into the mouth. I see that the breath proceeds and speech does not occur unless the tongue shapes the sound. I saw myself and I emulated myself; from myself I grasped the art of the master, as David says: "Your knowledge has been made wonderful from me." I saw myself and I praised the craftsman; I imitated my own master; by art I represented nature.

Nor is the instrument a base thing; but when it becomes an instrument of shameful songs [...] just as divine things were spoken from the beginning, they were not profane. Even if it was devised for luxury through intemperance. Yet if it were consecrated to God, as from the beginning, it would not be profane. Hence David says: Praise him with the psaltery and the kithara, with strings and instrument, with clear-sounding cymbals, with cymbals of acclamation, with the tympanum and the dance. Would that this invention had not been turned toward the luxury of licentiousness, nor toward the worship of idols. But if the fruits of what they devised were offered to God, the invention of the art would not have been blamed. If they had recognized the master, the kithara would not have been blamed. Would that God were proclaimed through the kithara. For this reason the blessed David, since he took up the kithara and through the kithara sang not shameful hymns but sent forth sacred words, the kithara became both consecrated to God and a means of expelling demons. For when a demon was striking, slapping, and casting down Saul the king, at that time, it is said, when the blessed David struck up the kithara, Saul became well and was relieved. Do you see that every art, if it were attuned to please God, would be nothing base? But everything would have turned out for us according to our intention.

But with what purpose did I come from theology to art and the imitation of an image? So that we might apply the Lord’s own utterance against the heretics. Which one? “Hypocrites, you know how to judge the face of heaven and earth. You have discovered arts, you have devised many inventions, and do you insult the master and craftsman of all things?” You, by your art, have imitated the master and have claimed to be like him according to image and likeness, and do you proclaim me, the creator, unlike the one who begot me? I freed you, who were subject to sin, and do you call me, the master of all, into subjection? Yes, it is written, it says, that “And the son will be subjected.” It is said, but according to the power of God. For the things spoken are not ours, but the things proclaimed are God’s. Then, to follow the wording (I grant that those who have heard know what is said)—so, to follow the wording: in the future creation, in the resurrection, he will then be subjected, and will you then become equal to an angel? For in the resurrection of the dead, the Savior says, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God. Do you rise from your own rank, and does the son come from lordship into subjection? Have you not heard Paul saying, “For creation was subjected to vanity, because even creation itself groans until now”? Creation—which? Heaven, earth, and all the rest. “For creation was subjected to vanity,” not willingly. To what vanity? To human vanity. Why does he call man vanity? As one who has turned aside from the image into the likeness of irrational beings. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” And David: “But all things together are vanity, every living man.

To this vanity, to the corrupted human, creation was subjected. How was it subjected? The sun rises for the unworthy, springs gush forth for the ungrateful, the earth bears fruit for the thankless. Creation was therefore subjected to vanity, not willingly. For if it were by its own will, it would not have willingly submitted to the unworthy, but because of the one who subjected it. And to what purpose is it subjected? In hope. In what hope? That creation itself (so says Paul) will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Is creation then freed, and the son enslaved? Search the scriptures, do not slander. Search, do not meddle. Search believing, not contradicting. From where did you learn to say: Was he born being or not being? From where did you learn to say: To beget and to create are the same for God? Did Peter teach you these things? Did Paul propose them? Or did the Savior hand them down to you? Read the scripture and respect the law. Yet he does not even abide by what he says. For when he asks: Was he born being or not being?, he lies. For what he does not confess, he examines.

First confess that he was begotten, and then ask whether he is or is not. You deny the fact and scrutinize the word? For one to whom you do not grant having been begotten, why do you seek inquiry about him? Was he begotten as being or as not being? Grant that he was begotten. First establish that he was begotten, and then inquire. You deny the nature and examine the term? Are "to create" and "to beget" the same? Whence the Son? Let one of them say. If the order of the two is not first clear, and then the meaning agrees, I cannot say: "To see" and "to look" are the same; for I said one thing. But if I say: "To hear" and "to see" are the same, then I seem to speak of things that differ, not indeed in sight, but agreeing in hearing, that they are the same in God's case. How do you know that "to create" and "to beget" are the same? For if he both begot and created, you rightly say they are the same. But if, according to you, he never begot but created, where is the sameness of begetting and creating? Empty boasting of words, words empty of the truth of things. Why do they quibble over "to beget" and "to create"? God, they say, is simple and not as we are. We beget with one part and create with another. For instance, we beget with generative parts, and create with the hand. Not so God, they say; for he is simple and formless. But in whatever manner he begets, in that manner he also creates. Since he boasts about invisible things, inflated by this untimely and vain philosophy, let one of the visible things persuade you that things that come to be do not have the same power in the same manner. Take my hand, the visible one, so that from visible things the refutation may run to the invisible.

This hand, being one in itself and working diverse things, cannot show the results in a single theory. For example, with the same hand I build and I destroy. Therefore, since building and destroying are done by the same hand, are they the same? But they are not the same. Since they say, "We beget in one way and create in another," I also say: In the same way I create, with the same hand I also demolish. With the same hand I both strike and heal. Will striking and healing then be the same? With the same hand I both push the one standing and raise the one fallen. With the same hand I both count and dissolve the count. Will counting and dissolving the count then be the same? Are these not beyond foolishness? Are these not myths and inopportune things? Does not Paul's soul groan, does not Peter resent such revelers against divine teaching? You have rejected the things of Christ and learned the things of others. Have you not heard the Lord saying, "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words"? Many often confess Christ, but are ashamed of his words. A heretic confesses Christ, but when he comes to the word "father" and "son," he is ashamed of the term and says, "Did the impassible one beget? Then it is by flux, then it is by making." Do you see that you are ashamed of the term? O the folly! They have become hunters of words and not accurate examiners of the power. For vanity has corrupted everything.

What I have often said is clear: these are the beginnings and sources of the heretics. If the Church has heretical teaching, name the originator of the aforementioned. Who is the one who generated this heresy against us, which you call a heresy? From the beginning, the apostles proclaimed. After the apostles, the Council of Nicaea confirmed. And to show that the faith was of the whole world, when so many were gathered, only seven disagreed, and they were excommunicated. The whole world agreed as one, because it was of the apostolic leaven. And see the wonderful thing. The new imitated the old through economy. When the kings of the Assyrians advanced upon the land of Palestine, Abraham went out against the foreigners, against five kings. The faithful one went out alone. And how many servants did he muster against them? Three hundred and eighteen household-born. As many as Abraham mustered against foreigners, so many did Christ muster against the heresies. As many as Abraham mustered against foreigners—or rather, as many as he mustered with himself—so many did Christ arm with himself against the heresies. Three hundred and eighteen bishops at Nicaea. And there, three hundred and eighteen household servants of Abraham. Why did he say household-born? For he also had purchased slaves. But he showed the genuine character of the household. And now Christ mustered not simply all, but the household-born, those proclaiming the one who is from the one who is, the living from the living, the light from the light.

What do you mean, "light and light"? What difference is there between "life and life"? What is the distinction? And here is the remarkable thing: the Father is called light, but the Son is called light with an addition. John the Evangelist says concerning the Father, "God is light." Concerning the Son, he says, "He was the true light." The Father is called light without qualification, because heretical audacities do not readily attack the divinity of the Father—although, in fact, the outrages dared against Christ ultimately refer the insult to the Father. Nevertheless, what is agreed upon, Scripture establishes with simple language; what is disputed, it fortifies with truth. The Father is light, and without addition; for it suffices that he is proclaimed to be recognized. The Son is light. But so that one might not say, "That is intelligible light, but the other is spurious," it says "true light." Again, so that no one might say, "Just as the sun is light and the moon is light, but one is great light and the other small light, so too the Father is light—great—and the Son is light—small," to prevent such talk, Isaiah anticipates, saying: "The land of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people sitting in darkness saw a great light." If God is light and great light, then God is great. If God is light, as it is written by John that "God is light," if God is the great light, then the Son is also great God. Great is the one who begot, and great is the one who was begotten; great is the root, great is the fruit; great is the light, and great is the radiance.

I know not small and great, but I know one great God, the Trinity. Great is God: "The great, eternal God," says Isaiah; and Paul says: "Awaiting the blessed hope and epiphany of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Great is God, great is our Lord, as David says, and great is his might. But since might and power are the same (for Christ is the power of God): "Great is our Lord," as if he said: Great is the Father, great is his power. Great is our Lord and great is his might. Great might, because great power, and the Holy Spirit, as the Savior says to the apostles: "Sit in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high." But see what they contrive concerning power. It is, they say, power as having the promise of wealth. For the Spirit is not called, they say, but a pledge of God. And listen how. The pledge is a part of a gift, not the whole gift, but a part of the whole. For it is written, they say, in the apostle: "Sealed with the Spirit of promise, the Holy Spirit, which is the pledge of our inheritance." See, they say, that it is a gift of God and not God. So then it is a gift and a pledge, a part from the whole. If then you see that God is also called a part, and not the whole, and a gift, and not the whole, what will you do? For it says: "The pledge of the inheritance." What is the pledge? What is the inheritance? What is the pledge of the inheritance? The inheritance is a gift from the one who gave the inheritance, not the one who is inherited. So it says: "The pledge of our inheritance is the Spirit.

If the fact that the Spirit is called an earnest money scandalizes your soul, what will you do when you see that God himself is called an inheritance? Pay close attention to how he is not only called an inheritance, but is himself called an inheritance. Listen to David saying: "The Lord is a portion of my inheritance." God is a portion of my inheritance, the Spirit is an earnest of inheritance. If calling the Father a portion of an inheritance diminishes him, then calling the Spirit an earnest of an inheritance also diminishes the Spirit's dignity. David says elsewhere: "Lord, you are my portion in the land of the living." My portion—by whose division? For if he is one, he is not whole. If you are a hunter of words and not an examiner of meanings, nothing prevents you from blaspheming even the Father, whom you claim to revere. "The Lord is a portion of my inheritance," and "Lord, you are my portion in the land of the living." Why is the self-generated power called a portion and an inheritance? Because we receive God by our own choice, and each person—one chooses error, another receives God—and the God who is chosen becomes a portion of the faithful one. I mean something like this: It is written to the Levites: "You shall have no portion on the earth." For the Lord is their portion. If God being called a portion does not scandalize you, why does the Holy Spirit being called an earnest scandalize you?

Let us remove every confusion of disbelief and accept the faith that is without confusion. How long will you weigh down your heart, heretic, like Pharaoh? How long will you not weigh the divine words? You have a reasoning balance within yourself: weigh the words of the Savior; understand which are about the flesh, which about the divinity. Understand those concerning the dignity; understand those concerning the economy, so that it may not be said of you also what is said in the prophet about Canaan: "Canaan in his hand loved a balance of injustice, to oppress." And David: "But vain are the sons of men," the heretics, "in the balance of doing injustice." Do you hold a balance and corrupt justice? Look at the balance of the Savior: "I and the Father are one." Where is the inequality? Look at the scales of the Word of God: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Where is the downward pull, where the upward? Look at the Father liberating and the Son liberating, as he himself says: "If the Son does not liberate you, you are slaves," and Paul saying: "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has liberated me." If the Father liberates, if the Son liberates, if the Spirit liberates, where is the servile? But may it be that all of us, having escaped the yoke of sin and the yoke of heresy, hold the faith unswerving.

Let the heretics not be ignorant of what is said. For I have heard many saying, "Why does he not discuss ethical matters with us? Why does he not speak about manners and decorum?" They do not say this out of desire, but fleeing from refutation. Do you want true correction? You have often heard the great teaching. You have heard about ethics: correct your character. You have heard about manners: regulate your conduct. But as the Lord said: John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon"; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "He is a glutton and a drunkard." Nothing pleases vice. If you speak about character, he says, "I am asking about faith." If you speak about faith, he says, "I wanted to hear about manners." For this reason the Savior, striking this childishness of vice, said, "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not beat your breast." We played the flute with holy word, with luminous word, for the ordering of manners, and you did not listen. We sang a dirge with a word of toil, a grieving word, lamenting your unbelief, and you did not listen. Neither did you dance when you heard about yourselves, nor did you mourn when you heard against heresies. The Baptist came; they say, "He has a demon." And the Baptist is not indignant, but clings to his work. For do you see him suffering the same as the Savior? About the Savior the Jews said, "He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to him?" Is not the Christian blessed who falls under the same insult as the Lord? Paul preaches the truth, and Festus says to him, "You are mad, Paul; your many letters turn you to madness.

For it appears as madness to those who are not orderly, the things that are temperate. And he says, "I am not mad, most excellent one, but I utter words of temperance and justice." Do you see the inspired boldness, which was considered madness, yet is more brilliant than temperance? John the Baptist hears, "You have a demon," just as the ancient prophets heard that they were possessed. Once the prophet Elisha sent his own disciple, a prophet, and says to him, "Go and you will find Jehu the commander; take him aside and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel: Behold, I have anointed you as king,' and pour the horn of oil upon him and anoint him as king." The prophet sends a disciple who is a prophet. He takes the commander. For at that time Jehu was not king, but a commander of the reigning king. He says to him, "Come aside." And taking him aside, he speaks the words and anoints him with the horn. And as soon as he anointed him, he fled, he withdrew. The companions of Jehu say to him, "Why did this epileptic come to you?" meaning, "This possessed man, why did he come? Why did this epileptic come to you?" Thus from the beginning the prophets were insulted, thus the apostles. "Why did this epileptic come to you?" Fearing that he might make the name of kingship public and be in danger (for when a king is reigning, it is dangerous for the rule to be transferred to another), he says, "You know his babbling and his nonsense." He agreed not with the opinion, but with the sound. "You know his babbling." Then those men, understanding that truth is never mocked, those who had mocked hasten to learn the truth.

It is unjust, Jeu, if you do not report to us. You wrong your friends; you do ill in hiding the mystery. If he is possessed, why do you seek the words of the possessed? You are unjust, Jeu, if you do not report to us. Wickedness despises the things of virtue and is distressed by it. And they condemned him as one possessed and examined his words as those of one speaking truth. What did he report to you? Tell us. He took me aside. See the power of truth, how the derided glory was worshipped, how the prophet, the possessed one, became stronger than the laws. He says: He took me aside and poured the horn of oil over me. And the rulers raised a cry, saying: Long live the king. Do you see how at the same time they laughed at the prophecy and marvelled, and condemned and believed? You called him possessed, and you hail as king the one appointed by the possessed? Thus neither should we be astonished, nor our fathers, nor those after us, if we hear from a heretical tongue something tending to insult. But may it be that we are insulted for Christ, so that we may be glorified in Christ, now and in the repose there; to whom is the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.