What is there to prove that Mary the mother of the Lord is of the tribe and seed of David? We bring forward the words of a competent witness. For the angel says to Mary, among other things: 'And the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.' How could it be said by a competent witness that David was his father, if Mary were not of the seed of David? 87. If there is one God, why is the hope of salvation in three, and not in two, or four, or certainly in the one alone? And why was the Trinity not proclaimed from the beginning? There is almost nothing new; for the Trinity is so proclaimed that one God is believed. Nothing, therefore, has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed.
But it was not fitting that it should be made manifest in the very beginnings, because what is to be proclaimed must first be proclaimed, and afterward that which has been proclaimed must be revealed, so that you may know that there is the Father, from whom are all things; that the Son is so called, through whom are all things; and that the Holy Spirit is named, through whom all things which are indeed from the Father, but through the Son, are regenerated unto the faith of the one God. These three, therefore, are indeed three, but there is one Godhead. Reason, then, requires that they be three, not more nor fewer. For every number reaches up to nine, because three, while they are mutually within themselves, make in number nine, since in one are three and three in one. For he who sees one sees three, while one differs in nothing from another. Three, therefore, are one, and thrice three are one;
that is, in the number nine is perfection, as far as number is concerned, because all things are from one. For by adding one — from which, or in which, the three that are counted are nine — they become ten or twenty. Yet always one comes up to nine and one is added, because the nine are one, so that there may be the full perfection of unity. 88. If there is greater grace and clearer understanding in the New than in the Old, why did the prophet Isaiah see the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the throne of majesty — who is Christ, according to the interpretation of John the Evangelist (for he said, among other things: 'These things Isaiah said when he saw his majesty and spoke of him') — while in the New, Stephen the first martyr says that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God?
What is this, that here he seems as if subject after triumphs, and there as if Lord before he conquered? As the occasion made itself, so the Lord also showed himself. To the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people, and showed himself to be what he was; for in peace was the cause of his deity. But that to Stephen he should appear standing, the calumny of the Jews brought about. For in Stephen the Saviour's cause was suffering violence; therefore, while God the judge was seated, he appeared standing, as one who was pleading a cause, and because his cause is good, he was at the right hand of the judge. For everyone who pleads a cause must of necessity stand. 89.
The Saviour, among other things, says concerning the Holy Spirit, that 'when he comes,' he says, 'he will convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin indeed, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged.' He seems indeed to have stated the cause for convicting the world, but it needs explanation. Since the Jews did not believe in the Saviour, nor did the worldly powers — because he willed to manifest himself not only to men but also to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, as the Apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians — he showed that, after his passion, the Holy Spirit would prove that he had spoken the truth.
And this is what it means to 'convict the world': to show it that those things are true which it refused to believe. For it refused to believe that the Savior had come from God. Yet the Savior, having kept righteousness, did not hesitate to return to him who had sent him, and by the fact that he went back he proved that he had come from there, for no one ascends to God except him who has descended from God. Therefore the powers, seeing him ascend, were thrown into confusion, seeing that to be true which they had spurned as though it were false. And so this righteousness convicts them, by which it was proved to be just that he returned whence he had come. But in this way he convicts them concerning sin, because they not only refused to believe in him, but even killed him.
But concerning judgment he rebuked them thus, when he showed that the prince of this world had been made guilty and crushed by him whose faith they did not share. For seeing souls go up from the lower regions into the heavens, they recognized that the prince of this world had been condemned, so that, being made guilty in the cause of the Savior, he lost what he had held. These things indeed were seen when the Savior ascended, but when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples they were made manifest plainly and openly.
For the true rebuke came at the time when, after the Passion, to the testimony of the Savior, before the eyes of the faithless there were seen the dead rising, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics made firm, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the dumb speaking, the demon-possessed cleansed, and the sick, having recovered their health, giving thanks. In this way the Holy Spirit convicted the world, because in the name of the Savior, who had been rejected by the world, he worked the powers of all these healings. XC. IF THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, WHY IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: 'YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU WISH TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM.'
'WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS OF HIS OWN, FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND SO IS HIS FATHER ALSO'? 'Devil' is not a proper name, but a common one. For in whomever the works of the devil are found, he must without doubt be called a devil. For it is the name of a work, not of a nature. And so in this passage he signifies that the father of the Jews is Cain, whose imitators the Jews, wishing to be, killed the Savior. He says that this one, because he stained himself with parricide and made himself guilty of death, did not stand in the truth. And from him was the pattern of fratricide given. He says that this very one, when he speaks a lie, speaks of his own, to show that each person sins by nothing but his own will. But because he is an imitator of the devil, he added:
because he is a liar, and so is his father also. For this one, in order to condemn the first man to death, pretended that he did not know what had been commanded by God. Likewise Cain too, when questioned, feigned that he did not know where his brother Abel was, whom he had killed. So then in this passage he said that the devil is Cain, but that his father is the devil, whose works he followed; for the son of the devil is a devil. But that devil, who is also Satan, has no father in his own malice; for he is the author of evil to himself. For he himself sinned first, and through this whoever imitate him shall be called his sons, and he their father. For indeed we have Abraham as our father in faith, because he himself first believed God, and through this we are reckoned by his name;
for we are called faithful just as he was. XCI. IT MUST BE INQUIRED HOW IT MAY BE PROVED AGAINST PHOTINUS, WITHOUT ARGUMENTS, THAT CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE MARY. Let us first inquire from John the Baptist, whom the Savior himself declared to be his witness. For he says, among other things, concerning the Lord: 'He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth; but he who comes from heaven testifies of what he has seen and heard, and no one receives his testimony.' Behold, John calls all men together with himself earthly in comparison with the Lord, because he testifies that the Lord came from the heavens, but that all the others are of the earth, that is, of the lower things. And the Lord himself among other things speaks the same, saying:
'For I have not come down from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me' — namely the Father. And again the Lord speaks among other things in this sense, saying: 'And now I say to you, that I will ask the Father; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came forth from God the Father and came into this world; again I leave the world and go to the Father.' Then the disciples, seeing that he had spoken plainly, say to him: 'Behold, now you speak openly and use no figure of speech; now we know that you know all things, and have no need that anyone should question you; in this we believe, that you came forth from God.'
These words need no interpretation, since this is the very sum of our religion: that we believe Christ existed before the flesh in the heavens with God, as a Son with the Father. For if it was on account of his upright manner of life and heavenly teaching that he said he had come forth from heaven and from God and had come into the world, then all the prophets and apostles ought to have said the same of themselves. And because he said, 'Again I leave the world and go to the Father,' perhaps it might be said that he meant by this that the teaching which had come from God, having left the world, returned to God. For they have nothing else to say. For if his having come from heaven and gone forth from God and come into this world pertains to the cause of virtue and teaching, and not to the person of the Savior, when he says:
'Again I leave the world and go to the Father,' he returns thither whence he had come — but we see that after the Lord's departure both virtue and teaching remained in the world. You see, therefore, that this was said by the Lord not of virtue and teaching, but that the Lord spoke specifically of himself. But if you say that these are the words of the virtue which worked in Christ, this very virtue calls God its own Father. Behold, you run into what you fear; for if the virtue of God is the Son of God, it is assuredly that very virtue of which the Apostle says: 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God'; this came forth from God and again returned to God. And so this very virtue, which is Christ, testifies that it casts out demons by the Spirit of God.
This Spirit worked through the apostles, that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord worked, after the Lord's departure worked here in the world in the apostles, so that it may more fully appear that the Lord spoke of his own person, because, having left the world, he returned to God. Or if you suppose that this virtue is not Christ, there will be two virtues and two sons of God; and where is that which is read: 'the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father,' and again: 'For God so loved this world that he gave his only Son for it'? You now perceive that the virtue of God, which worked embodied in the world, is itself one — which is called both the virtue of God and the Son. And let us see what the apostles believed, or in whom, when they heard from the Lord:
'Behold, again I leave the world and go to the Father' — they answered him: 'Behold, now you speak openly and use no figure of speech; now we know that you know all things, and have no need that anyone should question you; in this we believe, that you came forth from God.' Now let us see whether the disciples were in doubt about the miracles — whether they were from God — when they saw Lazarus, already stinking on the fourth day, raised up; the eyes of a man blind from birth restored; a woman freed from a flow of blood by the touch of his garment's fringe; the nature of water changed into wine — or whether they doubted concerning the person of the Lord. Plainly no one doubted about the miracles, since some said that he was Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. For when the Jews wished to stone him, Jesus answered them:
'I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?' The Jews said to him: 'We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.' If, then, the Jews did not doubt that they were the works of God, did the apostles doubt? Since, therefore, every doubt was concerning the person of the Savior — for it was a thing unheard of, and which had not entered the human mind, and so it caused astonishment to men when they heard him saying that he had come forth from God and that God was his own Father — for this reason the disciples, confessing themselves satisfied by the manifestation of the Lord's words, said to him: 'Now we know that you know all things, and there is no need that anyone should question you;
in this we believe, that you came forth from God.' For if he did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the apostles is made void; but it cannot be, because it was approved by the Savior. For he answered them: 'Do you now believe?' — that is: 'Seeing so many signs, you did not believe.' And so it was proved to the apostles that Christ came forth from God and came, so that through this coming-forth it might not be doubtful to believe that he is the Son of God. For if no one has seen God except him who is from God — this one has seen God; and if no one has known the Father except the Son — that is, to have truly been with God and to have come forth from him and to have come;
for no other could come forth from God except this one who was in the beginning with God, since no other either knew or had seen God — therefore it is not incredible to us to believe that this one is the true Son of God, as John said in his first epistle: 'And we are,' he says, 'in his true Son Jesus Christ. He is the true one and eternal life'; and the Apostle: 'He who did not spare,' he says, 'his own Son'; and the Evangelist: 'because,' he says, 'he called God his own Father.' If, then, Christ is the true Son of God, how is he merely a man? For he would not be called true unless he had been properly begotten of him. Or let Photinus say why he is believed to be truly the Son of God, if he is not true.
Or what need was there to believe him to be the Son of God, if he were one among the other saints who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there perhaps some unworthiness in this, on account of which he could not be believed to be the Son of God as the others are, and is it therefore said, so that this one, concerning whom it seems incredible, may be believed to be the Son of God? For if he is greater than the others, what need is there to say, 'Believe that Christ is the Son of God,' except because it is commanded that one believe otherwise concerning him than concerning the others — so that, since there are many who are called sons of God by reason of holiness, this one alone may be believed to be the true Son of God, whence he is also called 'only'?
For which of the saints dared to call himself the Son of God — I will not even say the true Son — except the Savior, conscious of his own birth as proceeding from God? And how would he allow himself to be adored, if he did not know that he was of God, since it is written: 'You shall adore the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve' — seeing that an angel rebuked John, because he wished to adore him, saying to him: 'Do not do it, for I am your fellow servant; adore God'; and since Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, the Apostle says: 'He who serves Christ pleases God'? Why? Because God and Christ, Father and Son, are one. The Apostle confesses himself the servant of Christ and says to the Corinthians: 'Do not become the servants of men'; and to the Galatians:
'Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.' He plainly shows that Christ is both God and man, so that he might demonstrate his apostleship to be not from man but from Christ, insofar as he is God, and from God the Father. Then in what follows he says: 'For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.' What could be plainer? For he says that he attained the teaching of God not through man, but was taught by God himself. For we have received the teaching of God through men, but the vessel of election proves that he attained nothing from the apostles — that is, from men.
For if, because it is the teaching of God, it is therefore not learned through man, what praise of his own does the Apostle testify to, if he learned it just as the rest of the peoples did? To what end does he say: 'Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ'? Who could doubt that in this place Christ is signified as God? But what wonder is it, since among other things he says to the Romans: 'whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever'? What does 'and from whom is Christ according to the flesh' mean? For he would not say this unless he were also according to God — so that, according to the flesh he is from the fathers, but according to divinity from God, Christ is over all, God.
'But perhaps it may be said to pertain to the person of the Father.' Yet in this place there is no mention of the Father's name; and therefore, if it is denied to be said of Christ, let the person be given to whom it may fit. But why should it not fit Christ, at whose name things heavenly and earthly and infernal bend the knee? This is to be God over all; for besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bend the knee to a man, or whether God decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels should adore a man. But God forbid! For God decrees nothing foolish, especially since it is not permitted to adore any but God — how much more in the heavens!
For a king is adored on earth as the vicar of God; but Christ, after having fulfilled his vicarious dispensation, is adored in the heavens and on the earth. For we read that 'the Word became flesh' — that is, that by the ministry of the Holy Spirit he was made incarnate of Mary — that this Word was in the beginning with God and was God, and that this also is called the Son of God. How then is that not before Mary, which both was in the beginning and was God? Even if, being blinded, you deny that this Word is God, yet you do not deny nor are ignorant that this Word is called the Son of God and that this was with God in the beginning. By what reasoning, then, do you say that it exists after Mary, which you read existed in the beginning? For in the Apocalypse we read concerning Christ:
'And his name is the Word of God' — which 'Word' admits of many interpretations. For there is nothing of God which is not called God, but on account of the authority of the one God, that which was born of him he called the 'Word,' so that, led by this reasoning — by which we know that our words are nothing other than from ourselves — we might believe that Christ is from God. Nor indeed ought it to be said otherwise, so that he might be believed to be of God and not outside him. For in a similar manner he is also called the virtue and wisdom of God, so that by the same reasoning he may be understood to be of him. For if he had said 'God and God,' he would not have signified that he is of him, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This reasoning is in the divine books, so that Christ, signified as God, may not exceed the measure of the one God.
But how foolish is that practice of yours, Photinus, by which you so punctuate at the head of John's Gospel, lest the Word be called God! For thus you read: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was. This Word was in the beginning with God.' What does this punctuation aim at? What sense does it indicate? What reasoning of piety does it signify, except mere hostility against the Son of God? For what meaning is there in one who pronounces: 'and the Word was with God, and God was'? Is this, then, the wisdom of our law, to teach that God exists? What tongue, what nation, what land, what sect denies that God exists? And to what end does it add, saying: 'and the Word was with God'?
Or what does this 'Word' wish to be understood as, unless it sets forth the account of it? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about whom questions arise. For it is the mystery of God, which is therefore believed because it is not manifest to all. And therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: 'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God.' This both agrees with reason and is a sound pronouncement. For it shows that this Word, which was in the beginning with God, was God, so that in the sacrament of the mystery of the eternal God — which was unknown from ages and generations — it may be believed that God the Word was with God the Father.
And because it has come into doubt among the carnal, who wish to make Scripture speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been set down, which, following the meaning of Scripture, may merit reward. To Solomon, when he had asked wisdom of God, this answer was given by the Lord: 'Behold, I have given you,' he says, 'a wise and prudent heart, such as there was none before you, and after you there shall not arise a man like you.' What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Yes indeed. No man, then, shall be like Solomon. And what will appear concerning Christ, who among other things says: 'The queen of the south came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here'? Now choose whom you will believe, Photinus: God or Christ, the Father or the Son. If you believe the Father, you accuse the Son;
if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is merely a man, he set himself above Solomon in vain, contrary to God's promise; but if he is understood to be also God, he worthily set himself before Solomon, and God's promise remains undefiled, because no man arose like Solomon. For Christ showed himself greater precisely because he is God. O the madness of Photinus, who refuses to confess that Christ existed before Mary, whom he hears with his own voice testifying that he is before Abraham! For when the Jews were arguing with him about time, saying: 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' he answered them: 'Amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' He did not say, 'I am better,' but answered what was asked, that he existed before the Jews supposed.
Photinus plainly cannot escape the curse of the law, because he places his hope in Christ, whom he calls merely a man, when he reads: 'Cursed is the man who places his hope in man.' But the Apostle, knowing Christ to be God and therefore that hope is in him both in the present and in the future, says: 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable.' He is not, therefore, merely a man in whom we are taught to have hope, because vain is hope in man. These few things we have said out of many; for it would suffice, if for Photinus, were he of sound mind, we had set down this last point alone. XCII. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE SAVIOR SAYS: 'PEACE I GIVE YOU, MY PEACE I LEAVE YOU; NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU'?
He who receives the peace of the Savior will incur the enmity of the world. For unless he is at odds with the devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters. He, therefore, is at odds with the world who faithfully serves the law of God; fortified by the peace of Christ, he beats back the weapons of all his adversaries. For who would dare anything against one whom he knows to be the friend of the King? Yet the world gives peace otherwise than the Savior promised to give. For the world gives peace either out of fear or out of entreaty; but the Savior, since he is stronger than all and fears no one whatever, gives peace unasked. This peace, then, is salutary, which is given for this very reason, that it may be a defense against enemies. Peace indeed is called by one name, but God's and the world's are distinguished by a wide interval.
For this one is fragile, that one strong; this one fleshly, that one spiritual; this one earthly, that one heavenly; this one of necessity, that one of will. For Christ, needing nothing, offers peace to the weak and unarmed — the Lord to slaves, the good to the evil, God to men. Rightly, then, he says: 'Not as this world gives, do I give to you'; for in saying this he wished the clemency of his good will to be understood. For whereas everyone gives peace for this reason — that it may profit himself — this one gives for this end: that it may profit not himself but those to whom he gives. Otherwise, then, the world gives peace than the Savior gave; and the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not urge to patience, does not provoke to righteousness, does not exhort to mercy, does not promise eternal life.
For whoever has received the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the vices of this world, which war against the soul. XCIII. IT MUST BE INQUIRED WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THAT TIME WHEN THEY WERE WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS: 'THE SPIRIT,' HE SAYS, 'WAS NOT YET GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED'; AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: 'IF YOU LOVE ME,' HE SAYS, 'KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY BE WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU SEE HIM AND KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE ABIDES WITH YOU AND IS WITH YOU.' WHAT IS THIS?
HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION, BUT PROMISES THAT HE HIMSELF WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT HE WAS WITH THEM AND ABODE AMONG THEM; BUT AFTER THE RESURRECTION HE IS READ TO HAVE BREATHED UPON THEM AND SAID TO THEM: 'RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT'; AND AT PENTECOST THE HOLY SPIRIT IS READ TO HAVE DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES. I SEE SO MANY PERPLEXITIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS TO BE HELD. In all these things which have been set forth there is not one single cause. For the forms of the several causes have been briefly signified, because the Spirit is indeed one, but has many gifts. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit is mentioned, his office also ought to be understood, in which he is signified.
For that he both was with them and was to come is not false, but provided you refer this not to person but to nature. For Christ promised that another would come from the Father, so that — since their divinity is undifferentiated — in the presence of Christ the Holy Spirit might not be thought absent, and in the coming and the appearance of the Holy Spirit Christ too might be reckoned present. Therefore, when he promises that he will come, he says: 'You see him, because he abides with you and is with you,' so that the apostles might be secure, because after the Lord's ascension they would not have a lesser or degenerate shepherd or king for their protection.
For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers except — as the Evangelist testifies — after the Lord, having conquered death and risen, was glorified. For they are the words of the Lord himself, triumphing and saying: 'For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you shall also receive not many days hence.' He seems to have uttered this at the time when he was arranging to ascend to the Father. But that which the Lord is read to have breathed upon the disciples a few days after his resurrection, and to have said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' — this is understood to be the ecclesiastical power.