Institutes & Conferences 3 part 7/11

But because they do not grasp those deeper things, let them at least know these easier ones, so that, when they have begun to grasp the readier understanding, they may be able to attain to the higher, and there may now be, by the attainment of a plainer matter, a way afterward to the deeper. What, then, is that great mystery which is signified under the name of man and wife? Let us ask the apostle himself, who, to teach the same matter elsewhere, used the words of the matter itself, saying: 'And manifestly great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, appeared to angels, was preached unto the Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.' What then is that great mystery which was manifested in the flesh?

Namely, God born of the flesh, God seen in the body, who indeed, as He was openly manifested in the flesh, so was He openly taken up in glory. This, then, is that great mystery of which he himself says: 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.' Who were the two in one flesh? God, namely, and the soul. For in that one flesh of man which is united to God there is God and there is the soul, according to that word of the Lord Himself: 'No man can take My soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.' Three things, therefore, you now see in this: God, flesh, and soul:

It is God who speaks, the flesh in which He speaks, the soul concerning which He speaks. For this reason, therefore, that Man of whom the prophet says, 'A brother does not redeem; a man shall redeem'—He who, as has been said, ascended where He was before, and of whom we read, 'No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven'—for this reason, I say, He left His Father and His mother, that is, the God from whom He was born and that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all, and He clung to human flesh as to His own wife. And therefore concerning the Father He said expressly, 'A man shall leave his father,' but concerning the mother He did not say 'his own,' but simply put 'mother,' because she was not so much His mother as the mother of all believers, that is, of us all.

And He was joined to His wife; for just as man and woman are one body, so the majesty of the Godhead and the flesh of the Man are united, and the two became one—that is, God and the soul—in one flesh; because just as that flesh had God dwelling within it, so it also had the soul dwelling together within it alongside God. This, therefore, is that great mystery, to the searching out of which the Apostle's wonder calls us and the exhortation of the Godhead invites us—a mystery certainly not foreign even to Christ and to the Church, as he himself says:

'But I speak concerning Christ and concerning the Church'—because both the flesh of the Church is the flesh of Christ, and in the flesh of Christ there is God and the soul; and thus the same is in Christ as in the Church, because the mystery which is believed in the flesh of Christ is also contained by faith in the Church. This mystery, therefore, which was both made manifest in the flesh and appeared in the world and is preached to the nations, many of the ancient saints, just as they foresaw it in the spirit, so also desired to see it in the flesh. 'Truly,' says the Lord, 'I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.'

And therefore the prophet Isaiah says, 'Would that, O Lord, You would rend the heavens and come down'; and David too, 'O Lord, bow down Your heavens and descend'; Moses also says, 'Show me Your very self, that I may plainly see You.' No one at all drew nearer than Moses, receiving the Law, to the God who spoke from the clouds and to that very presence of the majesty; and how is it that, when no one beheld things closer concerning God than he, he still asked for things more manifest, saying, 'Show me Your very self, that I may plainly see You'?

It was clearly because he was praying for that very thing to come to pass which the Apostle declared had come to pass in almost those same words—namely, that the Lord should openly be made manifest in the flesh, should openly appear in the world, should openly be taken up in glory, so that at last the saints might discern with fleshly eyes the things which they had foreseen with spiritual ones. Otherwise, if, as the heretic says, God was to be in the Lord Jesus Christ as in a statue and an instrument—that is, only to dwell as though in a man and to speak as though through a man, and not that God Himself should be the one who dwelt and who spoke from Himself and from His own body—then surely in this same way He had already dwelt in the saints and spoken from the saints, indeed in those very ones I mentioned above who prayed for His coming; in this way He was present and spoke.

And what need was there for all of them to ask for what they already possessed, if they were seeking what they had already received? Or why should they desire to see with their eyes what they held in their heart, especially since it is more to have a thing within oneself than to see it outside oneself? Or if God was going to dwell in Christ just as in all the saints, why should all the saints rather desire to see Christ than themselves? And if they were about to see in the Lord Jesus the same thing which they had in themselves, why should they not much rather judge it better to have that same thing in themselves than to see it in another? But you err, unhappy madness, not understanding, as the Apostle says, either the things you say or the things concerning which you make affirmations.

For all the prophets and saints received from God a certain portion of the divine Spirit, according to what they were able to receive; but in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt and dwells bodily. And therefore all are far from His fullness, they who receive something out of His fullness—whose being filled is Christ's gift, because assuredly all were empty, unless He Himself were the fullness of all. This, therefore, all the saints desired; this they prayed for; this they longed so to see with their eyes as they perceived it in soul and mind. And therefore the prophet Isaiah says, 'Would that You would rend the heavens and come down.' And Habakkuk too, proclaiming the same thing which the other desired, says, 'When the years draw near, You will be revealed; at the coming of the times You will be shown forth.'

'God will come from the south' (or, as another version has it: 'God from the south'). David also says, 'God will come manifestly'; and again, 'You who sit above the Cherubim, appear.' Some were announcing His coming, which He granted to the world; others were entreating it.

Some in differing manner, but all with like affection, understanding indeed to some degree how great a thing they were praying for—namely, that God dwelling in God, remaining in the form of God and in His bosom, should empty Himself, taking the form of a servant, and should so lower Himself as to take upon Himself all the bitternesses and reproaches of the passions, should undergo punishment in return for His benefits, and—what is most intolerable and most unworthy—should receive death from those very ones for whom He Himself would die; understanding this, then, to some degree, all the saints—to some degree, I say, understanding it, since no one understands how great it is—with harmonious voice and as it were with mutual concert entreated the coming of God, knowing assuredly that in this the hope of all consisted, that in this the salvation of all was contained, because none could loose the bound except one free from bonds, none could deliver sinners except one without sin.

For no one can free anyone by any thing, unless he himself is free by that very thing by which another is freed by him. And therefore, since death had passed through into all, all needed life, so that, namely, those dying in Adam might live in Christ; because, although many saints, many elect and men most intimate with God there were, yet none could of themselves be wholly saved, had they not been saved by the coming of the Lord and by His redemption. We read in the Gospel that, at the Lord's command, when five loaves were set out, a countless multitude of God's people was satisfied; and yet how this was done neither can speech relate, nor estimation reckon, nor sense grasp.

So great and so incomprehensible is the power of the divine might, that, although we have within us the consciousness of the deed itself, it is nevertheless impossible for us to know the reason of the deed. For, in the first place, who could comprehend how so scanty a number of loaves sufficed—I will not say for eating and satiety—but even for the very dividing and distribution, when the men were many thousands more than the loaves themselves, and the fragments from so many loaves could scarcely be as many as almost the number of banquets? An abundance of things, then, was born from the Lord's word; the work grew in the act; and while what was seen was too little, what was given became incalculable. Here, therefore, there is no place for conjecture, no place for human estimation or reasoning.

This alone it is permitted to the minds of the faithful and wise to know in such a matter: that, however great and inestimable are the things which are done by God, even if they do not grasp them by sense itself, they should yet acknowledge that nothing is impossible to God. But concerning these unspeakable acts of the divine power—which is most rightly joined to the unspeakable miracles of the sacred birth, since the matter so requires—we shall speak more fully afterward. Meanwhile, since we have made mention of the five loaves, not inappropriately, as I think, we compare them to the five books which we have now unrolled: for just as they are equal in number, so are they not dissimilar in kind.

For since those loaves were of barley, these too, as far as pertains to our own talent, may be called barley loaves; for although they are enriched with sacred testimonies and conceal saving riches beneath despicable coverings, in this indeed they do not differ from those loaves: because, just as those, though poor in appearance, were made rich by blessing, so these too, though cheap by our talent, are nevertheless precious by the sacred admixture; and although they present in themselves the cheapness of barley in our discourse, they nevertheless have within, from the Lord's testimonies, the savor of the living bread.

It remains that, after the example of those loaves, they may through the grace of the divine gift offer themselves as saving food to countless thousands, and that, just as those gave bodily strength to those who ate, so these may bestow spiritual health upon those who read. And the Lord is powerful—whose gift this also is, just as that was—so that He who through that food made the satisfied not to fail on the way, may through this also make those to be satisfied not to go astray.

But nevertheless, since there, where by a small feast indeed, yet by a great gift, the countless people of God was fed, we read that two fishes were added to those five loaves, it is fitting that we too, who desire that the food of a spiritual feast be offered through us to all peoples who follow after and seek God, should add to those five books—as it were five loaves—two little books besides, as it were two fishes; praying You, O Lord, beseeching You, that, seeing the effort of the service of our vow, You may grant to our pious endeavor an effective work; and, since we, according to our obedience and affection, desire to make the number of the little books equal to that number of loaves and fishes, may You transfer the power of that blessing into these; and, since You bestow upon our little writing the evangelical number, may You also fill up that very number with evangelical fruit, and grant these things as holy and wholesome food to all the peoples of Your Church, to every age and to every sex.

And if perchance any have already been breathed upon by that deadly spirit of the venomous serpent, and, their state of soul and mind corrupted, draw pestilent diseases into their languishing veins, may You grant to all the vigor of sound sense, may You grant full soundness of faith; so that, bestowing through these writings of our work the saving cure of Your gift upon all—after the pattern of the food thoroughly sanctified by You in the Gospel—just as through that eating You strengthened the hungry, so through this You may command the wasting to be healed.

Therefore, since we have now, as I think, abundantly answered the God-denying heretic in all the foregoing writings by the authority of the divine testimonies, let us now come to the faith and force of the Antiochene Creed, in which, since he himself was baptized and reborn, it is fitting that he be convicted by his own professions, and be crushed, so to speak, by his own weapons. For this is the order: that one who has already been overcome by the sacred testimonies should also be overcome by himself, so to speak, as a witness. Nor will it be necessary for anything else now to be brought against him, since he has openly and evidently convicted himself. The text, then, and faith of the Antiochene Creed is this: I believe in the one and only true God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all creatures visible and invisible:

and in our Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son and firstborn of all creation, born of Him before all ages and not made, true God of true God, of one substance with the Father; through whom also the ages were framed and all things were made; who for our sake came and was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead—and the rest. In the Creed, which speaks the faith of all the churches, I wish to know which you would rather follow: the authority of men, or of God?

Although I will not deal with you in a captious or severe manner, so as to grant you only the choice of one alternative, permitting one and denying the other: for I grant both, I concede both. And why do I say 'concede'? To both I draw you, even if you are unwilling. For both are in the Creed; if you will, you must be wise willingly; if you will not, you must needs be compelled unwillingly. For the Creed, as you know, took its name from a bringing-together. For what in Greek is called 'symbolos' is in Latin named 'collatio' (a bringing-together).

And it is called a 'bringing-together' for this reason: because, the faith of the whole catholic rule having been brought together into one by the apostles of the Lord, whatever is poured forth in immense abundance throughout the entire body of the divine volumes, is all gathered up in the Creed with perfect brevity, according to that saying of the Apostle: 'A word,' he says, 'completing and shortening it in righteousness; for the Lord will make a shortened word upon the earth.' This, therefore, is the shortened word which the Lord made—namely, gathering into a few words the faith of His twofold Testament, and enclosing the sense of all the Scriptures within brief compass, composing His own things from His own, and

accomplishing the force of the whole Law with the most compendious brevity—providing, namely, in this, as a most loving Father, for either the negligence or the ignorance of certain of His sons, so that a mind, however simple and untaught, might not labor at all to grasp what it could easily also retain in memory. You see, therefore, that in the Creed there is the authority of God: for 'the Lord made a shortened word upon the earth.' But perhaps you seek the authority of men. Not even this is lacking: for God made it through men.

For just as He composed that immense abundance of the sacred Scriptures especially through His patriarchs and prophets, so He established the Creed through His apostles and priests; and whatever there He spread out through His own with lavish and overflowing abundance, that same thing here He enclosed through His own with fullest brevity. Nothing, therefore, is lacking in the Creed, which, composed from the writings of God through the apostles of God, has wholly in itself, as far as pertains to authority, whatever is either of men or of God—although even that which was done through men is to be esteemed of God, because it is to be believed to belong not so much to those through whom it was done as to Him who did it.

'I believe,' says the Creed, 'in the one and only true God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all creatures visible and invisible: and in our Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son and firstborn of all creation, born of Him before all ages and not made, true God of true God, of one substance with the Father, through whom also the ages were framed and all things were made: who for our sake came and was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried: and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead'—and the rest.

If you were a defender of the Arian or Sabellian heresy, and I did not use your very own Creed against you, I would nevertheless convict you by the authority of the sacred testimonies, I would convict you by the voice of the Law itself, I would convict you, finally, by the truth of the Creed proved throughout the whole world: I would say that you, even if you were devoid of understanding and sense, ought nevertheless to follow at least the consensus of the human race, and ought not to make more of the perversity of a few wicked men than of the faith of all the churches, which, founded assuredly by Christ, handed down by the apostles, was to be esteemed as nothing other than the voice and authority of God, which had in itself assuredly both the voice and the sense of God. And what then, if I dealt with you thus—what would you say? What would you answer? Would you not, I beseech you, say this:

that you were not so instructed, not so trained: that one thing was handed down to you by your parents, another by your teachers and authorities: that you did not hear this in that conventicle of your ancestral doctrine, nor in the church of your profession: that, finally, the very text and language of the Creed handed down and instilled to you contained something different: that in it you were baptized, in it reborn? Would you say that you held what you had received, and lived in that in which you had learned you were regenerated? Would you not, I ask, saying these things, think that you were using a very strong shield even against severity? And truly, in a matter however wicked, this is not an inopportune defense, and one which might not absurdly even plead the cause of error, if it did not join obstinacy to error.

For since you held what you had received from a child, the amendment which corrected the present error would have more weight in you than the severity which would punish the past. But now, since you were born in a catholic city, instructed in the catholic faith, regenerated by catholic baptism, can I in any way deal with you as with an Arian or a Sabellian? Would that you had been one! I would grieve less over one brought forth amid evils than over one fallen from good; less over faith never had than over faith lost; less over an old heretic than over a new apostate. For you would have brought less of either stain or pestilence upon the whole Church; less, finally, would you be either bitter unto grief or grievous as an example, if you could tempt the Church rather as a layman than as a priest.

Therefore, as I said above, if you were a disciple and defender of the Sabellian or Arian or any other heresy, you would surely wish to shelter yourself by the example of your parents, by the instruction of your teachers, by the fellowship of your people, by the faith of your creed. I ask nothing unjust of you, heretic, nothing unjust or grievous: do this, having been brought forth in the catholic faith, which you would have done on behalf of perversity. Hold to the instruction of your parents, hold to the faith of the Church, hold to the truth of the Creed, hold to the salvation of your baptism. What kind of prodigy is this in you, what kind of monster? Do you not do for yourself what others have done even for error?

But we have advanced far enough into the deep, and, out of affection for our kindred city, following the impulse of grief as it were like a driving wind, while we were eager for the course, we have somewhat overshot the tenor of the right path. The Creed, then, heretic—whose text we set forth above—although it belongs to all the churches, since there is one faith of all, yet belongs peculiarly to the city and church of Antioch, that is, to that in which you were brought forth, in which you were instructed, in which you were reborn. The faith of this Creed, therefore, led you to the fountain of life, to the regeneration of salvation, to the grace of the Eucharist, to communion with the Lord—and what more? O too grievous and mournful complaint!—even to the office of the ministry, to the summit of the presbyterate, to the dignity of the priesthood.

Do you think this an easy or trivial matter, unhappy madness? Do you not see what you have done, into what abyss you have hurled yourself? By losing the faith of the Creed, you have lost all that you had been: for the sacraments of your priesthood and of your salvation stood by the truth of the Creed. Do you think you have merely denied Him? You have denied yourself, yourself, I say. But perhaps you do not think you have denied yourself. Let us look at the text of the Creed, so that, if you say the same things as before, you may not be convicted; but if, on the contrary, you say things much different and opposite, do not now expect to be refuted by me, since you will have condemned yourself.

For if now you assert something other than what is in the Creed, and something other than what you yourself said before, what remains but that you impute your condemnation to none but yourself, since you see the sentence of all upon you to be the same as your own? 'I believe,' says the Creed, 'in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all creatures visible and invisible: and in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son and firstborn of all creation, born of Him before all ages and not made.' First of all, it behooves you to answer to these things: do you confess this concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, or do you deny it? If you confess it, all is sound; if not, how do you now deny what you yourself before confessed? Choose, then, which you would rather:

for one of two things must necessarily happen: that your own confession itself, if it stands firm, alone sets you free; or, if it is denied, your first confession condemns you. For 'I believe,' you said in the Creed, 'in our Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son and firstborn of all creation.' If the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, then by your own confession He is undoubtedly God: for there is no other only-begotten and firstborn of all creation except the only-begotten Son of God, who, as He is the firstborn of creatures, is likewise God the Creator of all. And how do you assert Him to be a mere man born of a virgin, whom you confessed to have been God before the ages?

Then, 'of Him,' says the Creed—that is, of the Father—'born before all ages and not made.' This the Creed spoke through you, this you through the Creed: that Jesus Christ was born of God the Father before the ages and not made. Does the Creed say anything about these phantasies with which you now rave? Did you yourself even say it? Where here is your statue, where your instrument? Yours, I say: for far be it that this should belong to any but you. Where is that notion by which, affirming the Lord Jesus Christ to be like a statue, you think Him to be adored not because He is God but because He is the image of God, and, making the Lord of majesty into an instrument, you blaspheme that He is to be honored not for His own sake, but for the sake of Him who as it were breathes and resounds in Him?

You said in the Creed that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of God the Father before all ages and not made. This surely befits none but the only-begotten Son of God alone, so that His nativity should not be a making, and that He should be said to have been born only, not made; because it is against the reason of the thing itself and against His honor that the Maker of all should be believed to be a made thing, and that He Himself, the Author of all beginnings, should thus have begun, just as all things began from Him. And therefore He is said to be born, not made, because His nativity is singular, not a common making: and since He is God born of God, the Godhead of the Begotten must necessarily have wholly whatever is the greatness of the Begetter. And there follows in the Creed:

'true God of true God, of one substance with the Father, through whom also the ages were framed and all things were made.' And when you have said all this, remember that you have said everything concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. For this you have in the Creed: that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God and firstborn of all creation, and after these and other things: 'true God of true God, of one substance with the Father, through whom also the ages were framed.' How, then, is the same One both God and not God, the same One both God and a statue, the same One both God and an instrument? These things do not agree with one another, O heretic, in any respect, nor are they consistent, so that you may call the same One God when you wish, and think Him a fiction when you wish. You said in the Creed 'true God'; now you say 'a mere man.'

How can these things fit together and be joined, so that the same One is the highest power, the same One is mere weakness; the same One the highest majesty, the same One mere mortality? These do not agree together in one and the same Lord, so that, dividing the same One into worship and into insult, you may render honor from the part you wish, and injury from the part you wish. You said in the Creed, when you received the sacrament of true salvation, that the Lord Jesus Christ was true God of true God, of one substance with the Father, Creator of the ages, Maker of all. Where are you, O grief, where are you, you who were then? Where is that faith? Where is that confession? Into what monstrosities, into what prodigies have you now fallen back? What follies, what madnesses have ruined you?

You have transferred the God of all power and majesty to lifeless matter and senseless fictions. Your faith, forsooth, made progress with time, made progress with age, made progress with the priesthood! You have become worse as an old man than once as a little child, now as a veteran than as a raw recruit, worse as a bishop than as a beginner, and not even a disciple after you began to be a master. But let us look at the rest that follows. The Creed, then, having said that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God of true God, of one substance with the Father, through whom the ages were framed and all things were made, immediately subjoined this with an inseparable connection: 'who,' it says, 'for our sake came and was born of the Virgin Mary.'

He, then, who is true God, who is of one substance with the Father, who is the Creator of the ages, who is the Maker of all—He, I say, came into the world and was born of the Virgin Mary, according, namely, to that saying of Paul the Apostle: 'But when the fullness of the times came, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law.' You see how the sacraments of the Creed agree with the sacred Scriptures: the Apostle proclaims the Son of God sent by the Father, the Creed confirms that He came. For this was consequent: that He whom the Apostle had taught to have been sent, our faith should confess to have come. Then the Apostle says 'made of a woman,' but the Creed 'begotten of Mary.' You perceive, therefore, that the very Scripture speaks in the Creed, from which the Creed itself testifies that it is derived.