For because all things in the Lord's tradition are carried out through the Holy Spirit, therefore, when the rule and form of this kind of discipline is handed over to them, it is said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' And because it truly pertains to ecclesiastical right, he immediately added, saying: 'Whosesoever sins you retain, they shall be retained; if you remit any, they shall be remitted them.' This inbreathing, then, is a certain grace which is poured in through ordination upon those ordained, by which they may be held in greater esteem. Whence the Apostle says to Timothy: 'Do not,' he says, 'neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' It had, then, to be done once, so that thereafter this tradition might be believed not to be without the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For just as in the Savior a form was given visibly, so that it might not be doubted that after baptism the Holy Spirit is thereafter given invisibly to believers, so also in the aforesaid case a form was given at the beginning, so that from it the Holy Spirit may be believed to be poured into the ecclesiastical tradition. But that the apostles, with the Lord present, performed miracles — power was given, just as it had been earlier to the prophets. 3. The forms of three offices, then, were shown in the apostles by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Of these the first is this, which pertains to ecclesiastical right in regenerating and in the other offices; the second, which was given at Pentecost, which is general — for the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the apostles, but indeed upon all believers;
the third form is that which was granted in the beginning to the apostles alone, or to the ordained, in working signs and miracles, until the seeds of faith might be cast for its increase. For the seeds of faith are the miracles performed through the apostles. For they themselves were set as chief witnesses of this kind of truth, who by signs and prodigies might testify that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than miracle. For this is what accuses all earthly philosophy, because it always devoted itself to mere words, having no testimony of miracle by which it might demonstrate that what had been built up by words was firm. Therefore the Holy Spirit is given generally, once, to all believers, through whom they may be proved to be sons of God, while he abides in them.
But in working signs and prodigies he does not abide in a man, but, being called upon, he comes, or supplies what is necessary, and withdraws; and likewise in the tradition or ordination he bestows grace from without, also bringing protection to those devoted in faith. XCIIII. IT MUST BE INQUIRED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE BETRAYER OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR. When the Savior had been betrayed, as the day of Preparation was dawning, all the chief priests and scribes and elders gathered in the house of Caiaphas the high priest, whither they knew Jesus was to be brought, that they might hear him. Both Matthew and Mark the Evangelists testify to this, and that none of them departed from the governor's house before the impious deed was accomplished, since all their insistence and
devotion to celebrating the Passover was the death of the Savior. Since, then, they were occupied with the Lord's death from morning until the ninth hour, how is it proved that Judas brought back to them in the temple the price of blood which he had received, and said to them before the Lord's cross: 'I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood' — when it is certain, at any rate, that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord's Passion, seeing that they even insulted him while he was placed on the cross? Nor indeed can it be proved from the fact that it is recorded before the Passion, since there are many things which, though they are proved to have been done before, are arranged last. There is again, when the place admits it, that what was done afterward is set down before. For it is certainly manifest that the fiftieth Psalm is earlier than the third.
So, then, it sometimes happens that things which are later are anticipated. Whence also Mary, since she is proved to have anointed the Lord's feet with ointment at the supper six days before the Passover, after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus — on account of its significance, this was anticipated by the Evangelist, who says among other things: 'Now Mary,' he says, 'was she who anointed the Lord with ointment.' He reports this before Lazarus died; and unless we found it done afterward, we should not know at what time it was done.
But perhaps it happened after the ninth hour, that the impious and most cruel Judas, seeing the Savior slain and the veil of the temple on this account torn, the earth quaking, the rocks split, the elements terrified, being himself seized by that very dread, grieved — not unaware that he had betrayed a just man, in whose Passion God the Judge was so indignant. But after the ninth hour too they were occupied, as I reckon — the elders and chief priests. For in the evening of that same day they were about to celebrate the Passover; and on the Sabbath it was not lawful to carry money according to the law. And on this account it is to me improbable on which day, or rather time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by a noose. XCV. WHENCE THE OBSERVANCE OF PENTECOST AROSE, OR FOR WHAT REASON.
It is not doubtful that everything of our religion is strengthened by the testimony of the truth and sealed by the prerogative of the old law. For all things are known to have been done and designated in time past as a figure of our faith to come, so that we might not doubt that we hold the truth, when we see that those things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages — commended not only by words, but also by the powers of signs. But now the point is this: if they are understood by us in the same way as they were designated, so that we may fittingly discern whence and for what reason the day of Pentecost is derived. For the Scriptures of the Lord open their meanings to the careful and devout, but close them to the negligent.
For it was not fitting that things which have been reserved for the deserving and the worthy should be seen indiscriminately by all. Pentecost, then, which is reckoned as the fiftieth day from Pascha, has this reasoning: that just as after the week the Lord's Day is the first, on which the mystery of Pascha was fulfilled unto the redemption of human salvation — because after the cycle of seven days one must always return to the first, so that it may be shown that the age of the world is consummated in the number seven —, so also after seven weeks the first day is that of Pentecost. Finally, Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord's Day, so that all that pertains to human salvation may be known to be both begun and completed on the Lord's Day.
For on the Lord's Day the world was made, and after the fall it was again reformed on the Lord's Day; of this reforming a figure was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the faith to come. For after the week, the day which is called the eighth is the first in the mystery. For this is the day which the Lord has made. For He made one day, from which the rest received their cycles. And therefore He rose again on that very day which He made; and according to the number of the reasoning stated above, on that same day He also gave the Law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses.
so that, just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord's passion in the sacrament of Pascha, so also the giving of the Law was a figure of the gospel preaching, because on the same day, that is, at Pentecost, the Law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, that they might receive authority and might know how to preach the gospel ordinance. And this fact is confirmed by a twofold testimony, since it is shown to have been predestined, and by the manifest outpouring of the Holy Spirit it is proved to be divine and supercelestial;
for the unlearned were speaking the mighty works of God in diverse tongues. To the children of Israel, then, on the third day of the third month the Law was given through Moses, as is contained in the book of Exodus; which day is the fiftieth from the fourteenth of the first month, on which the Pascha was kept in Egypt — that is, Pentecost. Whence it came about that, for the preaching of the Law of faith, at Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, so that the deeds of the ancients might be held as images of things to come, for the assurance of our faith, since what was preached from the beginning cannot seem false. Therefore the time of remission and reformation is described in the fiftieth Psalm, so that it might be known that the same providence belongs to the fiftieth day as to the first.
Hence it came about that the manna too was given from heaven to the people of the Jews on the first day, which is the Lord's Day; that this was so is proved by the continuation of six days, on which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, they rested. Now the manna is a type of the spiritual food, which by the resurrection of the Lord became truth in the mystery of the Eucharist. Now it remains to prove that the things we have said are to be understood as we have set forth above. The first month, in which the Pascha was celebrated on the fourteenth day in Egypt — this day was the fourth weekday (Wednesday); whence the Law too was given on the fourth weekday. This may be understood from the fact that on the fifteenth day of the second month from the departure of the children of Israel it appears to have been a Sabbath;
and therefore the flock of quail was sent to them not in the daytime but in the evening, while in the morning came the manna; for them it rained from heaven, that is, on the Lord's Day, which is found to be the first after the week in the repetition. Finally, for six continuous days they gathered the manna, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, they rested. From this day, then, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, search and you will find that it was the fourth weekday when the Law was given. For from the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was the Sabbath, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, there are nineteen days.
Hold, then, these nineteen days, and go back over the fifteenth day of the second month, on which it was the Sabbath, which counting from the first is the fourteenth; and come up to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen; add these on to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath. Add still further, to the beginning of the first month, seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month, which were before the Pascha, must be drawn back, for the Pascha took place on the fourteenth day of the first month. Therefore, having subtracted the thirteen and added the seventeen, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was the fourth weekday (Wednesday).
And lest you suffer weariness in reading, or in curiously examining the single members of the question, I give a summary, so that you may both be certain of the number of days which are from the Pascha up to the giving of the Law, and may more easily learn from this on what weekday the Pascha took place. On the third day after the second month the Law was given; there are therefore two months and three days. Subtract from these the thirteen days which were before the Pascha, and the rest will be fifty days. Now, that the Law was given on the fourth weekday is hence easily seen. The manna was given on the first weekday, since for six continuous days they gathered it, which first weekday was the sixteenth day of the second month. And so from this first weekday to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find the fourth weekday.
From the fourth weekday, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is the fourth weekday. Therefore, because the Jews kept the Pascha in Egypt on the fourth weekday, and on the fourth weekday received the Law, but on the fifth weekday departed from Egypt, the dedication of the Law is therefore Pentecost. 96. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER PASCHA IS INTERPRETED 'PASSING OVER,' AS SEEMS TO THE GREEKS. The Apostle could not be mistaken, who says: 'Christ our Pascha is sacrificed' — which is indeed not his own word, but the Law's, since Moses says: 'And it shall be, when your children say to you: What is this service? then you shall say: This is the sacrifice of the Pascha of the Lord.' What more is needed for testimony? The Law speaks, the Apostle proves it;
this remains, that the gainsayer be cast out as obstinate. For it is manifest that the passing over took place after the Pascha. For with the blood of the slain lamb they placed marks above the doorposts and above the lintel, so that the angel passing by in the night might not strike the house in which the sign of the blood was. The blood, therefore, afforded salvation, not the passing over; for, that the passing over might not do harm, the blood stood in the way. 97. BY WHAT REASONING ANSWER MAY BE MADE TO THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS SIMPLY FROM THE LAW. If credence be granted to reason, the very reasoning of the names of Father and Son would show their unity in a natural manner. For he would not be called the true Son of God unless he had come forth from the substance of God the Father; nor would the truth and justice of God allow him to be called the true Son, if he were not of Him.
For He is not true, if He is not of Him. But Scripture says: 'He is true': therefore He is of Him. For whoever denies that Christ was born of God brings a calumny against Scripture, which for this very reason calls Him the true Son, that it might signify that He was born of God; for if He is not of God and is yet called the true Son of God, then Scripture is false. But if Scripture does not deceive, then he who does not confess that Christ came forth from God both makes void the Scripture and denies that Christ is the true Son of God. For it is not the will that makes a true Son, but birth. 'But,' they say, 'it lies within the power of God to make false things true.' On the contrary, this is the power of God, whence also He is worthy of all praise, that with Him the true is true and the false is false.
For that is the mark of a liar, to call false what is true — which does not befit God. For God can indeed do all things, but He does only what is in accord with His truth and justice. It is therefore manifest that Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason: that He may be understood as His own, that is, born of His substance. Whence the Apostle also says: 'He who spared not His own Son'; and in another epistle: 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' If, then, He thought it not robbery, saying that He was equal with God, He showed Himself to be the true Son of God. For He could not be equal to God unless He were of Him. For those are equal who are either both true or both false.
For that which has a beginning does not admit of equality and eternity, or of unity, with what is eternal. For by saying that He is one with the Father, Christ made Himself equal to God. 'For not only,' it says, 'did He break the Sabbath, but He also called God His own Father, making Himself equal to God' — that is, equal. Is it not manifest that this equality descends from the property of His birth? For by saying that He is the proper, that is, the true, Son of God, He made Himself equal to God. Hence it is that He says: 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father also.' For by that whereby they are consubstantial, whoever sees the one sees both. For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life; that is, the Father begot a Son equal to Himself;
and all things that are the Father's are the Son's, and the things that are the Son's are the Father's: and no one can snatch anything out of the hand of the Father, nor out of the hand of the Son. And He added: 'I and the Father are one,' and: 'The words,' He says, 'that I speak to you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father abiding in Me, He Himself speaks; and the works that I do, He Himself does. Believe Me, that I am in the Father and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works' sake.' For because His generation is not from Himself, but from Him who begot Him, therefore whatever He does He calls the Father's work, so that through all these things this may be established: that Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason, that He may be believed to be born of Him, lest His essence be thought to be outside the nature of the one God.
His humility, therefore, is His greatest exaltation. For when He seems to subject Himself, saying: 'The words that I speak to you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father abiding in Me, He Himself speaks; and the works that I do, He Himself does,' He proves that He has His origin from God and that He is His power, while He says that He does not exist of Himself, but of Him. For by these things Christ is commended, not lowered. For he who speaks of himself is not the true Son. You see, therefore, that the Arians misunderstand Christ in the very point from which He ought rightly to be understood; and from that very thing they condemn Him and call Him false, from which He is approved to be the true Son of God. For He asks to be glorified by the Father, and He promises to glorify the Father whom He asks, so that where He seems to humble Himself, He may exalt.
For when the Father gives testimony to the Son, He attests His own praise; but when the Son proclaims the Father, He manifests His own glory. For the magnificence and nobility of the Father is the high birth of the true Son. And therefore whatever is said to be the Father's is also the Son's without doubt; and what is said to be the Son's is also the Father's. For the Spirit is called God's, the same Spirit is called Christ's also; the Church is called God's, it is called Christ's also; God is adored, Christ also is adored; God is served, Christ also is served; the priests are called priests of God, they are called priests of Christ also; the temple of the holy city is called God, likewise Christ; the holy city is said to be illumined by the light of God, in the same way also by that of Christ; the throne is God's, and Christ's also;
the judge is God, and Christ is also, because the prophet Isaiah saw Christ sitting on the throne of majesty, the Lord of Sabaoth — which the Arians do not deny. Of God the Father it is read that He is King of kings and Lord of lords; the same is read of Christ also, the true Son of God. Thus everywhere the Father and the Son are made equal in divinity, so that the number of persons does not exceed the measure of the one God. But between the Father and the Son there is no difference, save this alone: that the Father is unbegotten, but the Son begotten; that is, the Father is from no one, but the Son is from the Father — which indeed is something sublime in the Son. For from this is learned the eternity of His high birth, and that He is the true Son of the true Father. For whence comes that which is read in Genesis, God saying:
'Let us make man to our image and likeness'? Therefore, if their image and likeness is one, how are they not also one in nature? For in spiritual things, where there are certainly no figures, nothing will be alike except through substance; so that, where the image of the two is one, how shall their substance not also be one? For we read that their image and likeness is one for this reason: that we might believe that the one of them differs in nothing from the other — that is, that Christ is the true Son of God, because the birth is not unlike its begetter. Finally, the Jews, understanding that He called God His own Father, say to Pilate: 'We have a law, and according to the law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.'
The Jews understood, and do Christians say they do not understand? Those who did not believe, understood; and do those who say they believe contrive not to understand? Or let them at least admit this, that the prophet Isaiah, in order to signify that Christ is God not indeed of Himself, but God from God, says among other things: 'After you they shall follow, bound in chains, and they shall adore you, and in you they shall make supplication, because God is in you, and there is no God beside you. For you are God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel, the Saviour.' As far as it pertains to a sound mind, these things are manifest. For by them the Father is proved to be in the Son, and the Son is signified to be God of the same substance whereof the Father is.
For in whom God is, and beside whom there is no God, and who Himself is God — what else can He be said to be, than that which the Father is, namely God, and to differ in nothing? For this is what it is for two to be one. For in Him is God, because, although He is God, yet He is not God of Himself. For He is from the Father, because He is the Son. But beside Him there is no God, because He is the only Son of the Father. And He Himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. No ambiguity therefore remains, but that the substance of the Father and of the Son is believed to be one. For He is the true Son, and the Son of the true Father. Such also is that saying of the prophet Jeremiah; for he says among other things: 'This is our God: no other shall be esteemed beside Him.'
'He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth and conversed among men.' Can He be called degenerate, beside whom no other can be esteemed? Or can any be called God other than the Father, so that it should turn to God's advantage but to the Father's injury? For if no other God can be esteemed beside Him, and He is without God the Father, see whether what follows ought to be said; for it is dangerous: for then He would be called greater than the Father. For thinking to render honour to God the Father, if they separate the Son from Him, they detract from Him; so that, while they wish to make Him lesser, being impiously blinded in mind, they set Him before Him to whose authority they think this One ought to be subjected.
But Scripture, in order to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father — and He would differ, if He were not true — said that no other was to be esteemed beside Him, because no other substance could be found like the substance of God, which is also Christ's. For Christ could not be taught to be of God in any other way than by saying that no other was to be esteemed as Him. For knowing that God the Father can in no way be said to be subject, in order to show His Son to be equal to Him, it says: 'No other shall be esteemed beside Him,' because He is equal to God the Father, who is the God of all; for He is His true Son. The prophet therefore says: 'This is our God,' that is, the God of Israel. If this is He, He Himself is the one God; for of Him the Scripture says:
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God'; and certainly this is not the Father, but His Son. You see, therefore, that the person of the Son is no prejudice to the one God, if He too is called one God — since indeed Scripture attests this. Whence is this, except that the Father and the Son are one, because the unity is signified not by persons, but by nature; so that they are not two in substance, but one, neither two in divinity but one God; so that, whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, one God is said to have spoken? For if the Lord Himself says among other things concerning man and woman: 'They are now not two, but one flesh,' how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance! But that the Father and the Son are called two, the cause is the birth;
but that they are not again two gods, the cause is the one divinity. With what dullness, nevertheless, do they proclaim Christ to be created, that is, made, when they read that God made nothing without Christ? If, then, nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a thing made. For if He is a thing made, then something was made without Him. But far be it, since nothing was without Him. For being born of God, He did not begin, but existed; for birth is nothing else than a going-forth; and the going-forth is a manifestation: therefore He was not made, but brought forth. For that it might be signified that Christ existed or proceeded from the essence of God, His birth was called a going-forth; so that, since the birth is not unlike its begetter, Christ might without doubt be consubstantial with God, and that mind which says:
'there was a time when He was not,' might be condemned, because He cannot at any time not have existed, who — that it might be signified that He always was with God — is read to have proceeded from God. For no one proceeded from Him where He was not. The Arians are indeed wont to interpret thus concerning the Son of God, saying: 'For this reason Christ is called the true Son of God, because He so made Him that He is true' — as though there were anything that God makes false. And all those things which we have said above concerning the unity of the Father and the Son — what will they be, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed? If here it be thought that one must judge otherwise, many things established by the divine oracles will be able to be shaken by the testimony of one degenerate. Yet it must be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even about this very point.
'He so made Him,' it says, 'that He is true' — so that will yields place to birth, and making to generation. 'For so much,' they say, 'must be granted to the power of God, that He can make things which are not as though they were.' Since, then, they use this cunning craftiness against the Son of God, out of these very points from which they presume — because in the rest they have been convicted — they must be answered, so that they may appear convicted in the whole sum. For this proposition, as far as the sense is concerned, is of no weight; but as far as the words are concerned, it makes a fog, lest it appear too quickly. For it is just as if an Egyptian were set in darkness, because a bad cause cannot be defended in a good sense. To defend impiety, therefore, they use sacrilegious words.
If, therefore, this is the power of God — that He made Christ to be a true Son to Himself, although He was not born of Him — then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that making accomplished what generation would have bestowed. If, then, you say that there is no difference between God and Christ, it might perhaps be supposed that this is not maliciously asserted by you, so that what is said in word may be so also in sense; so that, because He is called the true Son, He may be understood to be true, through the fact that He is of one substance with the Father — though not through generation, but through making — because God can do everything, as you say, so that what is made may be just as though unmade.
But if, following the line of reason, you say that what has a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you reveal the deceit of your malice, because, in order to elude the sense of the word, you say with a false voice that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying Him to be equal to God the Father. For He is not true, if He is unequal. Could He be called the true Son, if the Father too is not called true? For if the Son is true, the Father too will be true; which truth equality proves.
But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. But since the testimony of the Scriptures cannot be made void, by which Christ is approved to be the true Son of God, He must be believed to be born of God the Father, because, in order that this truth might be established, He is read to be both 'on a par with God' and 'equal' to Him. But you who proclaim the power of God to be inestimable say: 'God cannot beget, because He is a simple nature' — whereby you do insult even to God the Father Himself. For you call Him a liar, so as to deny the Son whom He asserts to be His own and true, and to lay bare your hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God to be powerful.