Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/De Spiritu Sancto/Chapter 29

by Philip Schaff et al.

Chapter XXIX.

Enumeration of the illustrious men in the Church who in their writings have used the word “with.”

71.  In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received.  But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one.  For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions.  “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;”^[1] and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.”^[2]  One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.  If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal?  I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.”^[3]  And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us?  For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity.  I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned).  For it did not originate with us.  How could it?  We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.”^[4]  I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers.  It was delivered to me by one^[5] who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church.  While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of to-day—because of the exactness of their knowledge.  Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently,—at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned.

72.  There is the famous Irenæus,^[6] and Clement of Rome;^[7] Dionysius of Rome,^[8] and, strange to say, Dionysius of Alexandria, in his second Letter to his namesake, on “Conviction and Defence,” so concludes.  I will give you his very words.  “Following all these, we, too, since we have received from the presbyters who were before us a form and rule, offering thanksgiving in the same terms with them, thus conclude our Letter to you.  To God the Father and the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost, glory and might for ever and ever; amen.”  And no one can say that this passage has been altered.  He would not have so persistently stated that he had received a form and rule if he had said “in the Spirit.”  For of this phrase the use is abundant:  it was the use of “with” which required defence.  Dionysius moreover in the middle of his treatise thus writes in opposition to the Sabellians, “If by the hypostases being three they say that they are divided, there are three, though they like it not.  Else let them destroy the divine Trinity altogether.”  And again:  “most divine on this account after the Unity is the Trinity.”^[9]  Clement, in more primitive fashion, writes, “God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.”^[10]  And now let us hear how Irenæus, who lived near the times of the Apostles, mentions the Spirit in his work “Against the Heresies.”^[11]  “The Apostle rightly calls carnal them that are unbridled and carried away to their own desires, having no desire for the Holy Spirit,”^[12] and in another passage Irenæus says, “The Apostle exclaimed that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens lest we, being without share in the divine Spirit, fall short of the kingdom of the heavens.”  If any one thinks Eusebius of Palestine^[13] worthy of credit on account of his wide experience, I point further to the very words he uses in discussing questions concerning the polygamy of the ancients.  Stirring up himself to his work, he writes “invoking the holy God of the Prophets, the Author of light, through our Saviour Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit.”

73.  Origen, too, in many of his expositions of the Psalms, we find using the form of doxology “with the Holy Ghost.”  The opinions which he held concerning the Spirit were not always and everywhere sound; nevertheless in many passages even he himself reverently recognises the force of established usage, and expresses himself concerning the Spirit in terms consistent with true religion.  It is, if I am not mistaken, in the Sixth^[14] Book of his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John that he distinctly makes the Spirit an object of worship.  His words are:—“The washing or water is a symbol of the cleaning of the soul which is washed clean of all filth that comes of wickedness;^[15] but none the less is it also by itself, to him who yields himself to the God-head of the adorable Trinity, through the power of the invocations, the origin and source of blessings.”  And again, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans “the holy powers,” he says “are able to receive the Only-begotten, and the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.”  Thus I apprehend, the powerful influence of tradition frequently impels men to express themselves in terms contradictory to their own opinions.^[16]  Moreover this form of the doxology was not unknown even to Africanus the historian.  In the Fifth Book of his Epitome of the Times he says “we who know the weight of those terms, and are not ignorant of the grace of faith, render thanks to the Father, who bestowed on us His own creatures, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world and our Lord, to whom be glory and majesty with the Holy Ghost, for ever.”^[17]  The rest of the passages may peradventure be viewed with suspicion; or may really have been altered, and the fact of their having been tampered with will be difficult to detect because the difference consists in a single syllable.  Those however which I have quoted at length are out of the reach of any dishonest manipulation, and can easily be verified from the actual works.

I will now adduce another piece of evidence which might perhaps seem insignificant, but because of its antiquity must in nowise be omitted by a defendant who is indicted on a charge of innovation.  It seemed fitting to our fathers not to receive the gift of the light at eventide in silence, but, on its appearing, immediately to give thanks.  Who was the author of these words of thanksgiving at the lighting of the lamps, we are not able to say.  The people, however, utter the ancient form, and no one has ever reckoned guilty of impiety those who say “We praise Father, Son, and God’s Holy Spirit.”^[18]  And if any one knows the Hymn of Athenogenes,^[19] which, as he was hurrying on to his perfecting by fire, he left as a kind of farewell gift^[20] to his friends, he knows the mind of the martyrs as to the Spirit.  On this head I shall say no more.

74.  But where shall I rank the great Gregory,^[21] and the words uttered by him?  Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they;^[22] who never through all his days diverged from the footprints of the saints; who maintained, as long as he lived, the exact principles of evangelical citizenship?  I am sure that we shall do the truth a wrong if we refuse to number that soul with the people of God, shining as it did like a beacon in the Church of God; for by the fellow-working of the Spirit the power which he had over demons was tremendous, and so gifted was he with the grace of the word “for obedience to the faith among…the nations,”^[23] that, although only seventeen Christians were handed over to him, he brought the whole people alike in town and country through knowledge to God.  He too by Christ’s mighty name commanded even rivers to change their course,^[24] and caused a lake, which afforded a ground of quarrel to some covetous brethren, to dry up.^[25]  Moreover his predictions of things to come were such as in no wise to fall short of those of the great prophets.  To recount all his wonderful works in detail would be too long a task.  By the superabundance of gifts, wrought in him by the Spirit in all power and in signs and in marvels, he was styled a second Moses by the very enemies of the Church.  Thus in all that he through grace accomplished, alike by word and deed, a light seemed ever to be shining, token of the heavenly power from the unseen which followed him.  To this day he is a great object of admiration to the people of his own neighbourhood, and his memory, established in the churches ever fresh and green, is not dulled by length of time.  Thus not a practice, not a word, not a mystic rite has been added to the Church besides what he bequeathed to it.  Hence truly on account of the antiquity of their institution many of their ceremonies appear to be defective.^[26]  For his successors in the administration of the Churches could not endure to accept any subsequent discovery in addition to what had had his sanction.  Now one of the institutions of Gregory is the very form of the doxology to which objection is now made, preserved by the Church on the authority of his tradition; a statement which may be verified without much trouble by any one who likes to make a short journey.  That our Firmilian held this belief is testified by the writings which he has left.^[27]  The contemporaries also of the illustrious Meletius say that he was of this opinion.  But why quote ancient authorities?  Now in the East are not the maintainers of true religion known chiefly by this one term, and separated from their adversaries as by a watchword?  I have heard from a certain Mesopotamian, a man at once well skilled in the language and of unperverted opinions, that by the usage of his country it is impossible for any one, even though he may wish to do so, to express himself in any other way, and that they are compelled by the idiom of their mother tongue to offer the doxology by the syllable “and,” or, I should more accurately say, by their equivalent expressions.  We Cappadocians, too, so speak in the dialect of our country, the Spirit having so early as the division of tongues foreseen the utility of the phrase.  And what of the whole West, almost from Illyricum to the boundaries of our world?  Does it not support this word?

75.  How then can I be an innovator and creator of new terms, when I adduce as originators and champions of the word whole nations, cities, custom going back beyond the memory of man, men who were pillars of the church and conspicuous for all knowledge and spiritual power?  For this cause this banded array of foes is set in motion against me, and town and village and remotest regions are full of my calumniators.  Sad and painful are these things to them that seek for peace, but great is the reward of patience for sufferings endured for the Faith’s sake.  So besides these let sword flash, let axe be whetted, let fire burn fiercer than that of Babylon, let every instrument of torture be set in motion against me.  To me nothing is more fearful than failure to fear the threats which the Lord has directed against them that blaspheme the Spirit.^[28]  Kindly readers will find a satisfactory defence in what I have said, that I accept a phrase so dear and so familiar to the saints, and confirmed by usage so long, inasmuch as, from the day when the Gospel was first preached up to our own time, it is shewn to have been admitted to all full rights within the churches, and, what is of greatest moment, to have been accepted as bearing a sense in accordance with holiness and true religion.  But before the great tribunal what have I prepared to say in my defence?  This; that I was in the first place led to the glory of the Spirit by the honour conferred by the Lord in associating Him with Himself and with His Father at baptism;^[29] and secondly by the introduction of each of us to the knowledge of God by such an initiation; and above all by the fear of the threatened punishment shutting out the thought of all indignity and unworthy conception.  But our opponents, what will they say?  After shewing neither reverence for the Lord’s honour^[30] nor fear of His threats, what kind of defence will they have for their blasphemy?  It is for them to make up their mind about their own action or even now to change it.  For my own part I would pray most earnestly that the good God will make His peace rule in the hearts of all,^[31] so that these men who are swollen with pride and set in battle array against us may be calmed by the Spirit of meekness and of love; and that if they have become utterly savage, and are in an untamable state, He will grant to us at least to bear with long suffering all that we have to bear at their hands.  In short “to them that have in themselves the sentence of death,”^[32] it is not suffering for the sake of the Faith which is painful; what is hard to bear is to fail to fight its battle.  The athlete does not so much complain of being wounded in the struggle as of not being able even to secure admission into the stadium.  Or perhaps this was the time for silence spoken of by Solomon the wise.^[33]  For, when life is buffeted by so fierce a storm that all the intelligence of those who are instructed in the word is filled with the deceit of false reasoning and confounded, like an eye filled with dust, when men are stunned by strange and awful noises, when all the world is shaken and everything tottering to its fall, what profits it to cry, as I am really crying, to the wind?

Footnotes

1. 1 Cor. xi. 2.
2. 2 Thess. ii. 15.
3. Deut. xix. 15.
4. Job viii. 9.
5. i.e. Dianius, bp. of the Cappadocian Cæsarea, who baptized St. Basil c. 357 on his return from Athens, and ordained him Reader.  He was a waverer, and signed the creed of Ariminum in 359; Basil consequently left him, but speaks reverentially of him in Ep. 51.
6. † c. 200.
7. † 100.
8. † 269.
9. Dionysius was Patriarch of Alexandria a.d. 247–265.  Basil’s “strange to say” is of a piece with the view of Dionysius’ heretical tendencies expressed in Letter ix. q.v.  Athanasius, however, (De Sent. Dionysii) was satisfied as to the orthodoxy of his predecessor.  Bp. Westcott (Dict. C. Biog. i. 851) quotes Lumper (Hist. Pat. xii. 86) as supposing that Basil’s charge against Dionysius of sowing the seeds of the Anomœan heresy was due to imperfect acquaintance with his writings.  In Letter clxxxviii. Basil calls him “the Great,” which implies general approval.
10. Clem. Rom., Ep. ad Cor. lviii.  Bp. Lightfoot’s Ap. Fathers, Pt. I. ii. 169.
11. Irenæus is near the Apostles in close connexion, as well as in time, through his personal knowledge of Polycarp.  Videhis Ep. to Florinus quoted in Euseb., Ecc. Hist. v. 20.  In his work On the Ogdoad, quoted in the same chapter, Irenæus says of himself that he τὴν πρωτὴν τῶν ᾽Αποστολῶν κατειληφέναι την διαδοχήν “had himself had the nearest succession of the Apostles.”
12. The reference is presumably to 1 Cor. ii. 11 and iii. 1.
13. i.e.Eusebius of Cæsarea, the historian, so called to distinguish him from his namesake of Nicomedia.  cf. Theodoret, Ecc. Hist. i. 1.  The work is not extant.  It may be that mentioned by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. vii. 8, 20 under the title of περὶ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν πολυπαιδίας.
14. The quotation is from the Eighth Book.
15. cf. 1 Pet. iii. 21.
16. As to Origen’s unorthodoxy concerning the Holy Spirit St. Basil may have had in his mind such a passage as the following from the First Book of the De Principiis, extant in the original in Justinian, Ep. ad Mennam.  Migne, Pat. Gr. xi. p. 150.  ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰς εκαστον τῶν ὄντων μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν· ἐλάττων δὲ παρὰ τὸν πατέρα ὁ Υἱ& 232·ς φθάνει ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά· δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ πατρός· ἔτι δὲ ἧττον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διικνούμενον· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν Υἱ& 232·ν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον   The work does not even exist as a whole in the translation of Rufinus, who omitted portions, and St. Jerome thought that Rufinus had misrepresented it.  Photius (Biblioth. cod. viii.) says that Origen, in asserting in this work that the Son was made by the Father and the Spirit by the Son, is most blasphemous.  Bp. Harold Browne, however (Exposition of the xxxix. Art. p. 113, n. 1), is of opinion that if Rufinus fairly translated the following passage, Origen cannot have been fairly charged with heresy concerning the Holy Ghost:  “Ne quis sane existimet nos ex eo quod diximus Spiritum sanctum solis sanctis præstari.  Patris vero et Filii beneficia vel inoperationes pervenire ad bonos et malos, justos et injustos, prœtulisse per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum, vel majorem ejus per hoc asserere dignitatem; quod utique valde inconsequens est.  Proprietatem namque gratiæ ejus operisque descripsimus.  Porro autem nihil in Trinitate majus minusve dicendum est, quum unius Divinitatis Fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa, spiritu vero oris sui quæ digna sunt, sanctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psalmo scriptum est verbo domini cœli firmati sunt et spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum.”  De Princ. I. iii. 7. On the obligations of both Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus to Origen, cf. Socrates iv. 26.
17. Of the chief writings of Julius Africanus (called Sextus Africanus by Suidas), who wrote at Emmaus and Alexandria c. 220, only fragments remain.  A Letter to Origen is complete.  His principal work was a Chronicon from the Creation to a.d. 221, in Five Books.  Of this Dr. Salmon (D.C.B. i. 56) thinks the doxology quoted by Basil was the conclusion.
18. Ps. cxli. was called ὁ ἐπιλύχνιος ψαλμός (Ap. Const. viii. 35).  In the Vespers of the Eastern Church an evening hymn is sung, translated in D.C.A. i. 634, “Joyful Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, the heavenly, the holy, the blessed Jesus Christ, we having come to the setting of the sun and beholding the evening light, praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  It is meet at all times that thou shouldest be hymned with auspicious voices, Son of God, Giver of Life:  wherefore the world glorifieth thee.”
19. Identified by some with two early hymns, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, and φῶς ἱλαρόν.
20. The mss. vary between ἐξιτήριον and ἀλεξιτήριον, farewell gift and amulet or charm.  In Ep. cciii. 299 Basil says that our Lord gave His disciples peace as an ἐξιτήριον δῶρον, using the word, but in conjunction with δῶρον.  Greg. Naz., Orat. xiv. 223 speaks of our Lord leaving peace “ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι ἐξιτήριον.”
21. i.e. Gregory, bishop of Neocæsarea, known as Gregorius Thaumaturgus, or Gregory the Wonder-worker.  To the modern reader “Gregory the Great” more naturally suggests Gregory of Nazianzus, but this he hardly was to his friend and contemporary, though the title had accrued to him by the time of the accepted Ephesine Council in 431 (vide Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1192) Gregory the Wonder-worker, † c. 270.
22. 2 Cor. xii. 18.
23. Rom. i. 5.
24. e.g.according to the legend, the Lycus.  cf. Newman, Essays on Miracles, p. 267.
25. The story is told by Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Greg. Thaum. Migne xlvi. 926–930.
26. The Neocæsareans appear to have entertained a Puritan objection to the antiphonal psalmody becoming general in the Church in the time of Basil.  cf. Ep. ccvii.
27. Firmilian, like Gregory the Wonder-worker, a pupil of Origen, was bishop of Cæsarea from before a.d. 232 (Euseb. vi. 26) to 272 (Euseb. vii. 30).  By some his death at Tarsus is placed in 264 or 5.
28. cf. Matt. xii. 31.
29. Matt. xxviii. 19.
30. The Benedictine version for τὰς τιμὰς τοῦ κυρίου is honorem quem Dominus tribuit Spiritui.  The reading of one ms. is τὰς φωνάς.  There is authority for either sense of the genitive with τιμή, i.e. the honours due to the Lord or paid by the Lord.
31. cf. Col. iii. 15.
32. 2 Cor. i. 9.
33. Eccl. iii. 7.