On the Holy Spirit 24.55–26.64

Again, the common man "is crowned with glory and honor," and "glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good" is laid up in promises. There is also a glory belonging specially to Israel: "to whom belong," it says, "the adoption and the glory and the worship." And the Psalmist speaks of a glory of his own: "that my glory may sing to you"; and again, "Awake, my glory." There is also a glory of the sun, and of the moon, and of the stars; and according to the Apostle even "the ministry of condemnation" was "with glory." When so many things are glorified, is the Spirit alone of all to be unglorified? And yet "the ministry of the Spirit," it says, "is in glory." How then is he himself unworthy to be glorified? And great is the glory of the righteous, according to the Psalmist; but the glory of the Spirit, according to you, is none. How then is the danger not plain, that by such words men draw upon themselves the sin from which there is no escape? If the man who is being saved by works of righteousness glorifies even "those who fear the Lord," he would be far indeed from depriving the Spirit of the glory due to him. "Let him be glorified," he says, "but not with the Father and the Son." And what reason is there to devise another place for the Spirit, abandoning the one appointed by the Lord, and to deprive of fellowship in glory him who is everywhere joined with the Godhead: in the confession of faith, in the baptism of redemption, in the working of miracles, in the indwelling of the saints, in the graces given for obedience? For there is no gift at all that comes to the creation without the Holy Spirit, since not even a bare word can be spoken in defense of Christ unless we are helped by the Spirit, as we have learned in the Gospels from our Lord and Saviour. But whether anyone who shares in the Holy Spirit will agree to overlook all this, forget his fellowship in all things, and tear him away from Father and Son, I do not know. Where, then, shall we carry him and rank him? With the creation? But all creation is in slavery, whereas the Spirit sets free: "For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." And though much could be said on why it is not fitting to number the Holy Spirit with created nature, I shall put off the discussion of these matters for now. For if we were to bring forward our own arguments as the question deserves and refute the objections put forward by our opponents, we would need many words and would wear out the readers with the length of the book. So, reserving that for a separate treatise, let us keep to the matters before us.

Let us, then, consider the points one by one. He is good by nature, as the Father is good and the Son is good; but the creation shares in goodness by choosing the good. He knows the depths of God; but the creation receives the revelation of ineffable things through the Spirit. He gives life together with God, who brings all things to life, and together with the Son, who gives life. "He who raised Christ from the dead," it says, "will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you"; and again, "My sheep hear my voice, and I give them eternal life." But "the Spirit too," it says, "gives life." And again, "The Spirit," it says, "is life because of righteousness." And the Lord testifies that it is the Spirit who gives life: "The flesh profits nothing." How then shall we estrange the Spirit from his life-giving power and attach him to the nature that stands in need of life? Who is so contentious, who so without share in the heavenly gift and without taste of the good words of God, who so without portion in eternal hopes, as to rank the Spirit with the creation, separating him from the Godhead?

"The Spirit is in us," he says, "as a gift from God; and surely a gift is not revered with honors equal to the giver's." The Spirit is indeed the gift of God, but a gift of life: "For the law of the Spirit of life," it says, "has set us free." And a gift of power: "For you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Is he, then, for this reason to be despised? Did God not also give his Son freely to men? "He who did not spare his own Son," it says, "but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?" And elsewhere: "that we may know the things freely given us by God"—speaking of the mystery of the incarnation. So how have those who say these things not surpassed the ingratitude of the Jews, taking the excess of kindness as a pretext for blasphemy? For they find fault with the Spirit because he gives us boldness to call God our own Father. "For God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father,'" so that his voice may become the very voice of those who have received him.

"How is it, then," he says, "that Scripture nowhere hands down the Spirit as glorified together with the Father and the Son, but has carefully avoided saying 'with the Spirit,' and everywhere has preferred to glorify 'in him' as more fitting?" For my part, I would not say that the syllable "in" expresses a less honorable meaning; rather, rightly understood, it lifts the mind to the greatest height—since we have observed that it is also often used in place of "with." As in, "I will go into your house in burnt offerings," instead of "with burnt offerings"; and, "He brought them out in silver and gold," that is, "with silver and gold"; and, "You will not go out in our forces," instead of "with our forces"; and countless others like these. In short, I would gladly learn from this new wisdom what doxology the Apostle completed with the word "in," according to the form these men now bring forward as from Scripture. For I have nowhere found it said, "To you, the Father, be honor and glory through your only-begotten Son in the Holy Spirit"—which is now more habitual to them, one might say, than breathing itself. Each of these phrases can be found separately; but joined together in this arrangement they will be able to show it nowhere. So if they are precise about what is written, let them show where their phrase comes from; but if they defer to custom, let them not shut us out either.

For we, finding both expressions in the usage of the faithful, use both: we believe that glory is rendered to the Spirit equally by either, but that those who corrupt the truth are better silenced by the phrase now in question, which—having a force close to that of the Scriptures—is not so easy for opponents to attack (and it is this one that these men now dispute), and which has been adopted in place of the conjunction "and." For it is the same to say "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy" and "Paul with Timothy and Silvanus": the linking of the names is preserved equally by either way of speaking. If, then, when the Lord has said "Father and Son and Holy Spirit," I myself were to say "Father and Son with the Holy Spirit," shall I have said anything different in force? There are many testimonies to the linking of the names by the conjunction "and." "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," it says, "and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit"; and again, "I appeal to you through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit." If, then, we chose to use "with" instead of "and," what difference would we have made? I do not see any—unless someone, following frigid grammatical rules, were to prefer the conjunction as copulative and as making the union greater, and reject the preposition as not having equal force. But if we had to give account only about these things, perhaps we should not need a long defense. As it is, their argument is not about syllables, nor about this or that sound of a word, but about realities that differ very greatly in power and truth. That is why, although the use of syllables is a matter of indifference, these men try to enroll some and to drive others out of the church. But I, though the usefulness of it is plain at first hearing, will nevertheless also give the reason why our fathers not idly adopted the use of this preposition. For besides refuting the evil of Sabellius as effectively as the syllable "and," and like it setting forth the distinctness of the hypostases—as in "I and the Father will come," and "I and the Father are one"—it has, as its special advantage, the testimony to the eternal fellowship and unceasing union. For he who says that the Son is with the Father has shown at once both the distinctness of the hypostases and the inseparability of the fellowship. This can be seen in human affairs too: the conjunction "and" sets forth the sharing in an action, while the preposition "with" also indicates, in some way, the fellowship. For example, "Paul and Timothy sailed to Macedonia"; and "Tychicus and Onesimus were sent to the Colossians." From these we have learned that they did the same thing; but if we hear that they "sailed together" and "were sent together," we are further taught that they carried out the task in company with one another. Thus, while it overthrows the evil of Sabellius as no other expression does, it overthrows along with them also those who are impious in the diametrically opposite way—I mean those who divide the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Son, by intervals of time.

Compared with the syllable "in," this is the chief difference: "with" sets forth the conjunction with one another of those who share in something, as of those sailing together, or living together, or doing anything at all in common; while "in" shows the relation to the thing in which they happen to be acting. For when we hear "sail in" and "live in," we at once think of the vessel and the house. Such, then, in common usage, is the difference between them, and more could be found by the diligent; for I have no leisure to examine matters of syllables. Since, then, it has been shown that "with" most clearly conveys the idea of conjunction, let it be at peace with you, if you please, and cease your harsh and implacable war against it. Nevertheless, though the word is so clear, if anyone likes in doxologies to link the names with the syllable "and" and to glorify "Father and Son and Holy Spirit," as we have learned in the Gospels in connection with baptism, let that be done too; no one will object. On these terms, if you agree, let us come to settlement. But they would sooner give up their tongues than accept this expression. This, then, is what stirs up the implacable, truceless war against us. "In the Holy Spirit," he says, "the doxology is to be rendered to God, not 'and to the Spirit'"; and they cling most passionately to this expression, as one that lowers the Spirit. About it, it will not be useless to speak at greater length. When they have heard what we say, I would be surprised if they did not renounce it as a traitor, a deserter to the side of the Spirit's glory.

To me, then, as I consider it, it seems that, though the expression is simple and brief, its meanings are many and various. For in as many senses as "in" is used, in so many we find it serving our conceptions of the Spirit. Form is said to be in matter, and a power in what is receptive of it, and a habit in what is disposed according to it, and many such things. Accordingly, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit perfects rational beings, completing their highest excellence, he holds the place of form. For he who no longer lives according to the flesh, but is led by the Spirit of God, and is called a son of God, and has become conformed to the image of the Son of God, is named spiritual. And as the power of seeing is in the healthy eye, so the working of the Spirit is in the purified soul. That is why Paul prays for the Ephesians that their eyes may be enlightened in the Spirit of wisdom. And as an art is in the one who has acquired it, so the grace of the Spirit is in the one who has received it: always present, but not working continuously. For an art too is in the craftsman potentially, but actually only when he works according to it. So also the Spirit is always present with those who are worthy, but works as need requires, whether in prophecies, or in healings, or in some other workings of miracles. Again, as health, or heat, or in general easily changed conditions are in bodies, so the Spirit is often in the soul, not remaining with those who through the instability of their will readily thrust away the grace they have received—such was Saul, and the seventy elders of the sons of Israel except Eldad and Modad (for with these alone of all the Spirit seems to have remained), and in general anyone like these in disposition. And as reason is in the soul, sometimes as the thought in the heart, sometimes as that uttered by the tongue, so is the Holy Spirit: at one time when he "bears witness with our spirit" and when he cries in our hearts, "Abba, Father"; at another when he speaks on our behalf, as it was said, "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of the Father who speaks in you." Again, the Spirit is also conceived as a whole in its parts, according to the distribution of the gifts. For "we are all members of one another, having gifts that differ according to the grace of God given to us." For this reason "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you,' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.'" But all together complete the body of Christ in the unity of the Spirit, and render to one another the necessary benefit that comes from the gifts. For "God has placed the members in the body, each one of them, as he willed." Yet the members "have the same care for one another," in accordance with the spiritual fellowship of sympathy that exists among them. Therefore, "if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it." And as parts in a whole, we are each in the Spirit, because we "were all baptized in one body into one Spirit."

And—what is paradoxical to say, but no less true than anything—the Spirit is also often spoken of as the place of those being sanctified. And it will be seen that this way of speaking too does not diminish the Spirit but rather glorifies him. For Scripture often transfers bodily names to spiritual conceptions for the sake of clarity. We have observed, then, that the Psalmist says even of God, "Be to me a God who protects, and a strong place to save me." And about the Spirit: "Behold, a place beside me," it says, "and stand on the rock." What else does he mean by "place" but the contemplation in the Spirit, having come into which Moses was able to see God appearing to him knowably? This is the place proper to true worship. "Take heed," it says, "that you do not offer up your burnt offerings in every place, but in the place that the Lord your God will choose." What, then, is a spiritual burnt offering? The sacrifice of praise. And in what place do we offer it, but in the Holy Spirit? Where have we learned this? From the Lord himself, who says, "The true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth." Seeing this place, Jacob said, "The Lord is in this place." So the Spirit is truly the place of the saints. And the saint is a place fitting for the Spirit, offering himself for indwelling with God and being called his temple. For as Paul speaks in Christ—"For we speak before God in Christ," he says—and Christ in Paul, as he himself says, "Or do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?"—so also he speaks the mysteries in the Spirit, and again the Spirit speaks in him.

Thus, then, the Spirit is said to be in created beings in many and various ways; but in relation to the Father and the Son it is more reverent to say not that he is in them but that he is with them. For the grace that comes from him when he dwells in the worthy and works his own works is rightly said to be in those who are able to receive him; but his existence before the ages and his unceasing continuance, contemplated with the Son and the Father, call for the titles of eternal conjunction. For "to coexist," in the proper and true sense, is said of things that are inseparably together with one another. We say that heat is in the red-hot iron, but coexists with fire itself; and that health is in the body, but life coexists with the soul. So where the fellowship is intimate, connatural, and inseparable, "with" is the more expressive word, suggesting the idea of inseparable fellowship; but where the grace from him is of a nature to come and to go again, "being in" is said properly and truly—even if in those who have received it the grace from him often remains lasting because of the steadfastness of their disposition toward the good. So when we consider the Spirit's own dignity, we contemplate him with the Father and the Son; but when we think of the grace worked in those who share in him, we say that the Spirit is in us. And the doxology offered by us "in the Spirit" is not a confession of his dignity but an acknowledgment of our own weakness: we show that we are not sufficient to glorify of ourselves, but our sufficiency is in the Holy Spirit; empowered in him, we render to our God thanksgiving for the benefits we have received—each of us receiving more or less of the Spirit's help, according to the measure of our purity from evil, for offering sacrifices of praise to God. In this one way, then, we reverently render thanksgiving "in the Spirit." And yet even this is not free of offense, for someone to testify of himself, "The Spirit of God is in me, and made wise by his grace I offer up glory." For the saying befits Paul: "For I think that I too have the Spirit of God"; and again, "Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us"; and it is said of Daniel that "the holy Spirit of God is in him"; and of anyone like these in virtue.

A second sense, not to be rejected either: as the Father is seen in the Son, so the Son is seen in the Spirit. Worship "in the Spirit," then, suggests the activity of our mind taking place as in light, as you may learn from what was said to the Samaritan woman. For our Lord, correcting her belief—misled by the custom of her country—that worship was in a place, said that one must worship "in spirit and truth," clearly calling himself the truth. As, then, we speak of worship in the Son, as in the image of the God and Father, so also in the Spirit, as showing in himself the Godhead of the Lord. That is why, in worship too, the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son. For if you are outside him, you will not worship at all; and if you are in him, you will in no way separate him from God—no more than you will take light away from visible things. For it is impossible to see the image of the invisible God except in the illumination of the Spirit; and for one who fixes his gaze on the image it is impossible to separate the light from the image. For the cause of seeing is necessarily seen together with the things seen. So, fittingly and consistently, through the illumination of the Spirit we behold the radiance of the glory of God, and through the imprint we are led up to him whose imprint and seal of equal form it is.