![]()
Book VII.
Chapter I.
As he is going to reply to the slanders of his opponents he implores the aid of Divine grace
to teach a prayer to be used by those who undertake to dispute with heretics.
As it happens to those who having escaped the perils of the sea, are in terror of the sands
that stretch before the harbour, or the rocks that line the shore, so it is in my case that, -as I
have kept to the last some of the slandersof the heretics, - although I have reached the limit of the
work which I set myself, yet I am beginning to dread the close, which I had longed to reach. But, as
the Prophet says,"The Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man can do to me,"(1) so we will not fear the pitfalls which crafty
heretics have dug in front of us, nor the paths thickly strewn with horrid thorns. For as they make
our road difficult but do not close it, there is before us the trouble of clearing them away, rather
than the fear of not being able to do so. For when, as we are walking feebly along the right road,
they come in our way, and frighten the walkers rather than hurt them, our work and business has more
to do in clearing them away, than to fear from the difficulty of this: And so, laying our hands upon
that monstrous head of the deadly serpent, and longing to lay hold of all the limbs that are
entangled in the huge folds and coils of his body, again and again do we pray to Thee, O Lord Jesus,
to whom we have ever prayed, that Thou wouldst give us words by opening our mouth "to the pulling
down of strongholds, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge
of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto Thine obedience:"(2) for he is indeed free, who has begun to be led
captive by Thee. Do Thou then be present to this work of thine, and to those of Thine who are
striving for Thee above the measure of their strength. Grant us to bruise the gaping mouths of this
new serpent, and its neck that swells with deadly poison, O Thou who makest the feet of believers to
tread unharmed on serpents and scorpions, and to go upon the adder and basilisk, to tread under foot
the lion and the dragon.(3) And grant that
through the fearless boldness of steadfast innocence, the sucking child may play on the hole of the
asp, and the weaned child thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk.(4) Grant then to us also that we may thrust our hands
unharmed into the den of this monstrous and most wicked basilisk; and if it has in any holes, i.e.,
in the human heart, a lurking or resting place, or has laid its eggs there, or left a trace of its
slimy course, do Thou remove from them all the foul and deadly pollution of this most noxious
serpent. Take away the uncleanness their blasphemy has brought on them, and purify with the fan of
Thy sacred cleansing(5) the souls that are
plunged in stinking mud, so that the "dens of thieves" may become "houses of prayer:"(6) and that in those which are now, as is written,
the dwellings where hedgehogs and monsters,(7)
and satyrs, and all kinds of strange creatures dwell, there the gifts of Thy Holy Spirit, namely the
beauty of faith and holiness may shine forth. And as once Thou didst destroy idolatry and cast out
images, and make shrines of virtue out of the temples of devils, and let into the dens of serpents
and scorpions the rays of shining light, and make out of the dens of error and shame the homes of
beauty and splendour, so do Thou pour upon all whose eyes the darkness of heretical obstinacy has
blinded, the light of Thy compassion and truth, that they may at length with clear and unveiled sight
behold the great and life-giving mystery of Thine Incarnation, and so come to know Thee to have been
born as Very man of that sacred womb of a pure Virgin, and yet to acknowledge that Thou wast always
Very God.
Chapter II.
He meets the objection taken from these words: No one gave birth to one who had existed
before her.
And before I begin to speak of those things of which I have given no foretaste in the earlier
books, I think it right to try to carry out what I have already promised, that when I have thoroughly
redeemed my pledge, I may begin to speak more freely of what has not been touched upon, after having
satisfied my promise. So then that new serpent, in order to destroy the faith of the holy nativity,
hisses out against the Church of God and says: "No one ever gives birth to one older than herself."
To begin with then I think that you know neither what you say nor where you get it from. For if you
knew or understood where you got it from, you would never regard the nativity of the only begotten of
God in the light of human fancies, nor would you try to settle by merely human propositions, about
Him who was born without His conception originating from man: nor would you bring human
impossibilities as objections against Divine Omnipotence if you knew that with God nothing was
impossible. No one then, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. Tell me then, I pray, of
what cases are you speaking, for the nature of what creatures do you think that you can lay down
rules? Do you suppose that you can fix laws for men or beasts or birds or cattle? Those (and others
of the same kind) are the things of which such assertions can be made. For none of them is able to
produce one older than itself; for what has already been produced cannot return to it again so as to
be born again by a new creation. And so no one can bear one older than herself, as no one can beget
one older than himself: for the opportunity of bearing only results where there is the possibility of
begetting. Do you then imagine that in reference to the nativity of Almighty God regard must be had
to the same considerations as in the birth of earthly creatures? And do you bring the nature of man's
conditions as a difficulty in the case of Him who is Himself the author of nature? You see then that,
as I said above, you know not whence or of whom you are talking, as you are comparing creatures to
the Creator; and in order to calculate the power of God are drawing an instance from those things
which would never have existed at all, but that the very fact of their existence comes from God. God
then came as He would, when He would, and of her whom He would. Neither time nor person, nor the
manner of men, nor the custom of creatures was any difficulty with Him; for the law ofthe creatures
could not stand in the way of Him who is Himself the Creator of them all.And whatever He would have
possible was ready to His hand, for the power of willing itwas His. Do you want to know how far the
omnipotence of God extends, and how greatit is? I believe that the Lord could do that even in the
case of His creatures which youdo not believe that He could do in His own case. For all living
creatures which now bearthings younger than themselves could, if only God gave the word, bear things
much olderthan themselves. For even food and drink, if it were God's will, could be turned into
thefoetus and offspring: and even water, which has been flowing from the beginning of things,and
which all living creatures use, could, if God gave the word, be made a body in the womb, and have
birth given to it. For who can set a limit to divine works, or circumscribe Divine Providence? or who
(to use the words of Scripture) can say to Him "What doest thou?"(8) If you deny that God can do all things, then deny,
that, when God was born, one older than Mary could be born of her. But if there is nothing impossible
with God, why do you bring as an objection against His coming an impossibility, when you know that
for Him nothing is impossible in anything?
Chapter III.
He replies to the cavil that the one who is born must be of onesubstance with the one who
bears.
The second blasphemous slander or slanderous blasphemy of your heresy is when you say that
the one who is born must be of one substance with the one who bears. It is not very different from
the previous one, for it differs from it in terms rather than in fact and reality. For when we are
treating of the birth of God, you maintain that one of greater power could not be born of Mary just
as above you maintain than one older could not be begotten. And so you may take it that the same
answer may be given to this as to what you said before: or you may conceive that the answer given to
this assertion, which you are now making, applies to that also. You say then that the one who is born
must be of one substance with the one who bears. If this refers to earthly creatures, it is most
certainly the case. But if it refers to the birth of God, why in the case of His birth do you regard
precedents from nature? for appointments are subject to Him who appointed them, and not the appointer
to His appointments. But would you like to know more fully how these slanders of yours are not only
wicked but foolish, and the idle talk of one who does not in the least see the omnipotence of God?
Tell me, I pray, you who think that like things can only be produced from like things, whence was the
origin of that unaccountable host of quails in thewilderness of old time to feed the children of
Israel, for nowhere do we read that they had been previously born of mother birds, but that they were
brought up and came suddenly. Again whence came that heavenly food which for forty years fell on the
camp of the Hebrews? Did manna produce manna? But these refer to ancient miracles. And what of more
recent ones? With a few loaves and small fishes the Lord Jesus Christ fed countless hosts of
thepeople that followed Him, and not once only. The reason that they were satisfied lay not in the
food: for a secret and unseen cause satisfied the hungry folk, especially as there was much more left
when they were filled than there had been set before them when they were hungry. And how was all this
brought about that when those who ate were satisfied, the food itself was multiplied by an
extraordinary increase? We read that in Galilee wine was produced from water. Tell me how what was of
one nature produced something of an altogether different substance from its own quality? Especially
when (which exactly applies to the birth of the Lord) it was the production of a nobler substance
from what was inferior to it? Tell me then how from merewater there could be produced rich and
splendid wine? How was it that one thing was drawn out, another poured in? Was the cistern a well of
such a nature as to change the water drawn from it into the best wine? Or did the character of the
vessels or the diligence of the servants effect this? Most certainly neither of these. And how is it
that the manner of the fact is not understood by the thoughts of the heart, though the
truth of the fact is firmly held by the conscience? In the gospel clay was placed on the eyes
of a blind man and when it was washed off(9)
eyes were produced. Had water the power of giving birth to eyes, or clay of creating light? Certainly
not, especially as water could be of no use to a blind man, and clay would actually hinder the sight
of those who could see. And how was it that a thing that itself in its own nature was injurious,
became the means of restoring health; and that what was ordinarily hurtful to sound people, was then
made the instrument of healing? You say that the power of God brought it about, and the remedy of God
caused it, and that all these things of which we have been speaking were simply brought about by
Divine Omnipotence; which is able to fashion new things from unwonted material, and to make
serviceable things out of their opposites, and to change what belongs to the realm of things
impossible and impracticable into possibilities and actual performances.
Chapter IV.
How God has shown His Omnipotence in His birth in timeas well as in everything else.
Confess then the same truth in respect of the actual nativity of the Lord, as in respect of
everything else. Believe that God was born when He would, for you do not deny that He could do what
He would; unless possibly you think that that power which belonged to Himfor all other things was
deficient as regards Himself, and that His Omnipotence though proceeding from Him and penetrating all
things, was insufficient to bring about His own nativity. In the case of the Lord's nativity you
bring this as an objection against me: No one gives birth to one who is anterior in time: and in
regard of the birth which Almighty God underwent you say that the one who is born ought to be of one
substance with the one who bears; as if you had to do with human laws as in the case of any ordinary
man, to whom you might bring the impossibility as an objection, as you include him in the weakness of
earthly things. You say that for all men there are common conditions of birth, and but one law of
generation; and that a thing could not possibly happen to one man only out of the whole of humanity,
which God has forbidden to happen to all. You do not understand of whom you are speaking; nor do you
see of whom you are talking; for He is the Author of all conditions, and the very Law of all natures,
through whom exists whatever man can do, and whatever man cannot do: for He certainly has laid down
the limits of both; viz., how far his powers should extend, and the bounds beyond which his weakness
should not advance. How wildly then do you bring human impossibilities as an objection in the case of
Him, who possesses all powers and possibilities. If you estimate the Person of the Lord by earthly
weaknesses, and measure God's Omnipotence by human rules, you will most certainly fail to find
anything which seems appropriate to God as concerns the sufferings of His Body. For if it can seem to
you unreasonable that Mary could give birth to God who was anterior to her, how will it seem
reasonable that God was crucified by men? And yet the same God who was crucified Himself predicted:
"Shall a man afflict God, for you afflict Me?"(10) If then we cannot think that the Lord was born of
a Virgin because He who was born was anterior to her who bore Him, how can we believe that God had
blood? And yet it was said to the Ephesian elders: "Feed the Church of God which He has purchased
with His own Blood."(11) Finally how can we
think that the Author of life was Himself deprived of life: And yet Peter says: "Ye have killed the
Author of life."(12) No one who is set on
earth can be in heaven: and how does the Lord Himself say: "The Son of man who is in heaven"?(13) If then you think that God was not born of a
Virgin because the one who is born must be of one substance with the one who bears, how will you
believe that different things can be produced from different natures?Thus according to you the wind
did not suddenly bring the quails, nor did the manna fall, nor was water turned into wine nor were
many thousands of men fed with a few loaves, nor did the blind man receive his sight after the clay
had been put on him. But if all these things seem incredible and contrary to nature, unless we
believe that they were wrought by God, why should you deny in the matter of His nativity, what you
admit in the matter of His works? Or was He unable to contribute to His own nativity and advent what
He did not refuse for the succour and profit of men?
Chapter V.
He shows by proofs drawn from nature itself, that the law which his opponents lay down; viz.,
that the one born ought to be of one substance with the one who bears, fails to hold good in many
cases.
IT would be tedious and almost childish to speak further on this subject. But still in order
to refute that folly and madness of yours, in which you maintain that the one born ought to be of one
substance with the one who bears, i.e., that nothing can produce something of a different nature to
itself, I will bring forward some instances of earthly things, to convince you that many creatures
are produced from things of a different nature. Not that it is possible or right to make any
comparison in such a case as this: but that you may not doubt the possibility of that happening in
the case of the holy Nativity, which as you see takes place in these frail earthly things. Bees,
tiniest of creatures though they are, are yet so clever and cunning that we read that they can be
produced and spring from things of an entirely different nature. For as they are creatures of
marvellous intelligence, and well endowed not merely with sense but with foresight, they are produced
from the gathered flowers of plants. What greater instance do you think can be produced and quoted?
Living creatures are produced from inanimate: sensate from insensate.(14) What artificer, whatarchitect was there? Who
formed their bodies? Who breathed in their souls? Who gave them articulate sounds by which to
converse with each other? Who fashioned and arranged these harmonies of their feet, the cunning of
their mouths, the neatness of their wings? Their powers, wrath, foresight, movements, calmness,
harmony, differences, wars, peace, arrangements, contrivances, business, government, all those things
indeed which they have in common with men-from whose teaching, or whose gift did they receive them?
from whose implanting or instruction? Did they gain this through generation? or learn it in their
mother's womb or from her flesh? They never were in the womb, and had no experience of generation. It
was only that flowers which they culled were brought into the hive and from this by a marvellous
contrivance bees issued forth.(15) Then the
womb of the mother imparted nothing to the offspring: nor are bees produced from bees. They are but
their artificers, not their authors. From the blossoms of plants living creatures proceed. What is
there akin in plants and animals? I fancy then that you see who is the contriver of those things. Go
now and inquire whether the Lord could bring about that in the case of His own nativity, which you
see that He procured in the case of these tiniest of creatures. Perhaps it is needless after this to
add anything further. But still let us add in support of the argument what may not be necessary to
prove the point. We see how the air is suddenly darkened, and the earth filled with locusts. Show me
their seed-their birth-their mothers. For, as you see, they proceed thence, whence they have their
birth. Assertin all these cases that the one who is born must be of one substance with the one who
bears. And in these assertions you will be shown to be as silly, as you are wild in your denial of
the Nativity of the Lord. And what next? Do even you think that we must go on any further? But
still we will add something else. There is no doubt that basilisks are produced from the eggs of the
birds which in Egypt they call the Ibis. What is there of kindred or relationship between a bird and
a serpent? Why is the thing born not of one substance with that which bears it? And yet those who
bear are not the authors of all these things, nor do those who are born understand them: but they
result from secret causes, and from some inexplicable and manifold law of nature which produces them.
And you are bringing as objections to His Nativity your petty assertions from earthly notions, while
you cannot explain the origin of those things, which are produced by His bidding and command, whose
will does everything, whose sway causes everything: whom nothing can oppose or resist; and whose will
is sufficient for everything which can possibly be done.
Chapter VI.
He refutes another argument of Nestorius, in which he tried to make out that Christ was like
Adam in every point.
HOME 
TOP