In answer to the objection that the doxology “with the Spirit” lacks written authority, we say this: if there were no other unwritten practice among us, then neither should this one be received. But if the greater part of what constitutes our mysteries has entered the Church without being committed to writing, then let this practice be received together with the others.
For I consider it apostolic to hold fast also to unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” says the Apostle, “because you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you”; and again, “Stand firm and hold the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by our letter.”
One of these traditions is the practice now under discussion. Those who established the churches from the beginning rooted it firmly in them and handed it on to their successors, and through long-continued use it has advanced together with time.
Suppose that, as in a court of law, we lacked documentary evidence but could bring before you a large number of witnesses. Would you not vote for our acquittal? I think you would, for “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter shall be established.” And if we could show clearly that a long stretch of time stood on our side, would it not seem reasonable to you that this charge should never have been brought against us? Ancient dogmas inspire a certain reverence simply by the venerable weight of their antiquity.
I will therefore list those who support this expression—and their dates must also be considered in relation to what is now challenged. The phrase did not begin with us. How could it? Compared with the length of time it has been in use, we are, in Job’s words, “only of yesterday.”
Speaking for myself, I cherish this form as an inheritance from my fathers. It was handed on to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, by whom I was baptized and admitted to the ministry of the Church. When I investigated, as far as I could, whether any of the blessed men of old had used the expression now objected to, I found many witnesses worthy of confidence—both because of their antiquity and because they possessed something rarely found among people today: exactness of knowledge.
Some joined the words of the doxology by a preposition and others by a conjunction, yet none were thought to differ from the others, at least as regards the sound meaning of true religion.
There is the renowned Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Rome, and—even more strikingly—Dionysius of Alexandria. In his second letter to his namesake, on “Conviction and Defense,” he concludes in this way. I will quote his own words:
“Following all these, we also, since we have received from the presbyters before us a pattern and rule, give thanks in the same terms as they did and thus conclude our letter to you: To God the Father and to the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and might forever and ever. Amen.”
No one can plausibly claim that this passage has been altered. Dionysius would not have insisted so strongly that he had received a pattern and rule if he had written “in the Spirit,” for that expression was already in abundant use. It was precisely the use of “with” that required defense.
In the middle of the same treatise, opposing the Sabellians, Dionysius also writes: “If they say that because the hypostases are three they are divided, then there are three, whether they like it or not. Otherwise let them abolish the divine Trinity altogether.” And again: “For this reason the Trinity, after the Unity, is most divine.”
Clement, in a still more ancient form, writes: “God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.”
Now let us hear how Irenaeus, who lived close to the apostolic times, speaks of the Spirit in his work Against Heresies. He says that the Apostle rightly calls those people carnal who are undisciplined and carried away by their own desires, having no desire for the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere Irenaeus says that the Apostle declared that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens,” lest, by lacking participation in the divine Spirit, we fall short of the kingdom of the heavens.
And if anyone considers Eusebius of Palestine trustworthy because of his wide learning, I can point to his very words in his discussion of the polygamy of the ancients. As he begins his work, he writes: “Invoking the holy God of the prophets, the Author of light, through our Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit.”
We also find Origen using the form of doxology “with the Holy Spirit” in many of his expositions of the Psalms. His opinions concerning the Spirit were not sound everywhere or in every respect. Nevertheless, in many passages even he reverently acknowledges the force of established usage and speaks concerning the Spirit in terms consistent with true religion.
If I remember correctly, in the sixth book of his Commentary on the Gospel of John he clearly presents the Spirit as an object of worship. He writes: “The washing with water is a symbol of the cleansing of the soul washed from every stain produced by wickedness; but it is also in itself, for the one who gives himself to the Godhead of the worshipful Trinity through the power of the invocations, the beginning and source of blessings.”
Again, in his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, he says that “the holy powers are capable of receiving the Only-begotten and the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.” It seems to me that the strength of tradition often compels people to speak in ways that contradict their own opinions.
This form of doxology was also known to Africanus the historian. In the fifth book of his Epitome of the Times he says: “We who understand the weight of these expressions and are not ignorant of the grace of faith give thanks to the Father, who gave to us, his own people, the Savior of all and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and majesty with the Holy Spirit forever.”
Other passages might perhaps be suspected, or might actually have been altered, and tampering would be difficult to detect because the difference lies in a single syllable. But the passages I have quoted at length cannot easily be manipulated dishonestly and can readily be checked from the works themselves.
I will add another piece of evidence. It may appear insignificant, but because of its antiquity it cannot be omitted by someone defending himself against a charge of innovation. Our fathers judged that the gift of evening light should not be received in silence, but that thanksgiving should be offered immediately when it appeared.
We cannot say who first composed the words of thanksgiving used at the lighting of the lamps. Yet the people still utter the ancient form, and no one has ever accused of impiety those who say, “We praise Father, Son, and God’s Holy Spirit.” And if anyone knows the hymn of Athenogenes, which he left to his friends like a farewell gift as he hastened toward his perfection through fire, that person knows the mind of the martyrs concerning the Spirit. I will say no more about this.
But where shall I place the great Gregory and the words he spoke? Shall we not rank among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they did; who throughout his whole life never departed from the footsteps of the saints; and who, as long as he lived, maintained with exactness the pattern of life according to the Gospel?
I am convinced that we would wrong the truth if we refused to number that soul among the people of God. He shone like a beacon in the Church of God. Through the cooperation of the Spirit he possessed tremendous power over demons, and he received such grace of speech “for obedience to the faith among the nations” that, although he was entrusted with only seventeen Christians, he brought the whole population, in town and countryside alike, to the knowledge of God.
By the mighty name of Christ he even commanded rivers to change their course, and he dried up a lake that had become a cause of dispute among greedy brothers. His predictions of things to come were in no way inferior to those of the great prophets. To recount all his wonders in detail would take too long. Because of the abundance of gifts worked in him by the Spirit—in every kind of power, sign, and wonder—even the enemies of the Church called him a second Moses.
Thus in everything he accomplished by grace, whether in word or deed, a light seemed always to shine forth as a sign of the unseen heavenly power that accompanied him. To this day he remains greatly admired by the people of that region, and his memory, always fresh in the churches, has not been dimmed by the passage of time.
So strictly did those churches preserve what he handed down that no practice, expression, or mystical rite was added beyond what Gregory bequeathed to them. Indeed, because their institutions are so ancient, many of their practices now appear incomplete to some. Those who succeeded him in governing the churches could not bear to admit any later innovation beyond what had received his approval.
Among the practices handed down by Gregory is the very form of the doxology now under attack, preserved by the Church on the authority of his tradition. Anyone willing to make the short journey can verify this without difficulty.
The writings left by our own Firmilian testify that he held the same belief. Those who lived at the time of the illustrious Meletius also report that he shared this conviction.
But why speak only of ancient witnesses? Even now in the East, are not those who hold the true faith chiefly identified by this very expression and distinguished from their opponents almost as by a watchword? I have heard from a man of Mesopotamia, thoroughly acquainted with his language and sound in faith, that in the idiom of his country it is impossible, even if one wished, to express the doxology otherwise: their native tongue compels them to use the equivalent of the conjunction “and.”
We Cappadocians likewise speak this way in our own dialect—as though the Spirit, already at the division of the languages, foresaw the usefulness of the expression. And what shall we say of nearly the whole West, from Illyricum to the furthest boundaries of our world? Does it not support this form as well?
How, then, can I be called an innovator or inventor of new expressions when I can point to whole nations and cities, immemorial custom, and men who were pillars of the Church, distinguished in every kind of knowledge and spiritual power, as the originators and defenders of this wording?
Yet because of this an organized force of opponents has been set in motion against me, and town, village, and the remotest districts are filled with those who slander me. These things are grievous and painful to those who seek peace, but great is the reward of patience for sufferings endured for the sake of the faith.
Then let the sword flash, let the axe be sharpened, let the fire burn hotter than Babylon’s, let every instrument of torture be brought against me. Nothing is more fearful to me than failing to fear the Lord’s threats against those who blaspheme the Spirit.
Readers disposed to fairness will find sufficient defense in what I have said: I receive an expression dear and familiar to the saints, confirmed by so long a usage that from the first preaching of the Gospel down to our own time it is shown to have enjoyed full acceptance in the churches—and, what matters most, to carry a meaning consistent with holiness and true religion.
But what defense have I prepared for the great tribunal? First, I was led to give glory to the Spirit by the honor the Lord himself conferred upon him when he joined him with himself and with his Father in baptism. Second, each of us was introduced to the knowledge of God through this initiation. Above all, fear of the threatened punishment has shut out from my mind every thought that would dishonor the Spirit or conceive of him unworthily.
What, then, will our opponents say? Having shown neither reverence for the honor bestowed by the Lord nor fear of his threats, what defense will they offer for their blasphemy? They must decide what they will do—or even now change their course.
For my part, I earnestly pray that the good God will cause his peace to rule in the hearts of all, so that those who are swollen with pride and arrayed for battle against us may be calmed by the Spirit of meekness and love. And if they have become wholly savage and cannot be restrained, may he at least grant us to endure with long-suffering whatever we must suffer at their hands.
For those who “have the sentence of death in themselves,” suffering for the faith is not what is painful; what is painful is failing to contend for it. The athlete does not complain so much of being wounded in the contest as of being denied even entrance into the stadium.
Or perhaps this is the time for silence of which Solomon the wise spoke. When life is being battered by so violent a storm; when the understanding of those trained in the word is filled with deceitful reasoning and confused like an eye filled with dust; when people are stunned by strange and terrifying noises; when the whole world is shaken and everything seems ready to collapse—what good is there in crying out, as I truly am, into the wind?