THE BOOK OF THE TREASURES CONCERNING THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY
PROLOGUE OR PROTHEORIA
A The discourse itself urges us, most hardworking brother Nemesius, that we must needs press forward to no small struggles. For what could be so difficult to grasp, so hard to comprehend, and so far from clear in its exposition, as the unerring contemplation regarding the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and that manner of speech which is in no way liable to be caviled at? For the mind of man is, in a way, subtle, but in reality extremely weak; the tongue is powerless, and as it were scarce able to interpret the things we hold in our hands. Furthermore, the beauty of truth is very hard to find, nor is it of a nature to be revealed to the many, but only to those who, with a good mind and an unadulterated intention, track it down and dig it up like some heavenly treasure, that they may indeed, having obtained it, justly hear: "But blessed are your
eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear." A We must not, however, flinch from the undertaking; rather, placing our hope in Christ himself, we shall set our hands to labors beyond our strength, firmly believing that he will be with us and will lead us by the illuminations of the Spirit to the discovery of the truth. For the purpose of our discourse is to say that Jesus is Lord. We shall certainly say this in the Holy Spirit; for thus says Paul: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit."
For since some do not shrink from saying "anathema to Jesus" in Beelzebub, distorting the divine Scriptures to suit whatever they may imagine, and preferring the impulse of their own desires to the oracles of the Spirit, and denying the Master who bought them, as it is written; B we have judged it necessary, useful, and pertinent, in accordance with your counsel and exhortation, my brother, to weave together this discourse as a matter of future utility for the children of the Church; and individually to respond, topic by topic, to those things which are sought and debated by them; which indeed I deem will be of no small advantage to those who read them. For the error in the dogmas of Arius and Eunomius is manifold and many-faceted, if I may so call it, and the image of the truth is transformed in various ways. For just as harlots, thinking to hide the foulness of their trade through art and industry, adorn themselves, paint themselves with makeup, and with other such worldly accessories C exhibit a specious destruction to the eyes of onlookers; in the same way, I judge, do the destructive sayings of the heterodox clothe themselves in the beauty of piety, attempting to garnish it with the words of truth, while nowhere laboring for the truth, but inwardly housing an impiety most hateful to God, full of lies.
But those who fortify their own mind with the wakefulness of rational reflection are not ensnared by their words, but cling tenaciously to the truly sound faith, singing to themselves, saying: "Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us as a prey to their teeth." D It seemed good to us, therefore, to collect the findings gathered with great study, and by no means to weave a confused discourse, but rather to set it forth containing distinct proofs for each individual topic; for thus the knowledge of those things treated in this work would become more clear and manifest to the studious listener. The title of this work, indeed, is *Thesaurus*, since it comprises a huge treasure of divine contemplations within itself—even though I recognize in myself a moderate doctrine and an intellect not particularly sharp for contemplation. But thanks must be rendered to Christ, who abundantly supplies all things to all. Readers must be warned that the chapters of the book are composed after the pattern of this table or index, which is appended. Each of the chapters gathers together those things which pertain to the same goal of contemplation, and through circuitous paths and windings...
A they reach the understanding. But the order of the numbers is firmly fixed only to those chapters which contain the subjects; those which follow after them are arranged in sequence according to the headings, but they do not have numbers, inasmuch as they are indebted to the understanding of the chapters that contain them, and tend toward their same goal.
THESE ARE THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK.
INDEX OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK.
A ASSERTION I. Concerning the begotten and the unbegotten, in which it is shown that it is better and more worthy to call God Father than unbegotten.
ASSERT. II. That the unbegotten is not a substance, but a signifier of substance.
ASSERT. III. That the unbegotten is not a substance, but only signifies that God is not begotten.
ASSERT. IV. Against those who do not fear to say, "There was once when the Son was not." Syllogisms and B proofs of arguments are brought forth together with testimonies of Scripture: from all of which it is concluded that the Word of God is eternal.
A proof of the same matter consonant with the truth, that that saying, "His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity," signifies the Son.
Other testimonies, that the Son is eternal.
Demonstrations through testimonies, that the sacred Scriptures use these words, "was," and "being," and "existing," and "I was," and "I am," and "is," C of the Word only; but not so of creatures, but rather "sometime," and "before," and "before this," and "has happened," and whatever things are similar to these.
Furthermore, concerning the fact that the Son is eternal: with the solution of objections.
Another, concerning eternity, a syllogism entwined with a certain difficulty, and gathering into an admission that one must suppose the Son to be from the essence of the Father, and not to have come from without; and if this is so, it is clear that He is also co-eternal with the Father.
Again, concerning the eternity of the Son. D
C An interrogation of the Arians full of absurdity; to which is opposed another interrogation not unlike it, teaching that one ought not to ask anything foolishly. Against those who ask, "Did you have a son before you begot him?" and say, "So too did God not have a Son before He begot him." D ASSERTION V. That the Father did not exist before the Son, although He is unbegotten, but the begotten Son was co-eternal with Him. ASSERTION VI. That the Father begot the Son from Himself without division and without corruption. ASSERTION VII. Against those who object, "Did the Father beget the Son by chance or by will?" ASSERTION VIII. Against those who say that the Son is similar not to the Father, but to His will. ASSERTION IX. That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, from the sayings: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God." And, "I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." Likewise, "The Father is greater than I." ASSERTION X. That the Son is consubstantial with the Father. A defense of that saying, "Why do you call me good?" and an exposition of the saying. ASSERTION XI. That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, from the saying, "My Father is greater than I." Another point, teaching that when the greater and the lesser are proposed, inequality is very ignorantly inferred: which, according to the discipline of Aristotle, is of a different genus. Another point, demonstrating that by the fact that the Father is called greater, the Son is simultaneously introduced. Moreover, He is not less than Him. Another point, that the Son is similar to the Father, with that saying proposed, "Amen I say to you, there has not risen among those born of women one greater than John the Baptist," etc. ASSERTION XII. On that [saying], "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"; and, "I and the Father are one"; where it is subsequently demonstrated that it was God who delivered the patriarch Jacob from all evils. It is demonstrated that the Word of God is His species: that the Word is called the species of God. A forceful demonstration teaching that things which are assimilated to some [others] do not in every way and naturally reside in those to which they are assimilated: but those things which naturally reside in some are like certain images of those things toward which our will is impelled.
Another [point] demonstrating that for something to come to occur in God does not signify a change of nature, but that it happens through Him or by Him.
Another [point] through which we learn how it is necessary to understand the saying, namely: "That just as I and You are one, so also they may be one in us; I in them, and You in me; that they may be perfected into one."
Another [point] demonstrating accurately that we do not lose our own nature to be transmuted into the divine nature when we are said to become one with God, but that we are called this because we have become participants of Him.
ASSERTION XIII. Concerning the likeness of the Son to the Father, and that the Son is not of a mutable nature, nor subsistent from without, but proceeding as Son from His essence.
Another [point] that the Son is not like the Father by an alteration from a worse state to a better one, but naturally.
Another [point] signifying that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from without, as the foes of Christ say; and since He is not from without, He is therefore like [Him].
A demonstration from Holy Scripture, that we are formed into the image of the Divine through a participation of the divinity. For it did not suffice for the constitution of man, in order for him to be seen and to be the image of the Creator, that the account concerning Him be based merely in thoughts.
ASSERTION XIV. Concerning the likeness of the Father and the Son, with the proposed saying: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself." From which it is inferred by syllogism that the Son is life naturally, just as is the Father.
ASSERTION XV. On that which is said in the Book of Proverbs: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, for His works." [Showing] that the word "created" is not said of the essence of the Word, and that the Son is not a creature or a work.
A demonstration from the observations of Scripture, that nothing of created things is worshipped as God; nor do those things which are worshipped endure to be worshipped or glorified.
An objection from the dogmas of Arius, containing the cause—as they themselves think it to be—for why the Son was made, [and its] true refutation by means of solid syllogisms.
Another [point] on "The Lord created me." That the Son is not a creature.
Another [point] of the orthodox saying: "If the Son is a creature, how does He have by nature the being a Creator? For this is not the property of creatures." To which are appended the objections of the heretics and the refutations.
An observation, similarly, from which we learn that it is the custom for angels and holy prophets to also—
bring forward questions to those who are ignorant of that which has been commanded. However, the Word of God is not found to act in this way.
Another, upon the text: "When He was preparing the heaven, I was present with Him."
A ASSERTION XVI. Concerning the eternity of the Son, and that He proceeded inseparably from the substance of the Father.
ASSERTION XVII. That nothing which belongs to creatures belongs to the Son, and therefore He is not a creature.
ASSERTION XVIII. That "created" and "begotten" are not the same, nor are "to create" and "to beget" the same in God.
ASSERTION XIX. Against those who say that the Son is not the Word of the Father, but is something different from Him by nature and is an alien. From which it is concluded that He is consubstantial with the Father, and is not from outside, but from His very essence.
B ASSERTION XX. On the text: "He endured the cross, despising the shame. Therefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name which is above every name;" wherein are certain annotations concerning the incarnation, pertaining to the same.
On the text: "He gave to Him," etc., and "Highly exalted Him," and other such things that are said concerning Christ.
On that saying of the Apostle: "He sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels."
Examples by which it is declared that this word, "better," is used in Holy Scripture even of those things which differ greatly from one another, whether in respect of nature, or of dignity, or according to the measure of grace.
That the text, "He became better than the angels," is not to be referred to a difference of substances, but of administrations. Which is also expressed in another way.
Appendix of sayings concerning the humanity of Christ, and furthermore a solution.
That the comparison of administrations—to wit, of the angels and of the Son—is good and most useful, explaining the force of the word "better": for we shall understand from these things how He is better than the angels, and by how much.
C ASSERTION XXI. On that saying of the Apostle: "Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him who made Him." From which it is inferred that the Son is not a work or a creature.
D ASSERTION XXII. On the text: "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
ASSERTION XXIII. On the text: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things
in his hand"; and on the text, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father"; and on the text, "I can do nothing of my own self, but as I hear, I judge"; and on other dicta similar to these.
A ASSERTION XXIV. On those things which are said by the evangelists in a human manner concerning the Savior, namely on the text, "He wept," and on the text, "Now my soul is troubled," and on the text, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me," and, "My soul is sorrowful," and other dicta of this kind. Authorities of Holy Scripture subverting the false opinions of the heretics.
ASSERTION XXV. On the text, "The firstborn of all creation." That the Son is not a creature.
ASSERTION XXVI. On the text spoken to the sons of Zebedee, "To sit at my right hand, or at my left, is not mine to give."
ASSERTION XXVII. On the text, "That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
ASSERTION XXVIII. On the text set down in Luke: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men."
ASSERTION XXIX. On the text, "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him."
ASSERTION XXX. On the text, "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was."
ASSERTION XXXI. Against those who say that God knows nothing more about His own essence than we do, but that whatever He himself knows about himself, the same thing we also know without any difference.
ASSERTION XXXII. Testimonies from the New Testament, with their explanations and syllogisms, that the Son is God by nature; from which it is inferred that he is not a work or a creature.
ASSERTION XXXIII. That the Holy Spirit is God by nature and from the essence of the Father. And that He is given to creation through the Son.
ASSERTION XXXIV. Testimonies of Scripture in which it is taught that the Spirit is God, and has precisely the same operation as the Son, and is not alien from His essence. From these it is also taught that when God is said to dwell in us, it is the Spirit who dwells within.
ASSERTION XXXV. Testimonies from Holy Scripture by which it is proved that the Son is begotten from the Father, and not created.
THE BOOK OF TREASURES ON THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY
ASSERTIO I. On the begotten and the unbegotten.
A If the Arians should attack us, asking whether the unbegotten is one or two, so that, once we have certainly said it is one, referring this to the Father, they might place the Son among the creatures, it is necessary to answer that this is a frivolous and foolish question: for the term "unbegotten" has varied meanings. For that is "unbegotten" which has not yet been made, and yet can be made: just as a boat from wood, or a statue from bronze. Again, that is called "unbegotten" which has never been made, nor can ever be made: for example, a triangle has never been, nor will it ever be, a quadrangle. For at the same time the shape of the triangle perishes, and another thing is made than what it was. Again, that is called "unbegotten" which exists and subsists, but has not B been made by anyone. Since, therefore, the unbegotten is understood in many ways, let them say what they wish to signify by "unbegotten" in God. And they will perhaps say, that which has never been begotten, having first confessed that they asked the question ignorantly. Let us therefore also assert that the unbegotten is one. But if from this they infer that it is absolutely necessary to confess that the Son was made, since the unbegotten is one, which is the Father, they shall hear in reply again: If the Son is the wisdom, and power, and Word of the Father; and the Word, and wisdom, and power was always in the Father; then the Son, who is and is called these things, is not posterior in origin. But just as God is from God, and light shone forth from light, so too is the unbegotten from the unbegotten. For the Word must be such as He is who begat Him. For thus would the genuineness of the Father's substance be truly affirmed in Him who is begotten from Him. Nothing, therefore, prevents the Word who is from Him from also being unbegotten, since the Father is one and not made, inasmuch as He is understood to be one with the Father and in the Father on account of the incommutability of their nature. Which He Himself also says of Himself: "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30). For by "one," He signaled the identity of substance; by "are,"
A he divides into a duality that which is understood, and by "one," again, he binds the Deity together.
ANOTHER. If the Son is the incommutable image of the Father, such that the Father appears in Him, according to the words, "He who has seen me has seen the Father also" (John xiv, 9), it is absolutely necessary to confess that He who proceeds from the unbegotten Father is not made. For how could that which is unbegotten ever be seen in that which is begotten? If the archetype were to appear in the copy, it would necessarily be the same in this respect. Therefore, one would have to say that the Father, according to whom the image was fashioned, was also made. But if this is absurd, the image of the unbegotten must itself be entirely unbegotten.
ANOTHER. The blessed Moses, in recounting the creation of man, introduces God saying: "Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness" (Gen. i, 26). By saying "our," a duality is again indicated, it being understood that the Holy Spirit is present and is glorified as God alongside them. If, therefore, one and the same image of the Father and the Son appears in a single man, they are in no way dissimilar to one another. But that which is begotten is unlike that which is unbegotten; therefore, the Son is not begotten, lest He appear unlike the Father.
ANOTHER. The Father is called Pantocrator and Lord in the Holy Scriptures, but the Son is not to be understood as being one of those things that are ruled or dominated, B because the Father rules and dominates over all; for He [the Son] also rules and dominates over all with the Father, existing Himself as Pantocrator and Lord. Just as, therefore, the Son is not reckoned among these things as one of all others, but the force of the words refers to the nature of created things, so also in the case of the "unbegotten," the comparison is not made to the Son, but to creation, even if it is said that "unbegotten" is one, because all things were made except for God.
That it is better and more worthy to call God Father than unbegotten.
The name "Father" necessarily brings with it the idea of a Son; for such names signify each other. But the name "unbegotten," because God was not made, brings to mind, in turn, the memory of those things that were made C and are the opposite. Yet the knowledge of the Holy Trinity is necessary for those who wish to believe rightly. If, therefore, he who says "Father" looks upon the Son, through whom He is Father, while he who calls Him "unbegotten" looks upon created things, to which that which is not made is rightly contrasted, it is surely much better that God be signified by that from which the knowledge of the Son is born, rather than from that from which the memory of created things appears—a memory which contributes nothing to the knowledge of the Holy Trinity. He who says "Father" signifies God from what He is; he who says "unbegotten" signifies Him from what He is not. For He is the Father of the Son, but He is not created. That God is more fittingly signified from what He is than from what He is D not, this should be clear to everyone.
For if anyone takes the appellation of God from that ineffable and incomprehensible nature, it will be clear to everyone. For if someone calls that ineffable and incomprehensible nature God, he names it correctly from what it is, and when he says God, he has signified that nature. But if someone should wish to name Him from what He is not, calling Him innocent or uncorrupted, on the grounds that nothing evil or depraved is in Him, he will speak the truth indeed, but he will not entirely signify God. For there are some even among men who are free from evil and depravity. And we believe such to be the holy angels as well. Therefore, it will be signified more truly and more properly from what He is than from what He is not. A
ANOTHER.
The blessed David chants and says to the Son: "Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." If, therefore, that which participates is something different from that which is participated — for one thing must be understood in another — and the creature becomes a participant of the Son, then B He is assuredly different from the creature that becomes a participant of Him; consequently, He is not created. But if the Son is not different from it, and is not separated from it by nature, what is the use of participation? Or how could anyone become a participant of that which He Himself is?ASSERTION II.
That the unbegotten is not a substance, but a signifier of substance.
The unbegotten is understood and is as a principle and cause. But no principle, in so far as it is a principle, signifies anything similar or dissimilar to itself. But this word, "unbegotten," signifies that which is created as being dissimilar to it; for this is what is opposed to it. The unbegotten, therefore, is not a substance, C but signifies that the substance to which it is opposed does not have such a manner of being.ANOTHER.
That the unbegotten is not a substance has already been shown. But perhaps someone will say that it is not substance, but a difference. Yet this too will be shown to be spoken absurdly. For if every difference arises regarding substances, the substance must be sought whose difference the unbegotten is. For example, you define "animal" in this way: a living substance endowed with sense. Around this substance D the difference arises. For one thing is a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge, such as man; another is an irrational animal, such as a horse. Therefore, with the substance presupposed, the differences are subsequently conceived. If, therefore, the unbegotten is a difference, let the substance also be sought, whose difference it will be; for it is absurd for a difference to possess the definition of substance.ANOTHER.
If the unbegotten is a substance, and is not a signifier of the fact that that of which it is spoken is not begotten, in what manner will the Son be dissimilar to the Father, since He is begotten from Him? For if these names possess no distinction between them.A, nor do they conflict with each other according to the meaning of both, nothing will prevent the Son from being similar to the Father according to substance; and this even if the unbegotten is taken for substance, and likewise the begotten. For substance, when compared to substance, will not be contrary to it, insofar as both are substances.
ANOTHER
If every unbegotten thing is dissimilar to every begotten thing, one would truthfully say that every begotten thing is also similar to every begotten thing. But since the Son is begotten, He nevertheless possesses no similarity with created things; for He is superior to every creature. Therefore, just because the Father is unbegotten, He will not be dissimilar, according to nature, to Him, the Son, who is begotten from Him. For just as He Himself, though He is begotten, transcends every similarity with created things, so too He will not be lacking in similarity B with the unbegotten, even though He is begotten.
An objection as if from the heretics.
The unbegotten, they say, when applied to God, we claim to be substance; and it will be a defining name, just as if one were also to define the substance of man by saying: "A living creature, rational, mortal, capable of intellect and knowledge."
A solution to this.
Those who put forward this argument will be shown to be ignorant; for if you wish the name "unbegotten" to be a definition, let it be from a genus and a difference, or differences; for without these a definition could never exist. But such an unbegotten thing, since it falls into no genus of substance, could not be a definition; moreover, we see that genera, when defined philosophically by those men, are not defined in one word and alone, but in several; as, "a substance, animate, sensitive," or "a living creature, rational, mortal." And if the negation C of a single name does not suffice for the clarification of a substance, then "unbegotten" is not a definition.
ANOTHER
If every definition introduces what each thing is by nature—what is proposed—and not what it is not; and the word "unbegotten" does not show what God is, but what He is not (for it is because He was not begotten, that He is called "unbegotten"): then the name "unbegotten" cannot be a definition.
ANOTHER
Those who are wise concerning these matters do not wish the definitions of substances, or even of accidents, to be formed from contraries, but from those things of which they are admittedly composed; for instance, as if someone asked what "white" is, and were to reply, "that which is not black." For this shows not what the thing defined is, but what it is not. If, therefore, the word "unbegotten" signifies "not having been begotten," it draws its clarification from contraries, but a sound definition could not be made D through such things. Therefore "unbegotten" is not a definition.
ANOTHER
The word "unbegotten," being among those things which are spoken in many ways, should be understood properly, and it would reasonably be numbered among those things which are equivocal
to be classed. If, therefore, the definitions of substances are not taken from things equivocal, nor from things understood in many ways (for that which is defined would not be clear if it were taken from these), and the term "unbegotten," as we have already said, belongs to the equivocal, then "unbegotten" cannot be a definition. A
ANOTHER. If the name or term "unbegotten" is a definition, it will certainly admit of conversion according to the logic of definitions. Just as if someone, defining man, were to say he is a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge; he could turn this around again, saying: If something is a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge, it is entirely also a man. If, therefore, "unbegotten" (as we said just now) were a definition, it must not refuse conversion. For if "unbegotten" is a substance, then "substance" is also "unbegotten," but it does not convert. For not every substance at all is also unbegotten; for this is peculiar to God alone. Therefore, the name "unbegotten" is not a definition, but merely signifies that He has not been begotten. B
ASSERTION III
Refutation of the term, that the unbegotten is not a substance, but signifies only that God has not been begotten.If the unbegotten is a substance, and there is nothing contrary to substance, there will be nothing contrary to the unbegotten. But if the begotten is contrary to the unbegotten, and there is nothing contrary to substance, then the unbegotten will not be a substance. C
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten is a substance, then of necessity the begotten will also be a substance; but if both are substances, the begotten will not be contrary to the unbegotten, but identical. For substance is not contrary to substance.
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten signifies the substance of God, and does not note that the substance has not been begotten, the begotten will likewise signify a substance, and will not note a having been begotten. But when both signify a substance, how will one discern which is the one begetting and which the one begotten, when the names signify nothing but substance? D
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten is a substance, and "substance" is said univocally of all things, the unbegotten will be said of all substances, or of all things that are under them. But if the unbegotten is not predicated of all things, while "substance" is predicated of all, how can substance and the unbegotten be the same?
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten is a substance, and within substance there is no "more or less," then by this reasoning there will not be a "more unbegotten," nor yet a lesser one. But if the unbegotten exceeds all things, and yet substance does not,
A then the unbegotten will not be substance.
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten signifies the substance of God, and not the fact that He was not begotten, there will be need of other names capable of showing that God was not generated from any cause. For the "unbegotten" of God signifies nothing at all, save only the substance of God.
ANOTHER. If the substance of God is one thing, and not many in number, while the unbegotten, and the "subject to no king," and the rest are many, though not one in number; it follows that substance will not be the same as the unbegotten and the "subject to no king," just as the one is not the same as the many. B
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten, and the begotten, and the rest, are the substance of God, and yet these are different in their very terms, it is necessary that that substance be thus composed according to the different terms, so that they may properly be spoken of it. Or if it is not composed, it follows that these signify not substance of itself, but things that are incidental to substance.
ANOTHER. If the substance of God is spoken of for no cause (for it is for no reason), while the term "unbegotten" is spoken of precisely because He is superior to all things and excels them; then that which is spoken of for no cause will not be the same as that which is spoken of for a cause. C
ANOTHER. If "unbegotten" has reference to unbegottenness, but the substance of God has no relation to anything, how will that which is relative be the same as the substance which has no relation to anything?
ANOTHER. If nothing is opposed to the substance of God, but the "begotten" is opposed to the "unbegotten," how is it possible for substance and the unbegotten to be the same thing?
ANOTHER. If every substance, when mentioned in relation to another, does not declare its own excellence unless the name of the excellence itself is added, whereas "unbegotten" as soon as it is named declares a difference, how are they not to be judged as demented who say that substance and the unbegotten are the same thing? D
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten is substance, then every substance will be unbegotten, which is impious.
ANOTHER. If the unbegotten is substance, and it is a property of substance to receive contraries, then the unbegotten will also be receptive of contraries. But if this is indeed a property of substance (for "to create" is opposed to "not to create," and yet it is not opposed to the "unbegotten" state to be subject to a king),
ingenito, since it did not happen to Him to be begotten), then the unbegotten will certainly not be substance.
ALIUD. If those who speak of substance regarding God follow the opinion of the philosophers, it will be proper to God to receive contraries. But if, wishing to signify that God is, they use the term substance just as we do, and yet substance and unbegotten are the same, it will remain that the word unbegotten signifies the essence of God, but not substance itself.
ALIUD. If everything that is under genus and species without accidents is properly substance, and God is under none of these, then God is not properly called substance. But if unbegotten is properly said of God (for He has not been begotten), and yet it is not substance, how can that which is said properly be the same as that which is said abusively?
ALIUD. If substance is said in the most proper and primary sense because it is subject to all accidents, and there is no accident to which God is subject, then God is not properly called substance. For He is above all substance. But if unbegotten is properly said of Him (for He is unbegotten), and yet substance is not, then substance and unbegotten are not the same.
ALIUD. If unbegotten, and C unruled (that is, subject to no one's dominion), and the rest, signify and show substances by way of comparison, and yet the signifier is not the same as the signified, then substance and unbegotten will not be the same, just as the signified is not the same as the signifier.
ALIUD. If unbegotten is said not because He has not been begotten, but because it is the substance of God, then every substance will also be unbegotten. But if there are many substances, yet not all are unbegotten, then unbegotten does not signify substance, but the preeminence of substance.
ALIUD. If, as they say, the unbegotten is substance in God alone, it would also be its definition, [the definition of that] whose property alone is the unbegotten. But if there is no definition to which the substance of God is subject, then unbegotten is not even a proper name for God, as the word itself represents nothing else besides the essence of God alone.
ASSERTIO IV
Against those who do not fear to say: There was once when the Son was not. Syllogisms and demonstrations of arguments are brought forward, along with testimonies of Scripture, from all of which it is concluded that the Word of God is eternal. Ignorantly do the enemies of God speak about the Son, that He wasA a time when He was not. For if this word, "was," were referred to the Word, that which says "He was not" would have no place. But if one were to take "was" in the sense of time, so as to say clearly that there was a time when the Son was not, he will be rebuked as ignorant and foolish, saying that there was time before the existence of the Son, through whom Paul testifies that the worlds were made.
That the Word of God is eternal, testimonies.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the Apocalypse of John, it says this: "He who is, who was, and who is to come," B because the Word is He who is to come, of whom it was said, "He who is, and who was." "For behold," He says, "I am coming and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord." Clearly, John also applies the "was" to the Word, saying: "For the Word was with God." It is absolutely necessary that eternity be present to Him of whom the "He who is" and the "was" are stated.
Testimonies.
Paul concerning the Jews: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." The same concerning the Word: "For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even C His eternal power and divinity." But if this statement were to be referred to the Father, it will be twisted in another way toward the Son. For what is the power of God, which Paul proclaims: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"? The Psalmist says the same: "Command, O God, thy power. Strengthen, O God, what you have wrought in us." But who is it that strengthened this which was restored in us, if not the Son of God, who redeemed us from corruption and raised us up to incorruption?
ANOTHER.
A persuasive construction for the same point, that the text which says, "His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divinity," D signifies the Son. It is proven in this way:
It is written: "No one knows the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." If the Father is known only to the Son, and is revealed to others only through Him, then the Father is not seen nor understood through creation or through created things. But let creation proclaim its own creator, God the Word; and let the Word reveal the Father in Himself. Therefore, when Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father," He does not command him to contemplate Him through the beauty of created things by way of analogy, but He shows Himself, saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Other testimonies that the Son is eternal.
The Psalmist calls Him, "He who exists before the
A ages, not one who was created. Isaiah says: "The eternal God, the God who has fashioned the ends of the earth." If, then, the Word is He who has fashioned the ends of the earth, and the term "eternal" applies to Him, it is evident that He always was, and was not created.
OTHER
Paul also writes concerning the Word: "Who being the radiance of His glory and the image of His substance." David also sings: "And let the splendor of the Lord our God be upon us." And again: "In your light we shall see light." When, therefore, was the Father without His own radiance? Or when did His splendor not exist in God? And again: If the Son is light from the light of the Father, when was His light not in the Father? For just as illumination cannot be separated from fire, so neither can the light which is begotten from Him be separated from the Father.
OTHER
B David sings: "Your kingdom is the kingdom of all ages." But if all time is measured by the ages, and the Word reigns within them, there was, therefore, no time when the Son was not.
OTHER
Demonstration by testimonies that the sacred Scriptures use these terms—*the was*, and *the existing one*, and *being*, and *I was*, and *I am*, and *it is*—only concerning the Word, but concerning created things they do not do so; but rather [use terms like] *formerly* or *at one time*, and *before*, and *it has come into being*, and other things similar to these.
The Savior, signifying the eternity of His own hypostasis, said: "I am the truth; I am the light; I am the shepherd." And again to the disciples: C "You call me Lord and Master, and you speak rightly, for so I am." And the Psalmist sings concerning Him: "Before the mountains were established and the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, You are." And He Himself [says] concerning Himself: "I am the way; and I am the door." The Father indeed [speaks] concerning Him: "You are my beloved Son." And again: "The Lord said to me: You are my Son." Everywhere, the "is" and the "was" are conveyed in these; but nowhere is "it has come to pass." But concerning created things: "The divine Spirit which has made me," and Moses, discussing the creation of the world: "And every green thing of the field, before it had come to pass upon the earth; and every grass of the field before it had sprung up; for God had not rained upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the earth."
That the word "when" always signifies time.
In Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided the nations." D
A That "before" is used concerning created things. In Solomon, Wisdom says of herself: "Before He made the earth, before He made the deeps, before the fountains of water burst forth, before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills, He brought me forth." The Savior says: "Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." God says to Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you." In Daniel, Susanna says: "O God, the great and eternal, who knows hidden things, who knows all things before they come to pass."
Further, concerning the fact that the Son is eternal, with a solution to the objections
B Objection of the heretics. If, they say, there was never a time when He was not, but the Son is eternal, and coexists with the Father, then you no longer call Him Son, but brother.
Solution to the objection. When we say He is coeternal, we also say that He is the Son. Now, if He were simply coeternal and not the Son, your suspicion would have a place. But since we confess Him to be Son in addition to being eternal, how is the Son the brother of the one who begot Him?
Another. If our faith is in the Father and the Son, and we are baptized in this way, what fraternity appears in this; or how can the Word be the brother of Him whose Word He is?
Another. The Father and the Son were not produced from some pre-existing principle so that they might be considered brothers. But the Father is the origin of the Son, and He begets the Son, and remains the Father, and is not called the son of anyone. And the Son is the Son, and remains what He is; and He is not called the brother of anyone by nature. What place, then, will fraternity have in these matters?
Further, concerning eternity
If the Father is perfect, then that which is from Him will also be perfect. And if, in addition to this, it has eternity, that which is from the eternal Father will also be eternal, not as something accidental to the essence of the Begetter, but always coexisting with it. Nor is it imperfect because it was generated in time, according to the opinion of some, but it is perfect, because it exists before all time.
Another. Another question by way of reduction to the absurd, as follows: If the Word of God is not the Son, but was made out of nothing like a creature, let him who wishes first prove this. And if so, let him then apply to Him, as to a creature, the saying: "There was when He was not." But if the divine Scriptures call Him Son, and the Father thus names Him, the name "Son" signifies generation from the Father; therefore, He is not a work and a creature; for that which is begotten is not the same as—
A a creature. But if this is true, the phrase "He was not" will have no place in regard to the Son, as it is properly applied only to creatures.
ANOTHER
If the Son is begotten of the Father, and that which is begotten of the Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance, those who say, "There was when the Son was not," are saying in effect: "There was when the Father was wordless and unwise, and existed without His own Radiance." But if this is absurd, the phrase "He was not" shall certainly be void in regard to the Son. He will therefore be coeternal with the Father.ANOTHER
B An untrue objection, which appears to subvert the eternity of the Son. If, they say, the divine nature admits of no division, because it is not susceptible to passion (for to those things which are by nature subject to suffering, it is proper also to be divided), then it must not be said that the Son is from the essence of the Father, lest some passion and division appear in the simple nature. For if that which proceeds from something is altogether distinct in number from that from which it proceeded, a certain division and cutting is seen in the divine nature, if we do not suppose the Son to have proceeded from it externally, but truly from itself. If, however, He is external, then He was added later, and is not coeternal with the Father.Solution of the objection.
Men incorrectly and ignorantly apply the properties of bodies to an incorporeal essence. For in bodies, it might be correctly said that passion, cutting, and division occur; but in an incorporeal nature, none of these things have any place. If God is incorporeal, He begets without division of Himself, He generates without cutting. C For even fire generates light from itself, yet it undergoes no division, even if that which proceeds from it may seem in thought to be somehow separated from it. But if anyone subjects an incorporeal nature to corporeal necessities, let him blame the weakness of his own mind, which is unable to perceive those things that befit an incorporeal nature.And again: if some struggle to understand the eternal generation of the Son from the eternal Father, and for this reason subject the incorporeal nature to corporeal reasonings—since they do not even find what or what manner of being the Father is by nature—let them deny Him as well. But if things that are above us are apprehended by faith, and the generation of the Son is also above us—for "who shall declare His generation?" as the prophet says—let this also be received by faith, and let the phrase "He was not," brought in by the weakness of human reasoning, be rendered void. D
ANOTHER. On eternity.
A syllogism joined with a certain inquiry, from which it is concluded that it must be confessed: that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and did not come to be from without; and if this is so, it is clear that He is also coeternal with the Father.A If, according to your supposition, O enemies of God, the Son is from things that are not, and did not exist before He was begotten, then it is by participating in God—clearly, just like other rational beings—that He Himself has been called God, and Son, and Wisdom. For this belongs to rational creatures, in whom the beauty of the Godhead does not subsist by nature, but is supplied by the grace of the Giver; as when He says: “I said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.” For it is by moving into a relationship with God that we, having been adopted by Him, are made deified. If, therefore, having participated in God by grace, we have been called sons of God, of whom shall we say the Word participates so that He may become Son or God? For we participate in the Holy Spirit; but to think this of the Word is ignorant. For He Himself says regarding the Spirit: “He takes from what is Mine.” Of whom, then, does He participate? It remains to say: of the Father. And what is the manner of this participation? Or what is that which issues from the Father and comes to be in the Word, so that He might also participate in it? B Let us say, for example, as heat from fire in a body, or from some flower a fragrance; or rather, as the Spirit in us, of whom the Scripture says: “Which proceeds from the Father.” What, then, is that which issues from the Father and comes to be in the Word? Is it from the essence of the Father, or is that also something taken from elsewhere? If then it is from elsewhere, the Son is not a participant of the Father, but is sanctified by participating in some other entity, which it is impious even to think. But if you concede that what is supplied by the Father to the Word for participation is from the essence of God, then you have either granted that some section, division, or passion can occur in the nature of God, or, while stating that such things occur in God without passion or division, you vainly subvert the generation of the Son, introducing division and passion into it. But if God begets without division, and gives birth from Himself without passion, nothing prevents us from confessing that what is begotten is the living Word of the Father. And He who has proceeded from the eternal Father will altogether be eternal; for thus, possessing and preserving in Himself the paternal nobility, C He speaks truly, saying: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” For the eternal is not seen in a created being.
ANOTHER.
If he who participates in the Son becomes a partaker of the divine nature, according to the voice of Peter, and if those in whom the Word dwells are called temples of God, it is necessary to say that the Son is from the essence of God. And if there is nothing adscititious in God (for He is perfect and in need of nothing), then the Son did not come to be subsequently; but He was coeternal with the Father.
Further, concerning the eternity of the Son.
We call God "Father," and the Word and God "Son," not so that we may think that the one existed beforehand, while the other was made after Him, after the manner of men; D
A but rather let us worship Him as Progenitor, which is the property of the Father, and let us worship this one as the true Son, who has ineffably received His generation from the substance of the Father. He is called "Father," therefore, because He has begotten; and "Son," because He has been begotten; and the use of the names serves only for the sake of the significance provided by the analogy to us. If, therefore, in God, the name "Father" is indicative only of begetting, no argument will compel us to say that the God who begets without time existed before His own offspring. And if there was no time between the one begetting and the one begotten, He did not come into existence afterward, but the Son was always coeternal with the Father.
ANOTHER. If God is Creator by nature, and this faculty did not accrue to Him from without, so that He could produce the things that exist from non-existence into being; and if He makes and performs all things through the Son, how is it not impious to say, "There was [a time] when He was not"? For it is equivalent to saying, "There was a time when God was not," since the Word, through whom all things were created, is held to have been made subsequently. "For without Him was not anything made," as the voice of John says. But if God and Father is always and by nature Creator, then He through whom He was shown to be Creator—that is, His Word—was with Him. For just as everything that belongs naturally to a man is inseparable from him, so too is everything that is in God and from God. But the Word is in the Father and from the Father; therefore, He is inseparable and coeternal.
ANOTHER, by way of reduction to the absurd. If the Son is not coeternal with the Father, but, as you suppose, "There was when He was not," it will be necessary to concede that the holy Trinity was at one time imperfect. B For there was a monad, as it seems, before the Son. And the Trinity came into being afterward, when that which was lacking was added. But since everything that can increase by some accession can also decrease by subtraction, there is a fear lest some argument compel us to confess that the holy Trinity can also revert back to a monad. But if to think or to say this is beyond all impiety, the fullness of the holy Trinity was altogether always with the Father.
ANOTHER, similar to this. If the Son is not the proper offspring of the substance of the Father, but was made from nothing, the holy Trinity will be unlike Itself, C deriving its constitution from non-existence. And so, in consequence, the creature will be reckoned with the Creator, and the work will be of equal dignity with the workman. But if this is impious—for there is one Godhead of the holy Trinity, one glorification, and the same dominion—it is therefore unjustly divided into different essences. And how would it not be absurd, when the Father is eternal, to dare to say that the Word who sits with Him and reigns with Him was not at some time, but was made afterward, and to introduce to us a new and recently made God? D
A ANOTHER. The source of wisdom and life is called and is God. For through Jeremiah He says: "They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water." And again: "A throne of glory exalted, our sanctuary, the expectation of Israel, the Lord. Let all who have forsaken Thee be put to shame, for they have departed upon the earth. Let them be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of life, the Lord." And through Baruch: "You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom." Since, therefore, God is such and is so called, it follows that what flows from the source must exist together with the source; for it would not be a source if it were not pouring forth. Therefore, by saying "There was a time when the Son was not," he who says "I am the life, and I am the wisdom that dwelt in counsels" must openly acknowledge that the source was at some time dry and barren. But if this is impious—for the divine nature is always fruitful and bears fruit, and there is nothing empty in it—then the genuine Word begotten of Him was co-eternal with Him who begat Him, gushing forth like the essence of the Father as from a certain source.
ANOTHER. Proof of the same thing. B God promises to make those who serve Him like a fountain whose water does not fail. For so He says through the voice of the prophet Isaiah: "And you shall be satisfied, just as your soul desires, and your bones shall grow fat; and you shall be as a watered garden, and as a fountain whose water does not fail." Since God promises to perform these things in men, how would those not be guilty of all impiety who say that that divine and incorruptible fountain was once dry, so that a second god of men might appear? But if this is absurd, the water of life and the wisdom that proceeds from it—that is, the Son—were surely in the fountain.
ANOTHER. By reduction to the absurd. It is written: "One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." But if anyone says that He through whom all things were made is one of all things, nothing prevents us from placing Him from whom all things are in the same rank as all things. C But if this is manifestly impious, and the Son, through whom all things were made, is not one of all things, then He is eternal. For He who has altogether escaped being a creature and a product is not to be thought of as being among all things, but as God above all and over all.
ANOTHER. Simple and indissoluble arguments. If God and Father is light, His radiance was always in Him. If the Son is the character or form of the Father’s substance, according to the word of Paul, let those who dare to say the "He was not" regarding Him tell us: when did the substance of the Father exist without its own character? For the character is introduced together with the substance. If the Son is truth and wisdom, when was D
truth and wisdom were always in God and the Father.
OTHER.
If the Father is seen in the Son, and He is the changeless image of the essence of the One who begat Him, according to what is said by Him: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father also," A it is absolutely necessary that everything which belongs to the Father by nature should be present in Him. For thus will the character be exact. The Father is eternal, immortal, King, Creator, omnipotent, God, Fashioner: these things are also true of the Son. Or how does the eternal appear in the begotten? Or the perfect in one who at some time was not? Or the Fashioner in a fabric? For images always bear the likeness of their archetypes.
An interrogation of the heretics, as if addressed to foolish women, is this.
Did you have, they say, a son before you gave birth? And just as you did not have one, so also God did not. Therefore there was a time when the Son was not. What then shall we say to this? If they are not ashamed to attribute the properties of human nature to the divine essence for the sake of B destroying the eternity of the Son, let them also question some architects, whether they can build without matter. And if they should answer, confessing the truth, that they cannot, let them say that God also needed matter for the creation of all things, just like a man; so that He may no longer be considered the Creator—He who brought into being things that exist in the nature of reality out of nothing—but rather that He should be judged a rearranger rather than a Creator, working from some underlying principle and matter, like a man. But if they say this is absurd, let them loathe that other thing too; or let them bring forth the reason why they wish to attribute to God in the act of generation nothing more than what belongs to man, yet in the act of creation C they no longer ascribe to Him the things of man. If, however, He is a Creator, as is fitting for God, He will also be a Generator in the same manner.
An interrogation of the Arians full of absurdity, to which another similar interrogation is opposed, teaching that one should not ask questions ignorantly.
Does God, they say, being, create a Son who is, or one who is not?
A solution, or rather a counter-objection.
The God who is, was He created, or was He already before He was created? And did He create Himself, or is He from nothing? And with nothing existing before, did He appear suddenly? All D responses to these things contain blasphemy; therefore, one should not respond to those who ask such questions with the inquiry proposed, but rather we should piously say that the Father exists from eternity. Since therefore the Father is eternal, the Son also exists from eternity. For just as light is never seen destitute of its own radiance, so also the Father would not be without the Son, through whom the Father also is revealed. But God was always Father; therefore, the One of whom He is Father also always was.
A If, as the Arians dare to say, the Father fashioned the Son as an instrument for Himself, able to be of use for the creation of the things that exist, and for this reason brought Him out of non-existence into being, let them tell us: did He who exists have need of Him who did not exist? What, then, is greater: that which stands in need of something, or that which is able to supply the need? But it is self-evident that deficiency in any individual is filled by both, and each is imperfect in itself. If, however, the eternal Father came to be in need of the Son, who, according to them, came into being a little later, then, according to that view, the created nature of the Son has supplied the fullness of the Father's eternity; and thus, things that cannot be mixed in any way have been mixed. But if it is impious to say or think this, then the Son, through whom He made all things, did not come to be for the Father, nor was He fashioned as an instrument for this purpose; but He was co-eternal with Him, existing as His power and wisdom.
B
Against those who ask: “Did you have a son before you begat?” and say: “So also God did not have a Son before He begat Him.”
Those who ask women: “Did you have a son before you gave birth?”—judging divine things by our own customs—let them likewise ask fathers or mothers: “If a son is born to you, will he be like you in nature? Or will he share the same substance with you? Or will he be of a different and alien substance?” Having learned the truth, let them think the same about God. And let them not seize upon time as if it were useful for their own impiety, while ignoring the continuity of natural properties. And again, when they learn from the parents being questioned that the children who will be born from them will certainly be similar to those who begat them, and in no way different from them insofar as the reason of substance is concerned, let them be disposed in the same way regarding the Word of God. C And, consequently, confessing that the Son has been begotten from the essence of the Father, let them inquire about time alone, and tell us what prevents God from always being Father, unless one says that He is subject to the necessities of humanity and the constraints of our own nature; which is most impious. Therefore, when considering time, let them not busy themselves with things peculiar to men, for these are very far removed from the divine nature. But let them ask, if they wish, the sun, whether the light generated from it was always with it. Let them learn also from fire, whether heat was always present in it. If, in these cases, the things generated from them appear to be concomitant and always present, how much more is this the case with the eternal God! If, therefore, the Son is naturally from the Father, and there is no necessity for God to beget in time, then the Word, who proceeded from Him, through whom things that were not were brought into being, was co-eternal with the Father. D
Another.
Those who wish to think rightly ought to know that God did not beget by way of division or flux, such that we might think any passion has happened to Him. For while...
Moreover, A regarding the incorporeal and divine essence, no passion, no division, nor anything of this sort will occur. The Son, therefore, will not be as a part of the Father, but of Him and in Him. By the name of Son, His being from Him is signified; by the name of Wisdom and Word, His being in Him is understood. Consequently, He is co-eternal with the Begetter. For no one of those accustomed to sound thinking would say that the Father ever was without Word and Wisdom.
Another. If the human mind generates an expressed word from itself without any division, and no passion occurs to it from this generation—but rather the word is perceived in the mind and the mind in the word, and each is characterized by the other—no one of sound B judgment would say that the mind ever existed without a word; for it would no longer be a mind if it did not have a word. By "word," however, we do not mean universally that which is uttered by the tongue, but also that which is moved intellectually within the mind. In this way, no one would say that the Word of God is not entirely His own, bearing the image of the whole Father from the whole, and perceived in the Father because of the immutability of the essence.
Another. If we wish to think rightly, it is necessary to say that being a Father did not accrue to God afterward, but that it was always so; otherwise, He would appear to be of a mutable nature, having become later what He was not, according to the madness of the heretics. For if it seems a good thing to be C Father, and this was not always so, then there was a time when the good was not in God. But since this is a profane thing to say, He was therefore always Father, the Son manifestly co-existing; for He would not be Father if the Son were not existing. But if anyone objects, saying: "If God is also Creator by nature, were the creatures also always? And is it necessary for us to say this, so that being a Creator might not appear to have come to God later, and so that some change might not be thought to have occurred in the divine nature—for this is what we said regarding the Son?" Or in another way: "Since it is good to create and to do, were the creatures always, so that the good might not appear to have been sometimes not in God?" To this objection, one must reply in this way: The D Son and a work are separated by an immense distance, and nothing equal intercedes between them. For the Son, having gone forth from the substance of the Father, immediately shows Him to be the Begetter. Let us take the case of humans as an example; a work, however, is outside the essence, entirely showing him who made it to be a maker only when it is made. For there was in him the art of making, which must of necessity have existed before those things which come to be through it: for first someone will be an artist, then a maker. Since, therefore, such a great difference is interposed, and since the Son is understood and apprehended simultaneously with the name of the Father—for as soon as there is a Father, there is immediately the Son, and as soon as there is a Son, there is immediately the Father, and one cannot be understood without the other—whereas the work can appear even after the existence of the maker (for it does not come from the nature,
of the maker, but a discovery of art; and art is not nature, but one of the things that pertain to nature), how do some bring in craft and generation as the same thing in God, saying that He can be called Father even when the Son does not exist? Since a craftsman also exists before the things crafted. For it is the same as if someone were to call him who possesses the art of shipbuilding "father" even when the son does not exist; since he is a shipbuilder insofar as regards the art, and possesses the skill and ability to build even if he has not yet constructed a ship. But such a person will be a shipbuilder even before the ship because of the art he possesses. Yet he is not a father, because that by which he would be a father has not yet come into being. And while the works, even if they have not yet been made, do not take away the fact that one can be a craftsman; the son, not yet being brought into being, will absolutely take away the fact that one is a father. So that a work and the Son would not be equal; and God is a craftsman insofar as His own nature is concerned, even before the works; but He is by no means a Father if the Son does not exist. B
ASSERTION V
That the Father does not exist before the Son, even though He is unbegotten, but the begotten Son was co-eternal with Him.An objection as if from the words of Eunomius
If the Father is always without beginning and unbegotten, as indeed He is, and the Son was begotten, how is it not entirely necessary for that which is begotten to be circumscribed by a beginning?The solution to the objection
No argument will force us to hold that that which is begotten did not exist before its generation, or is circumscribed by a beginning, even if the begetter were unbegotten. For, my good sir, our discourse is not about any of us, such that that which is begotten would be spoken of as existing in time, and as if it were moved from non-being to being and circumscribed by a beginning; but about the divine and incomprehensible nature, which makes all things in an ineffable manner and in a way that is becoming to God. Therefore, the mode of the divine generation transcends human intellect C and is not subject to human laws; but by as much as the divine nature is elevated above our pettiness, by so much do its actions transcend our own. Let those, therefore, cease who circumscribe by necessity and a beginning Him who is superior to all necessity and does not recognize a beginning that consists in time; but rather let them look to most wise Moses, who says: "I AM THAT I AM." To Him who always is (for this is what "the One who is" signifies), what beginning in time could anyone assign? Otherwise, that which is thought to be contrary to the properties of the begetter would not at all appear to be present in the begotten. For example, God is; but that which opposes and is contrary to this is not God. But the Son is also God, even though the Father is God, and since the Father is King, the D Son is likewise King.A The same reasoning holds for the incorruptible, the invisible, the incorporeal, and all such things that belong to the divine nature. If, therefore, the things opposed to what is attributed to the Father do not in every respect belong to the Son, the generation will do no harm to the Son’s essence, even if the Father happens to be unbegotten. He will be coeternal with Him, not having in Himself the contraries of His natural properties, as has been demonstrated.
Another demonstration: That things which seem to be opposed to one another in terms of name often have something in common in their natural properties.
Not everything that at the first word, or by the significance of the term, is contrary to another, lacks any communion in the things that pertain to substances. For example, an animal is opposed to a non-animal; but both the animal and the non-animal receive growth, as for instance a horse and a plant. If, then, even in these things which have so similar a difference, there is some communion in a certain respect, what argument will compel us to say that the Father and God has no place of communion with the Son and God, since the one is unbegotten and the other begotten, and they seem to differ in some way in their names? For the fact that the Son is in this state, while the Father is not, does not abolish the property of His essence. Generation indeed signifies only the *manner* in which He exists, and in no way harms the eternity of Him who always exists in the Father.
ANOTHER. By way of opposition, showing that the Son is without a temporal beginning.
CIf anything that is begotten of a begotten and mortal being must necessarily be similar to its begetter, that is, begotten and mortal, it is also necessary, on the contrary, that whatever is begotten of an unbegotten and immortal being must necessarily be both unbegotten and immortal. Therefore, the Son will be of the same nature as He who begat Him. But the Father was not made; therefore, neither was the Son made. And if He was not made, what beginning of existence does He have? He was, therefore, coeternal with the Father.
ANOTHER, pertaining to the explanation of the matter.
Those who think that God began to generate from some beginning are greatly impious against their own souls, attributing to Him no more than to us. For a man, since he has a beginning of existence, must of necessity also have a beginning of begetting, and he has [an offspring] begotten of himself. But God, since He is unbegotten, does not beget in time, nor does He have an offspring begotten of Himself in time; but just as He Himself is without beginning and unbegotten, so also the Word, who proceeded from His very essence, will be without beginning, outside of time, and unbegotten, just as He who brought Him forth.
Interrogation as if from the writings of Eunomius.
"Let them tell us," they say, "those who think the Son is coeternal with the Father, did the Father cease from begetting?" And if He did cease: "Therefore, that cessation of the Father from begetting is the beginning of the Son's existence."
Solution.
If the essence of God is above all time and beginning and [distance]
A space, this generation also will transcend all these things; nor will it in any way deprive the divine nature of the power of begetting, because it does not do this in time. For the mode of divine generation is different from the human. For we understand God both to be and to generate at the same time, and the begotten Son was in Him; His generation does not precede His existence, but He exists and is begotten always at the same time.
ALIUD. Whoever has dared to say, "The Father, therefore, ceased to beget," will justly fall into an inescapable charge of blasphemy. For he introduces three mutations into the divine nature. For it is absolutely necessary in a generation that is punctuated by intervals that three times be given: one, indeed, before the generation; a second, in the generation itself; and a third, after the generation. If, therefore, God begat in such a way that He began to beget, and did beget, and ceased, how was He free from change? Or in what way did He Himself create the ages? Or how will the statement of Paul concerning Christ be true, that B "all things were made through Him" (John 1:3), when time is interspersed between His generation, and, according to the insensate opinion of the enemies of God, it precedes it?
ALIUD. God does not beget in time, since His nature is superior to all time; nor is He subject to any laws, He who transcends all things. Nor, indeed, does that which is endowed with the power of begetting proceed from not begetting to begetting; nor, because it knows how to beget, does it altogether cease to beget. For even fire begets from itself the heat and light that are naturally inherent in it; nor did it move from not-hot to hot; nor will it cease to beget that which is by nature in it; but as soon as there was fire, those things that belong to it, namely heat and light, were in it also. If, therefore, this mode of generation is seen even in things created by God, how is it not impious if we do not attribute much greater things to God, even if the human C intellect cannot perceive the magnitude of the divine nature?
ALIUD. The begotten differs greatly from the unbegotten, and the made from the unmade; for such things appear to be contraries to one another. If, therefore, everything that is begotten from the made follows its own nature, and is "made" because it has its existence from such a source, the contrary must of necessity hold true in the same way, and whatever is begotten from the unmade, this is itself also unmade. But the Son was begotten from the unmade Father; therefore, He too is unmade and coeternal with His Begetter, preserving in Himself the dignity of the paternal nature.
Objectio hæreticorum. By this reasoning, they say, we too say that the Son is coeternal with the Father, not because He was always with Him, but because the Father always had in Himself the will to have a Son. D
A **Solution.** But this is utter nonsense, and a manifest proof of an incomparable madness. For who is ignorant that the will to produce even each individual creature resided in God? the Creator made all things by willing them; and the things made by Him are not involuntary ones. What, then, is the difference between the Son and a product—between a creature and what is begotten—if the element of "willing" resides in God concerning both? Would not anyone of sound mind cry out against those who think this, that they are attempting to honor in an equal measure things that are so widely distant from each other in the logic of their nature, asserting that both subsist solely in the foreknowledge of God, and granting nothing more to the Word who proceeded from the essence of the Father than they grant to created things?
B **Another.** If the Son was not always with the Father, existing from Him and coeternal by nature, but it came about for Him to exist afterward, then it clearly came about also for the One who begat Him to become a Father. And thus, some change and alteration appears to have taken place in Him. For that which was not previously, according to you, has come to be afterward. But the divine nature is insusceptible to any change or alteration. It did not, therefore, come about for God to become a Father; but the Word who proceeded from Him was coeternal with Him, just as heat is in fire—which is indeed begotten from fire and always coexists with it—and as the illumination of external things is begotten from light.
C **Another, from the objection of the heretics.** If, they say, the Father is perfect in His own majesty, and nothing is lacking to His nature in this regard, it is superfluous to attach the Son to Him as a kind of supplement or fullness of His deity.
**Solution.** The Father is indeed perfect in His own majesty, and no one of sound mind would deny this; but He is perfect not only in that He is God, but also in that He is Father. For if you were to take away from God being a Father, you would remove the fecundity from the divine nature, so that He would by no means be perfect, seeing that He would lack the faculty of begetting. Fecundity, therefore, is a proof of perfection; and the Son, who proceeded from Him from eternity, is the seal manifesting that the Father is perfect. D
**Another.** If fecundity does not naturally inhere in the essence of the Father, yet He is perfect even without the faculty of begetting, then this [fecundity] is superfluous and adventitious to Him; or rather, He stood in need of it. But how is He perfect who is in need of something? And how is it not absurd to add something extrinsic to the divine nature, as though it did not possess perfection from itself? Therefore, the fecundity is natural to the Father, and for this reason He is perfect: because He has begotten, lacking none of the good things.
ANOTHER, more descriptive.
If the Father is perfect in His own majesty, even if He were to have no fruit, according to you, then the Son has been made from without and not from His essence, just as are [other] creatures; and perhaps the bringing forth of Him into being would be superfluous and not at all necessary, just as A in the case of humans, for example, or of other creatures. For even before we were made, God was that which He now is, and when we were created, He remained in the same state. For we add nothing to Him in being called into existence from non-being, nor will we take anything away from His divine nature by not having yet attained to being. As we, therefore, since we have been made, give thanks to the Creator, let the Son also confess this; and let Him be, in this as well, similar to us, having been made from without, just as we were. But this is a depth of blasphemy. It is necessary, therefore, to flee from this, and to maintain for the offspring that it exists from the essence of the Begetter; for in this way it would indeed be an offspring. The essence of the Father is unbegotten; therefore, that which has proceeded from it—that is to say, the Son—is also unbegotten. B
ANOTHER, by way of objection from the heretics.
Not in every way, they say, is God perfect because He is fecund. But being God, and for this reason perfect, He has also become Father.
Solution to this.
Tell us, then, you who do not fear to break forth into such great impiety, if it happened to God to become Father afterward, what was He before He became Father? For that which is must necessarily be something; or if you say that God is not Father, you will be found to be in conflict with all the Scriptures, for they do not acknowledge God as not being Father; or if you yourselves concede that the name of Father is always inherent in God, you must of necessity attribute to Him that which proceeds from Him. For He could not be called Father if the Son did not exist.
ANOTHER.
If the enemies of Christ think they are bestowing something great upon God by not confessing that He was Father from the beginning, while granting that He is God, let them hear that they are behaving very insultingly, depriving the divine nature of a more worthy title. For God indeed has a relation toward the slaves and things that have a created essence; but the Father has a relation toward the Son. C When, therefore, they say that God existed from the beginning, but was not yet Father, they impose on God the relation toward the slaves, depriving Him of the greater one; for it is better to be the Father of an offspring, and by as much as the Son differs from a creature. For concerning us, it is said: "We are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand." But concerning the Son: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"; and again toward Him: "Sit at My right hand." How great, therefore, the difference is between a creature and the Son, we understand from these [passages]. D
ALIUD.
A Just as "Father" is understood in relation to the Son, so too is "God" [understood] in relation to servants and those that do not have the same nature as He has Himself. It is necessary, therefore, that the One who begot the Word be understood both as God and as Father at once. Or if He became Father in time, having begotten the Son afterward, He also became God in time, when through the Word all things of which He is God were brought into being. And if all things were made after the Son (for they were made through Him), before He was God, He would have had the state of being Father, who begat Him. For it has been demonstrated that the creation, of which He is God and to which the name of Divinity is rightly referred, is after the Son.ANOTHER. BY DEMONSTRATION.
B That it is more fitting to call God "Father" than merely "God." Unless the name "Father" were more proper and more dignified in God than this name "God," for what reason would the Savior, when sending His disciples to baptize, not have commanded the nations to be baptized in the name of God, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but instead, signifying more truly the dignity of the divine nature, said: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"? And Philip, investigating the divine nature—if I may say so—more curiously, said to Him: "Show us the Father." Do you see how he does not call Him God again, but calls Him Father? And the Savior Himself says to this: "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father." C Again, He did not say "has seen God," but "the Father," attributing to Him that which is greater, not that which is lesser. For when He is called Father, He is signified through the greater and more dignified [relation], namely, the Son; but when He is called God, [He is signified] through the creatures, which is lesser, and [lesser] by as much as the difference is between servant and master, work and maker.ALIUD.
With a manifest demonstration that [He is] first Father, then God, even though both are at the same time. When the Savior, having fulfilled the economy of our salvation, after the cross ascended to the heavens, He thus addressed His disciples: "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." Do you see in this the manifest distinction of the names? Do you see how Father is related to the Son, but God to the things that are servile and created? Since, therefore, the creation of creatures is posterior to the generation of the Son, He has the state of being Father first, and the state of being God follows D at the same time. The power of this meaning will be demonstrated more accurately from this: for, while bestowing upon us the dignity that belongs to Him by nature, out of His immense benevolence, He adds: "and your Father"; for we have been adopted through Him.A and He has become our Father by grace, who is His Father by nature. But taking our properties upon Himself, and as though wearing the form of a servant, accommodating to Himself the things that belong to servants, He says: "And my God, and your God." Naturally, therefore, He is His Father, but our God. And since, as I have already said, we have been made through the Son, He is first Father, and then God, although simultaneously and conjunctively.
ANOTHER, from the objection of the Eunomians.
We also, they say, confess the Son to be coeternal with the Father, insofar as He had in Himself the power to beget Him even before He begat Him.
Solution to this.
If the power to beget makes the Son coeternal with the Father, and not the presence of the Begotten Himself, what will prevent us from saying—since the power to create was always in God—that creatures are also coeternal with Him? For if the mere power brings perfection to things, surely the creatures would have existed even before they were made. For the power to make them was in the Creator. But if this is absurd, and for God to have the power to create is not the same as the creatures having come into being, then the power to beget does not constitute the existence of the Son; rather, it is because He is begotten and from Him by nature that He is simultaneously and coeternal B with Him, just as heat is from fire, or a pleasant scent from a flower.
ANOTHER.
The power to beget does not yet have its efficacy exercised. For when one begets, then and only then is he active. Therefore, the power to beget is not the Son's existence in the Father; rather, from the fact that the Father is God, that which is from Him is implied, and it is on this account that He is Father. But if He is Father and God at the same time, He is also Son at the same time, running alongside the eternity of the Father and co-extending with it, so that the status of being a Father may be preserved for the Begetter.
ANOTHER, from the objection of the Eunomians.
If, according to you who claim to think rightly, the Son is coeternal with the Father, then the Father was never active C in begetting Him, but was always idle; how, then, was He begotten? But if He was active and did beget, it is absolutely necessary that what was begotten should have a beginning of existence.
Solution to this.
If the discourse were about any of the created things, O good sirs, you would correctly introduce God to us as an artificer, and not rather as a begetter. But since we do not profess that the Son was made by the Father as some sort of work (for we say that He was begotten from the essence of the Father, not made from without), how are you not manifestly blaspheming by saying that the Father was at some time active concerning the generation of the Son, when even in us the law of generation does not observe this? For we work upon things that are outside of us, but we beget D those things that are from ourselves. Therefore,
which are in us ourselves. Since, therefore, the Son is not a work, but rather the offspring of the eternal Father, He will also be endowed with the paternal nobility, being an eternal Son, as He is. A
ALIUD. Lest we seem to be overly contentious, we shall concede to the enemies of God who say that the generation of the Son is active, B because the Father did not beget by passion. But just as it is active, so also is it natural and essential, and inseparable from His hypostasis. It is therefore absolutely necessary, even if the Father begat the Son actively, that He be plainly coeternal; for it has been stated that the act of begetting cannot be separated from His own hypostasis. Since His hypostasis is always, the fruit proceeding from His nature must also always be. How then shall the Son not be coeternal?
ALIUD. One may see in those things which have been created by God, that whatever things possess the faculty of generating in a divided manner (for this is the law of bodies), and when they have reached a certain measure of age, only then are they able to generate in act, such as man, a brute animal, and a plant. For while these are small, they do not beget; but when perfect age has arrived, they do beget. What, therefore, has hindered the substance of the Father, since it is perfect, from having begotten from Itself, without time, an offspring coeternal with Itself? Nor would anyone say that the substance of God was perfect in time; C since It always remains in the same state, and neither stands in need of any increase, nor can It undergo diminution in any way. It was fitting, therefore, that they should marvel if that which proceeds from God were not coeternal, rather than to ask from contrary notions: "When did He beget the Son?" For to the ever-perfect Father, it is most fitting to beget from eternity, without time.
ALIUD. To those who ask more contentiously whether the Father ever begat the Son, one may object and say: "When did fire begin to burn?" They will not be able to show the beginning of this; for as soon as the fire was made, the power of burning was in it. If, therefore, to creatures made by God, both existence and existence in such a manner belong, what will prevent us from confessing that the Father is greater than His works, and at once exists, and has the Son generated from Himself? D
ASSERTION VI.
That the Father generated the Son from Himself without division and without corruption.Objectio ex Eunomio. "And how," he says, "is it not necessary to confess that the substance of the Father was diminished, if the Son proceeded from it as though He were some part of it?" But if you wish to preserve immutability for the Father, and to posit that He is not subject to any diminishment, you must confess that the Son is not a part of His substance, nor...
from Him, but from without, and has co-existence only according to the faculty or power that is in the will alone.
Solution of the objection.
A Raise your mind a little higher, good man, above bodies and the affections of bodies; for the discourse is about God. For if you think that God, in begetting, is diminished in some way by effluences, and that He cannot do this without any loss, being divided, so to speak, into the Word that has proceeded from Him, what would prevent you from bringing the same blasphemy to bear upon all His other properties? For if He begets as a man does, in a fluid manner, He will also create as a man does, with labor. But if this is absurd (for God does not create as a man does), then neither will He beget as a man does; rather, in this too He will transcend human nature, begetting without division.Another.
If God begets just as a man does, He also works as a man does. And since we, with some material lying at hand, accomplish what we wish to do through the movement of our hands, so too does God. But if God, without hands and matter, brings all things into being from non-being by the Word, surpassing human nature by far, He will also surpass it in the manner of begetting.Another.
C It is absolutely necessary for things that contain something to be wrapped around them as if in a circle. But to be extended into a circle is proper to bodies. How then does God contain all things, being incorporeal and for that reason not even able to be conceived of as being in a place? But He contains the order of things, as God, transcending them. He will not, therefore, be subject to the laws of bodies; consequently, He will not beget as a body does.Another.
It is necessary for that which exists in all things and passes through all things to be intertwined with all things. For thus it would be in all things. But we will not confess that the substance of God is intertwined with the variety of bodies in the world; for it remains pure and in itself, and naturally devoid of connection with another; yet it passes through all things in an admirable and ineffable way. He is not, therefore, subject to the connections of bodies. Hence, He will not beget according to the nature of bodies.Another.
If God is and is understood to be simple and incomposite, how does He have different and varied operations, working many kinds of creatures through time? But if His diverse operation in each of the existing things is no hindrance to His being simple, since He does not exist according to a body, He will also surpass the condition of bodies in begetting.Objection of Eunomius.
If you wish, he says, to say that the Son proceeded from the substance of the Father, it must necessarily be confessed first that He was in HimFor in this way He would appear to have proceeded from Him. And if the Father begot the Son, and will beget no one else after Him (for He is only-begotten), it is necessary to say that He Himself has been deprived of the power of begetting, and has been diminished in part, the Son having been begot once and no longer existing in Him as He did before. A
Solution. Are you not ashamed again to ascribe to the nature of God the attributes that are proper to bodies? For it is not correct to think that the Son is contained in the Father just as a body is in a body. Nor is it appropriate to believe, as with the things that are begotten by us, that they have lain in the loins B of those who beget them; nor is this how one must think regarding the divine generation. For if anyone proceeds to such a pitch of audacity as to drag the ineffable essence of God down to the misery of bodies, what will prevent him from saying that the Father has not begotten at all? For is not giving birth more proper to a mother than to a man? But since God is incorporeal, and not subject to the differences that fall to bodies (for male and female are sought only in bodily forms), C but is of a simple and incorporeal nature, and is the purest Mind of all, for this reason, I think, if anyone wishes to examine the generation that is proper to God, he ought to consider the fecundity that consists in the mind, and rather compare the generation of the Word to this, and not say that God is less fecund than bodies are. For He does not beget as a body does, since we say that even the human mind begets good thoughts. For a good man, says the Savior, brings forth good D things from his heart. If, therefore, it is impious to say that the human mind brings forth no fruit, when the Lord Himself bears witness to it and the reality itself proves it, how is it not absurd to say that the supreme Mind of all is unfruitful, and to deprive It of the fecundity that is proper to It; or if they say that to beget is to be subject to the laws of bodies, and thus to beget as a body does, when not even the mind that is in us begets in a bodily manner? But God, who transcends all things and surpasses all things, how will He not beget even in a way that surpasses the mind, not suffering the loss or flow of anything that was in Him before, but shining forth the Son out of Himself without division, according to the ineffable and unspeakable mode of divine generation?
ANOTHER.
ANOTHER
Whatever is made according to the likeness of another falls away in every respect from the equality to the prototype, and holds a rank secondary to it. The created nature, therefore, having been made fecund by the power of God, and fashioned by grace toward that which is truly and properly fecund, will therefore fall away completely from that truth which is in Him in the manner of begetting; and it will indeed beget, but not in the same way as that to whose likeness it was fashioned. But if this is true, God will beget, not as a creature that by graceA has received this likeness to Him, but as one superior to all created things.
ALIUD
Interrogation from the objection of Eunomius. The Father begat the Son from Himself, as you say, who boast of the highest rectitude of dogmas; but consider this also. The Father was perfect before the generation of the Son; but if, after He has begotten, He is divided into a duality, how will He any longer possess perfection? Unless, perhaps, an increase has occurred in His substance, as it were replenishing what had been emptied. For it is absolutely necessary that what is divided from a unity into a duality should appear less than itself, unless some augmentation B intervenes to add what is wanting. If, however, neither of these things can happen in the divine nature, then the Father did not beget the Son from Himself, so that He might not appear to be divided; but he established Him similar to Himself in all things.
Solution of the objection. It is possible to see even from other things that the enemies of God suffer from a great emptiness of mind, and nevertheless from these things as well. For they truly wander, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For how will that which has been brought into subsistence from nothing C be equal in all things to the uncreated and ever-existing God and Father? For if it was created at all, it evidently did not exist at some time. And how are they not ashamed to introduce divisions and cuttings regarding the divine generation, and to subject the ineffable substance to the laws of created nature? For God is not equal to His own handiwork, nor does He beget just as they do; but just as He excels them in all things, so also will He excel them in this. And if God and Father is above every created substance, He will again be above it also in the manner of begetting, doing this ineffably and in a manner worthy of God.
ALIUD
To undergo divisions and diminutions, increases and growth, and the effluences of bodies in begetting, is proper D also to all things that are of created substance. If, therefore, God begets in this way, just as bodies do, and such a law governs Him as exists among created things, in this way He will also create just as bodies do, namely, by using instruments and hands. But if, while the corporeal and created nature is able to operate in such a way and not otherwise, God works all things by His Word, and the things that are have their subsistence in His will, how is it not ridiculous that in these more worthy and greater matters God should not be superior to passion, nor transcend the condition of bodies in begetting, but should, as if by some necessity, be thus regarding begetting, just as bodies are? Just as, therefore, He creates not as man, nor as a body, so also He begets, in no way bound by the custom of bodies.
A ANOTHER, by way of explanation. The Father shone forth the Son from Himself indivisibly and inseparably, just as also the sun [shines forth] the radiance sent from it. But that [radiance] has not a self-subsistent existence, nor is it in essence complete in itself; for it has its being in the sun. But the divine offspring alone possesses from the analogy the fact that it proceeds from the Father indivisibly and inseparably, while having its own subsistence not separated from the Father, but conceived of and existing in the Father and with the Father. To say, however, that cutting and division occurred in His begetting is a sign of immense madness. For since the Divine is not encompassed by place, neither is that which proceeds from Him [in place]. But how can that which is not in place, or cannot even be in place, admit of division? For where would that which is divided go? Or from what into what would it be moved? For these are the properties of bodies, but they are utterly alien to an incorporeal nature. Therefore, let no one impiously imagine concerning the divine begetting any so-called effluences, or divisions, or anything that has kinship with these things. For the nature that is above all things is subject neither to passion, nor division, nor cutting, and will not admit the properties of bodies. But just as He creates miraculously, not according to the law of the custom prevailing among us, so also He begets that which is from Him in a way strange to us.
Illustrations showing in detail how the Son proceeded from the Father without separation.
The spoken word which we use is begotten in the mind and out of the mind, and it seems to be other than that which is stirred within the heart, inasmuch as it is sent forth outside the mouth as if from darkness into light. Yet it is again in it, and is similar to it in all respects. For it is possible to see in that word the thought called to mind in the heart, and again in the mind the word still held in silence. Thus also the Son of God, having proceeded indivisibly from the Father, is the character and image of His property, being an C hypostatic Word and living from a living Father.
ANOTHER. Thus the Father begat the Son from Himself indivisibly, just as if a wise man were to produce a wise conception, perhaps a mechanical one, or a geometric one, or something else of this sort. For such things seem in a way to be fruits of wisdom, and they are so by nature; yet the art that is devised from wisdom is not separated from wisdom, but is from it and in it, expressing the image of its parent, and it seems to be something else than it without separation. Thus also the generation of the Son, being indivisibly from the Father, is preserved in its own subsistence, though it far exceeds the power of this analogy or likeness.
ANOTHER. Those who seek the truth in divine dogmas do not cast the eyes of their mind toward human sequences. Nor, because the Father has begotten the Son, do they consider Him [to have been] diminished
A or to have been divided into a duality (for this is the argument of the enemies of God), nor do they imagine any efflux concerning His essence. For these things, while they can be truly spoken of as regards us, are thought of most impiously in regards to God. This absurdity, therefore, must be shunned, and we must conclude that the Son was so begotten of the Father as wisdom [is] from the mind: which, while it seems in a certain manner to be outside the begetter by reason of expression or representation, is nevertheless in Him, not having proceeded separately. Nor, likewise, did any efflux occur in the mind that begat it, but it is kept in an integral state, depicting itself whole within itself, and being seen in turn within Him.
ANOTHER.
Such is the generative faculty of God as one would also suppose the creative one to be. For in the same way that one creating many and diverse things is not divided into each of the things produced according to [His] essence, although He acts differently in each, but creates all things through one and ineffable power, so too does He beget, not being divided as they assert. And again: just as the Holy Spirit undergoes no division in [His] essence, although He sends forth various modes of gifts and bestows them upon the worthy according to the measure of each, but is one and the same B acting in all things variously and without passion, so also no one of sound mind would say that the generative essence of God suffers harm, or undergoes any separation or efflux, since one and only the Son has shone forth from it.ANOTHER.
Objection from Eunomius.
If the Father, he says, has begotten the Son from Himself, and He is other than Him, existing in His own hypostasis, and the Father is understood [as separate] from the Son, then clearly all things that belong to the Father are divided, and they do not remain in Him alone, but appear to have crossed over into the Son. Therefore, either the Father no longer possesses the perfect glory, since He has shared it with the Son, or if He does possess the perfect glory, He deprives the Son [of it], taking back to Himself what had been given to Him; and the deity, which formerly had perfect glory in unity, now, being established in duality, does not possess perfection. And it C scarcely acquires this from itself, since the Father in a certain manner lends His own [glory] to the Son, and in turn borrows back from Him what had been given to Him.Solution to the objection.
Again, they are not ashamed to attribute to the incorporeal nature the properties of bodies, ignorantly introducing into the divine essence divisions and dissections, intervals and separations; not knowing that by saying that it is divided by bodily form, they blaspheme greatly against the essence of the Father, saying that He has been altered and transformed, and has descended from the perfect to the imperfect. For those who think that the Son has in any way gone forth from the essence of the Father separately andprepared, and thus they contend that all things belonging to Him are divided, and they say that He has been reduced to half of His glory because the other half has been transferred to the Son; they do not realize into what an absurdity they are falling. For if, as they themselves claim, the Father, having existed previously in unity and possessing the creative power within Himself, produced the Son, and creates all things through Him, and bestowed all power of creating out of His own essence, and that which was not before, was made afterwards, being, forsooth, devoid of creative virtue—but this, to think or to say, is extremely impious: "For the Father worketh hitherto, and I work," says Christ. As, therefore, the creative power of the Father is not divided, nor is it imperfect in His essence, since the Son also possesses it perfectly, so also does He possess perfect glory, since the Son is also perfect in glory. For since He is similar in all things to His Begetter, He therefore also possesses perfect glory, inasmuch as He was begotten of a Father who possesses perfect glory. B
ASSERTION VII.
Against those who object: Whether the Father begat the Son by chance, or by His own preceding will?Interrogation of the heretics. "By chance, they say, and inconsiderately did the Father beget or make the Son, or was it by His own intervening will? But if He begat Him by chance, He suffered something contrary to His will; but if willingly, it is necessary that consideration of any matter be prior to the thing itself being done, and therefore the Father was prior to the Son, since the will preceded the generation."
Refutation. Whence, I beseech you, oh madmen, have you accepted this manner of speaking, that the Father begat the Son either by His own will or without His will; or from what passage of Scripture have you learned to bring forth questions of this sort? Who among the saints has said that the Son proceeded from the Father either by will or without will? Or who has used terms of this kind? That the Word of God was and is, we know from the holy Scripture. But that "without will" or "contrary to will," we have heard from you alone. C For the Father reveals the Son from heaven and says: "This is my beloved Son"; and through David He says: "My heart hath overflowed with a good Word"; and the most wise John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And the Psalmist says again to the Father: "For with Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light." Paul calls Him the brightness, and the form, and the image of the invisible God. And you will find none of these saying that the Son was begotten by will or without will. But when they have said, "He was" and "He is," they have attributed no beginning in time to Him who created the ages. Whence, therefore, do you—
A speak such things? "Speaking from your own heart," as the prophet says, "and not from the mouth of the Lord."
ANOTHER. If you say that the Son was begotten by will, and you contend that the will concerning Him preceded His generation, why does Scripture not say these things about Him, as it appears to do regarding other creatures? For in the case of things that have come into being from God, will precedes them, as in the passage, "Let us make man," and in that which says, "He has done all things whatsoever He willed." But in the case of the Word of God, no will or consultation B is ever seen to have preceded. Rather, we hear only that He was and is. And, if I may so speak, the Father is His natural place. If, therefore, Scripture says that will precedes all created things, but we find nothing of the sort from it concerning the Son, He is not, therefore, one of all things, nor did He come into being by will, as all things did, but He proceeded from the Father and, being of the essence of the One who begat Him, He exists from eternity.
ANOTHER. Paul says somewhere concerning our Savior Christ that He is the power of God and the wisdom of God. If, therefore, the Word, who is from Him and exists in Him, is the wisdom and power of the Father, He Himself is that in which He deliberates, and through whom He works all things. How, then, was He who is the one in whom the Father’s will resides C made by will? For it is necessary either to conjure up in our minds another wisdom in which He deliberated when He made the Son, as you say, or, if there is no other, but He Himself alone is the wisdom of the Father, He Himself is also His will. For in wisdom the will of God consists entirely. And so your reasoning is shown to be vain and your argument empty.
ANOTHER, on the same subject. The will of God is not found to be concrete in the things that are made, but is something other than the things made through it. For example, we say that the heaven was made by will, but that it is not itself the will. If, therefore, God deliberates in wisdom, and even when He willed to beget the Son, as you say, the Son is the wisdom of the Father, it is necessarily the case that there is another wisdom in the Father in which D He deliberated when He begat the Son. But since it is impious to say this (for there is one Son of God, and not two, the Word of God being the wisdom of the Father), He Himself is the One through whom the deliberation about all things occurs.
ANOTHER. Of those things which have come into being in time, the deliberation about their making always precedes. If, therefore, the Son was made by will, as you maintain, then the deliberation concerning Him also preceded, just as it does for created things. And He was not at one time. And John lies regarding Him when he says, "In the beginning was the Word." For if, according to your opinion, He was not, how will the evangelist speak the truth when he attributes "was" to Him? But not to you, but to Him...
A that is, I think, it is necessary to believe. He was, therefore, according to his word, the Son, and the phrase "He was not" is wrongly spoken of Him.
ANOTHER.
If time precedes those things which are made by will—time in which deliberation concerning them took place—and if we grant it to be some small and instantaneous moment, how will the Son be the Creator of times if a will precedes His generation? Yet He is the Creator of times. He was, therefore, and nothing precedes His generation.ANOTHER.
If the Son is the wisdom of the Father, as indeed He is, what time will be set in which wisdom was not in Him? But if He is eternal in the Father (for the Father is always wise), how will anything precede that which always exists? How will deliberation proceed between them, introducing the Son as not existing at some time, when He is coeternal with the Begetter as His wisdom? BANOTHER.
If deliberation precedes the Son, and it must necessarily have occurred in time, even if a very small and brief time is granted, how will He be the creator of all things? Or how do we believe the Scripture that says all things were made through Him? Or where did time precede Him, in which deliberation about Him occurred, when no time existed before Him?ANOTHER.
From the objection of the heretics.
If, they say, the Son of God was not made by will, then the Father necessarily had a Son without willing it. But who is greater than the Father, so as to impose necessity upon Him? For things that happen against an intention occur by necessity.Solution of the objection.
The enemies of Christ must be questioned in turn, and through those very things which they ignorantly object to us, they must be met, and a similar proposition must be countered against them. Tell us, therefore: Is God good, merciful, and holy by will, or against His will? C For if by will, and will always precedes those things of which it is the cause, then there was a time when God was not these things, since He was still deliberating about them. But if He is good and merciful without His will, then He is so by some necessity. And who is it that imposes necessity or force upon Him, as you say? It is therefore evident that your proposition is full of madness, and brings forward no good meaning.ANOTHER, by way of explanation.
In natural things, deliberation does not precede: for it is concerned only with things that are outside the essence of the one deliberating. For example: someone plants a vine or builds a ship, having first deliberated about them; but offspring is born naturally from a human, with no preceding deliberation. If anyone therefore DA should say of any human that he had a son against his will, let him not immediately rush to necessity; for he did not have him by any necessity, but let him rather observe that deliberation does not precede things that are by nature. For a man generates voluntarily, with no deliberation preceding this. Therefore, the Word exists in the Father both voluntarily and without deliberation, just as the child that comes from a man exists in him.
ANOTHER.
If God the Father is naturally good, not by volition—so that there might not appear to be a time when this was not the case, in which deliberation took place—He does not generate the Son by volition, but by nature. For this is more fitting for Him.
ANOTHER.
One must ask the enemies of Christ whether the Father of the Word Himself exists by volition B or against His own will. If indeed it is by volition, and it is necessary for volition to precede existence, I pass over in silence the blasphemy that follows from that; but if it is against His will, then that which exists is by necessity. And who imposed necessity upon Him? If, however, the Father exists, yet not by volition, nor yet against His will, let the same reasoning hold in the case of the Son. For such matters should not be inquired into overly audaciously and rashly. Rather, when it comes to God, it must be held that He is He who is, who has no beginning of existence, but has given all other things the beginning of their being.
ANOTHER, by way of explanation.
It is very absurd and dangerous to say of the Son: C Therefore He was begotten by volition or against volition. For God, who does not exist by volition, does not have by volition the Word who has proceeded from His essence, but naturally. For thus He would truly be His image and character.
ANOTHER.
If volition and consideration precede the existence of the Son, and the Son is the wisdom and Word of the Father, how did God deliberate while He was, according to you, without Word and without wisdom? For the Son did not yet exist, as there was still deliberation taking place concerning Him. And how is it not absurd to introduce the Father deliberating D with Himself as to whether or not He ought at some point to have wisdom and Word? Therefore, the untaught propositions of the enemies of Christ must be rejected, and one should not be laboriously and anxiously contradicting them.
ANOTHER, more explicitly.
It has already been shown by many arguments that volition preceded the creation of the creatures. And from one instance, the whole will be understood. For in the creation of man, the "Let us make man," and the "Let there be a firmament," and the "Let this and that come to be," volition
A is significant of what is done by God upon each of the things created, even if the work immediately appears to follow. If, therefore, volition precedes creatures, and all things were made through the Son, then the One through whom all things were made is not included in the number of all things. And if He is distinct from those things which volition preceded, He would not have been made by volition as they were. For He Himself is the living volition of the Father, in whom He works all things. The Psalmist also calls Him the volition of the Father, saying: "In thy volition thou hast guided me."
ALIUD. If the Son is the counsel and volition of the Father, as indeed He is, how does volition precede His existence? For He would appear to have made Himself. And he B who was not yet made, according to the Christ-haters, would appear to be deliberating about himself. But if this is absurd to say, then He was not made by volition as creatures are; but He was as the volition of the Father in Him, being the very property of the essence of the Begetter.
ALIUD. Christ says somewhere: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," signifying the Father as if He were a certain place containing only Himself, and conversely the Father as existing solely in Him. If, therefore, His volition is something else in the Father besides the Son, how could He who says such things be speaking the truth? For, according to the madness of the Christ-haters, volition is found existing in the Father before the existence of the Son, by which He was made, as they say. If He tells the truth in stating that He is in the Father, and again, that the Father is only in Him, where will the volition reside, since there is no place in between? But if this is true, then He was not made by volition, C but He Himself is the volition of the Father.
ALIUD. If, just as volition preceded creatures, it also preceded the existence of Christ, for what reason do those things which have the same beginning of generation and were made through the same volition differ so much from each other in nature, so that the one is Lord and God, while the others are servile creatures? But it is manifest that the Son, being naturally united to the deity of the Father, is called and is Lord; but the creature is a slave, because it is outside the essence of the Creator and alien to the natural relationship to the Father. It is necessary, therefore, that those which have such a great difference between them not have one beginning. But these indeed, as creatures, were made from volition. The Son, however, D inasmuch as He is the volition itself, was eternally in the Father.
ALIUD, for the explanation of the matter. It behooved these enemies of Christ, who do not fear to ask whether the Father begat the Son by volition, to also say this: Whether the Father begat the Son in prudence. For deliberation and prudence seem to be the same thing. Since whoever deliberates upon something, that also
A thinks; and again, as if in reverse, whoever thinks also deliberates. The Savior himself is found to be joining these together as being equivalent, saying of himself: "My counsel and safety, my prudence and my power." For just as safety and power are the same thing, so also are counsel and prudence. If, then, they believe that the Father was ever witless, let them ask whether he begat the Son with prudence. But if they shudder at this even upon hearing it, how is it not impious to ask and to say regarding the Son: "Has he come to be by an act of will, or not?"—given that one imports such blasphemy against the Word by such a statement.
ANOTHER.
The blessed Paul, showing the exact likeness that the Son has toward his own Father, writes concerning him: "Who, being the brightness of his glory and the stamp of his essence." If, therefore, the Son is the stamp and image of the One who begat him, and he was begotten, according to you, by a preceding act of will, it is B absolutely necessary that the Father also be in the same state as his image and brightness; so that he, too, must have a prior act of will. But if this is impious (for the essence and hypostasis of the Father do not exist by an act of will), it is absolutely necessary that one neither believe nor say that the Son exists by an act of will.ANOTHER.
From an objection of the heretics.
And how, they say, is it not necessary to confess that the Son has come to the Father apart from will or counsel, if he did not come to be by counsel and will?Response to this.
Let the Savior himself silence the impudent tongue of the Christ-haters, saying of himself: C "The Father loves the Son." For, as has already been said, it is not by an act of will that he has his being as good and merciful, yet neither is it without an act of will that he is these things. For he wills to be what he is, always, and shall be. So also, even if he did not beget the Son by an act of will, he does not possess him against his will. For he wills the Son and loves him, as it is written. And just as the Father is the willer of his own hypostasis, and yet is not what he is by any preceding act of will, so also the Son, having proceeded from the essence of the Father, is not present to him contrary to his will, even if D no act of will preceded the generation.ANOTHER.
If the Son is the brightness and stamp of the Father, and he was brought into being by an act of will, according to your opinion, there was therefore a time when he was not, during which the counsel concerning him was being agitated in the Father. Consequently, there was once a time when God was without his own brightness and stamp. And, if the Son is the proper essence of the Father, and he was once not, according to you, it is the same as saying that the generative essence of the Father was at one time not...A of some mutation brought to this point, having brought forth the Son. But if this is impious to think and to say, let no one propose concerning the Son, "By will or not." For just as the Father is good by nature, so also is he generative by nature.
ANOTHER, by way of explanation.
If every will that occurs in anyone does not occur without a word (for will is a word hiddenly turning in the heart), and the Son is the Word of the Father, then he himself is His will. But then how does will occur in will? Or how is Word in Word? Therefore, the Son is all things to the Father: both will and Word, and wisdom; and there is nothing in the Father before Him.ANOTHER, similar.
Man has naturally ingrained in him the power to be a father of children; and it is not as a man is good or evil by will, that he is also a father. But the former is by nature, the latter by will. And of the one we are masters; but in the other, the law of nature holds sway B irrevocably. Therefore, just as we do not have it by will to be fathers of our children, but naturally, so also God and Father is not Father by will, but naturally. And just as those born of us are in every way similar to us in essence, so also the Son is not added to the Father from without, but, proceeding truly from His essence, is similar in all things to the Begetter. And just as the Father is not Father by will, so neither is the Son [existent] by will, but by nature, being the radiance and impress of Him who begat Him.ANOTHER. Opposition as if from Eunomius.
"We must ask," he says, "those who think they hold the correct opinions, whether the Father C ever begat the Son by will, or without will. For if the Son existed in the essence of the Father, being distinct from Him, He did not beget by choice. For there was a necessity to beget that which lay within the nature. But if He was not in the Father, but was begotten when the Father had willed it, it is necessary that his will should have preceded him. Therefore, he was not co-eternal with the Begetter."Solution of the objection.
First, it is worth marveling at how they rush so recklessly and monstrously, as if through ignorance, into every blasphemy; D and one may charge them with great ignorance. For they are not ashamed to subject God Himself to necessities, saying that, just as in human bodies something is contained in the essence of the Father, and as if one vessel in another, so the Son is held in the Father. But we, who strive to think correctly and justly, declare that the essence of God is superior to all necessity; and that the Son is in the Father, not as a body contained by a body, but as inseparable from His essence and proceeding from it according to the law of nature. But if they think they are proposing something acute by saying that He was made by will or without will...let them listen to this from us: Does fire, then, generate the heat that comes from it voluntarily or involuntarily? But they will have nothing to say to this. For things that proceed from nature do not admit of either willing or not-willing. But in the case of things that are outside us and within our own power, we either will or do not will. A Just as we, too, operate by willing something, yet we beget from ourselves without willing or not-willing having any place in this, so too God works by will in things outside Himself, but He begat the Son from Himself without time; and in this, willing and not-willing have no place, even if He is not begotten against the Father's will. For the Father loves the Son, as it is written.
ANOTHER.
From the objection of Eunomius. If the Father, he says, did not beget the Son by will, but has Him by nature, it is manifest that He does not Himself have the knowledge concerning Him, but has it from nature. He learned, therefore, that there would also be a Son of His, and that He would co-create all things; and the knowledge concerning the Son came to the Father as being taught by His own nature. But if this is absurd, then He produced Him by will, knowing that He would be, and will B altogether precedes the generation.Solution of the objection.
Just as if we were to consider that the Father was first taught who the Son would be, and then after that begot Him, so does this crafty man construct his argument, ignorant that, since there is no interval between the Father’s having being and the generation of the Son, foreknowledge concerning Him has no place. For if He deliberated and was taught in advance, these things would necessarily have taken place in time, and the Son would be lower than time. But if He Himself is the creator of times, why does he foolishly babble against the divine nature, feigning that it is taught by nature about future things, and attributing nothing more to the all-powerful God than to man? Therefore, C since the generation of the Son is far above ages and times, it would rightly be blasphemous and ignorant to say that the Father deliberated or was taught in advance about Him. For the Father is perfect in the knowledge of all things, and deliberation has no place preceding the Son.ANOTHER.
If the Father always knows Himself to be Father, He altogether has in Himself also the knowledge of the Son. For in knowing what He Himself is, He bears also the knowledge of sonship; for He is and is called Father in relation to the Son. And again from the opposites: The Son knows the Father, knowing what He Himself is. For D from sonship, fatherhood is understood, and conversely, from fatherhood, sonship; therefore God was always Father, and thus He was also Son. It is, however, impious to say that the Father does not know the Son from Himself, but is taught by nature, seeing that each has the knowledge of the other from the very fact of what he is. And otherwise, the nature of God would be nothing other than Himself; for He is simple and incomposite.ANOTHER. From the objection of Eunomius.
He says: The Father begat the Son by will, that is, by judgment, or by nature? If then by nature only, and not by will or judgment, He is begotten involuntarily and uncritically. But if by both, you make God composite, attributing to Him both nature and judgment. For how will He who is composed of these be simple?Solution of the objection.
The generation of the Son is subject neither to judgment nor to will. For to will and to judge occur in time; but the Son is the Creator of time. How, therefore, shall that which is created precede the Creator? But if you think God becomes composite because He has nature and judgment (or will), observe this also: The Father has begetting naturally; He has also creating through the Son as an artificer, and yet He is not thereby composite. For these things are the fruit of one nature. The same principle will apply to the good, the immortal, the invisible, and whatever else exists in the divine nature.ANOTHER. From the objection of Eunomius.
A Tell us, he says, you who say the Son is the radiance of the Father, what then do you suppose? The mode of the question is this: Light, or fire, for example, placed in a lamp illuminates the things outside, but it does not fill all things itself, and it lies in a place, and, as I said, its illumination stirs about the things outside. If, therefore, you say the Father is light, and the Son the radiance begotten from the light, it is necessary to admit that the essence of the Father cannot fill all things, so that there may be a place remaining B for the radiance which is emitted from Him. But if the Father fills all things, where will the essence of the Begotten abide?Solution of the objection.
If he places the Father in a place, and thinks Him to move about like a body, let him also seek a place for the Begotten. But if the essence of the Father does not consist in a place (for the Deity cannot be circumscribed by place), why does he torment himself with matters that require no such questioning, and dare to say: "Where will the essence of the Son go, when the Father fills all things?" C It is manifest, therefore, that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, yet not as existing as the same, nor as one in number. For the Father is in His own property, and the Son is in His own peculiar property, having this difference alone from the Begetter: for the Father is by Himself, and is not the Son; and the Son is by Himself, and is not the Father. But although He is distinguished from the Father by this difference alone, He possesses the same property of the paternal nature; and He is again in the Father, just as the radiance D sent forth from the sun, which indeed proceeds from it, and is something else than it, yet is one in nature. For that is the sun, and this the radiance. The Father, therefore, existing, emitted the Light, the Son, the seal and most exact image of His own nature.the Son, the seal and most exact image of his own nature. A
ASSERTION VIII
Against those who say that the Son is not like to the Father, but to his will.
One might deservedly condemn the great rashness of Christ’s enemies, or rather judge them to be insane, who contend that the Son is not like to the Father himself, but to his will—when, on the other hand, Holy Scripture does not define this about him, nor does the Savior himself say: "He who sees me, sees the will of my Father." For Christ, saying "I am the truth," ought not to compare himself to the Father according to nature, but rather to his will, if it were as they say. But since he did not call himself the will, but added that he is the image of the Father, he clearly overturns their opinion. B
ANOTHER. The enemies of Christ must be asked: This will of the Father, to which you say the Son is like, is it an essence, and did it exist by itself, or not? For if you grant that it is essential and subsistent, how then will the Son be Only-begotten, being third from the Father? For it appears that a certain will, subsistent and living according to your proposition, preceded his generation. But if, denying this, you will not grant that this will subsists in its own hypostasis, nor that it is a living and existing essence like the Son, then you foolishly and ignorantly seek a likeness without positing two essences. For how will that which exists hypostatically be like that which is not of such a kind? Or how can that which has not been brought to existence be compared to that which already is, in the manner of a likeness? C
ANOTHER. For who having a sound mind would not acknowledge that likeness exists between animal and animal, and between non-animal and non-animal? For things that are of different kinds and are naturally separated from any mutual relationship cannot be compared with one another by anyone who is of sound mind, nor would he say that this is like that, or that like this. Consider, for instance: let a man be posited, or some other substance that falls under the definition of an animal; let there also be posited knowledge, or wisdom, or will, or some other thing among those which do not exist by themselves, but which reside in others—in men, perhaps, or in angels. If, therefore, anyone were to say that a man or some other animal is like knowledge, or wisdom, or will, would he not deservedly be laughed at for his foolishness, given that he attempts to compare and collate things between which no affinity exists? Therefore, the Son of God, existing hypostatically, is in no way like to a will which does not exist hypostatically. Either let them say that he is absolutely unlike the Father, and let them be detested as open blasphemers; D
B for if it is necessary to grant similarity to the Son towards the Father, it is absolutely necessary that he will not be like to the will, but rather to the Begetter. For it has been demonstrated that similarity is preserved in those things that exist in essence and hypostasis towards things that are essential and hypostatic, not towards things that are of another genus and have their being in others, just as wisdom, for instance, is in the wise man, and the will or counsel in the one willing or consulting.
ANOTHER, by way of reduction to the absurd.
If, as you hold, the Son, being like to the will of the Father, is unlike to the Begetter, it will be absolutely necessary to say that the will itself has no resemblance to God and Father, of whom the Son is the character, and yet—according to you—he is unlike the Father. The Father, therefore, will also be unlike to his own will. For this impiety follows from your statement. And if you say that the will is something existing hypostatically, there will certainly be something in the essence of God that is unlike to Him. And reason will compel you to confess even this. But here one must inquire into the mode of the unlikeness which the will has towards the Father. For if it does not have the similarity towards Him because it happens to be in some respect lesser than He—that which has proceeded from the essence of the Father being worse and lesser than He (for the will is not extrinsically added, nor is it adventitious, but is from Him and in Him)—then to beget worse things cannot happen even to those who have a created nature. For a man will not beget anything other than what he himself is; and neither will any of the irrational animals. But if, which it is impious to say, the will of the Father, C striving to have something greater, carries for this reason an unlikeness to Him—in that it is compared to one who is lesser or in some way worse—how is it not impious to say that there is something greater and better than the Father? But if you will grant neither this nor that, and you say that the will is not per se subsistent, and thus understood as it is in us, how then will you establish that the will is unlike to the Father? For if it is so, the Father will seem to have willed things that are in no way fitting for Him; a thing which is most absurd even to think of.
ANOTHER.
Reason itself will compel you, even against your will, to grant the Son similarity with the Father. For it has been shown to be most absurd to believe that God has willed things that are in no way fitting for Himself, so that it is absolutely necessary to say that His will is like to Himself. If, therefore, the will is like to the Father, D and the Son is like to the will, then by necessity the third will be like to the first. For the will, placed in the middle, having copied the natural likeness of the One who begets it, has bestowed it upon the Son, according to your opinion. By this reasoning, therefore, the Son will be found to be like to the Father, even though you be unwilling. But since there is nothing intermediate between the Father and the Son, the argument concerning the will will cease altogether and be superfluous; and with nothing intervening, the Son will be immediately, according to nature, like to the Father.
ANOTHER.
It is written: "Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God."
A If, therefore, the will of the Father marks out His power and wisdom, that is to say the Son, it is absolutely necessary to say that it is not unlike the Father, lest the Father appear to possess power and wisdom that is not like to Himself. But if this is so, then let the enemies of Christ at last understand the magnitude of their own folly. For by refusing to say that the Son, who is one, is like to the Father, they have posited two, if they wish to claim that the will subsists by itself. But since the will does not subsist by itself, that which does not subsist will not be the character of that which does subsist, for the very reason that it does not subsist.
ANOTHER. Things which have the same operation and use the same natural faculties are necessarily of the same essence. For nothing of those things which exist in the nature of things will produce the same faculties and operations without any difference, while differing in genus and essence; but those things will use the same properties only which are endowed with one and the same nature; but to those to whom a single communion of essence belongs, these [things] will also be like to one another in all respects. If, therefore, the operation of the Father and the Son is one, and the same power is seen in all, the duality is not of different essence. And if this is so, the Son will manifest entirely the likeness of the Father, as consubstantial; and He will not be the image of the will.
ANOTHER. If God and the Father decrees whatever the Son also decrees (for no opposition or discord will ever find a place in the one and incorruptible Trinity), what place will a self-subsistent will have, which posits a third [person] by making the Son immediately joined to the Father, just as the Son also has nothing C intervening between his own generation? Therefore He Himself is the living and essential will of the Begetter.
ANOTHER. They falsely assert that the Son is the character and likeness of the Father's will, but not of the Father Himself. Wherefore, the enemies of Christ must again be asked: Is the Father like His own will, or not? For if He is unlike, then He has a will that is unlike to Himself; and I pass over the blasphemy that follows from this. But if He has a will like to Himself—of which, as you say, the Son is the character and image—then He is like the Father in this respect. How then will He who is His character, because He is like to His will, be unlike Him according to essence? For if it is as you suppose, the Son will be composed of the like and the unlike: in some respect like to the Father, but in another alienated from the likeness with Him. Furthermore, what reason allows that which is one in essence and in number, such as Paul or Peter, to bear within itself naturally the opposites? For no one will be able to say: "I am possessed of reason and I am devoid of reason"; nor will anyone say that fire is both hot and cold; for it is necessary that, of one thing D existing...
the other of the things signified should pass away. Therefore, it is impossible that similitude and dissimilitude should exist in the Son at the same time. Since, however, the Holy Scripture testifies that He is similar to the Father, and He Himself says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father," we shall not admit this dissimilitude, being led by these testimonies to that which is truer and more fitting. And since He did not say: "He who has seen me has seen the will of my Father," we shall confess the Son to be the image not of the will, but of the Father Himself, as a Son. A
ANOTHER.
Things which depart from mutual union and natural similitude, and differ from one another by reason of their essential quality, are separated either by place or by reason alone. Those having a corporeal constitution are separated by place from mutual union; others, however, are separated by reason, which differ by an essential distinction, as a man from a horse. But whatsoever things have a meaning and an outcome that is dissimilar, they are distinguished by reason and intellectual conception, just as health and sickness. Among these, those which are contrary to one another by reason alone and by their effect, the more skilled philosophers call "immediate" contraries, while others are "mediate." Immediate [contraries], therefore, as we have just said, are health and sickness; for there is nothing intermediate between these. For if any of these happens to a man, it is alone in him. He is either in good health or he is sick; and there is no medium between being sick and not being sick. They hold, however, that justice and injustice are mediate contraries. For not every man is either entirely just or entirely unjust. For it is possible that we might find some middle ground, specifically that someone is just in part, but not unjust in every respect. Having therefore considered these matters in this way, and having investigated dissimilitude in individual things, let us see in what manner, from what has been said, the Son differs from the similitude of the Father. B
No one, certainly, would say He is separated by place: for He is not a body, and it is the property of bodies to be divided by local intervals. It remains, therefore, that He differs by reason; and by reason I mean natural [reason]. But if the Father is God by nature, and the Son is God by nature, what kind of reason distinguishes Him? And who would not confess that those things which are of the same essence are similar to one another? Furthermore, the Son will not be distinguished from the Father as a contrary, like those things which are called immediate. For they do not differ from one another as health and sickness; nor does reason show that, just as one of those things we have mentioned is kept in a man, so also is it in the Father and the Son. For the Father indwells in someone; the Son also indwells. Nor do the Son and the Father behave as those things [health and sickness] which cannot come together or subsist at the same time in the same subject: "For behold," says Christ, "we will come, I and the Father, and we will make our abode with him." But neither will the Father be an intermediate thing in relation to the Son, as justice is. For the Father will not be less of a Father, C nor… D
Father in relation to the Son—just as is the case, for example, with justice. A For the Father will not be less, nor will the Son be less, in such a way that there should be some intermediate space containing the foundation of the substance, as was said regarding justice and injustice. Since, therefore, no space separates the Son from the likeness to God the Father, it is redundant to say that He is similar to the Father’s will rather than to the Father Himself, from whom He shines forth.
ANOTHER
The account for those things which have the same definition is such that it is naturally necessary for them to be uniform and similar to one another. For example: the definition of man, having it thus—rational animal, mortal, capable of intellect and knowledge—shows that all to whom this applies are of the same substance. And those to whom this definition truly applies, I say, must absolutely be men. For if it is a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge, what else could the object signified be but a man? If, therefore, the name "God" and "Lord," and "immortal," and "king," and whatever else is spoken of the Father in addition to these, are also truly spoken of the Son, and if these things apply to Him not in name only, but in reality and according to nature, what reason will separate the Son from the natural likeness to the Father? B For they have one definition of substance, and all things that belong to the Begetter are also truly affirmed of the Begotten. But if anyone dares to say that the Son is falsely called God, and that He possesses nothing more than those who have been called to divinity and sonship by grace, having fallen into the dogma of Paul of Samosata, he will justly hear from us: "If you will not believe, you shall not understand." For it is impossible for those who do not believe the Son to be God by nature to understand the likeness which He has to the Father by nature. Therefore, being like the Father, He does not bear the image of an accidentally existing will, C existing as the Son before the ages.ASSERTION IX
That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, with the following sayings also being set forth:
"Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God," and, "I am going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God," and similarly also, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."If the Father at some time began to beget the Son, and afterwards ceased, just as the enemies of Christ assert, He came to be with Him in a later time. Therefore, before the Son was made, according to them, the Divine was in a monad; but afterwards it came to be in a dyad, the Son having been begotten, and it was like some addition and increase of divinity from an ancient monad into a subsequent dyad. And the Father, as if weary of being alone, devised the Son as a partner of His divinity D and works. And many other blasphemous things, full of the greatest absurdity, will be brought forth from thinking in this way.
A If, therefore, it is good to avoid the absurdity in the things mentioned, it follows that we must believe that the Son was not added to the Father, but was always coeternal from Him. And just as, if He appeared to have been added, He would not be consubstantial, so, since this is not the case, but He was always with Him, He will by all means be consubstantial with Him.
ANOTHER
Even if the Son has some difference with respect to His own Father, in that the Father is the beginning and the Son is from the beginning, he will not, however, on that account be excluded from the identity and the consubstantiality with Him. For there will be nothing coeternal with the Father that is not naturally from Him, B lest we say that this also belongs to creatures, which belongs only to the divine nature. Therefore, even if the Son has His own Father as a beginning, but, inasmuch as He is from the beginning, has being coexistent with it, He will not be unlike it in essence. For because He is from the beginning, for this reason He is also consubstantial with the beginning. Moreover, that which is consubstantial with the Father is not acquired, lest He also be found to be of such a kind.
ANOTHER
From the objection of Eunomius
The essence of the Father, he says, does not admit of generation; but the Son was begotten. How, then, will He who is begotten be consubstantial with the Father, who does not admit of generation?
Solution of the objection
Let those who foolishly put forth such things tell us: If consubstantiality is destroyed by generation, by what thing will it be preserved? And again, if the begotten is not consubstantial with the begetter, what will be consubstantial? Certainly that which is not begotten and is alien from the essence, or that which is taken from some of those things that are around the essences: but this is impossible. You will say, then, that the unbegotten is by all means consubstantial with the unbegotten, but the unbegotten is not like the begotten. C Therefore, since Adam was not begotten, but Abel was begotten from a woman, he will not be consubstantial with Adam. If, however, he is indeed begotten, but has the same nature as Adam who was not begotten, what prevents the Son, being begotten from the unbegotten Father, from being His consubstantial [offspring]?
ANOTHER, more explicitly
That the Son has been begotten from the Father even the enemies of Christ acknowledge; and I do not think anyone has arrived at such wickedness as to dare to say that He, just like creatures, is by reason of nature outside the divine essence. If, therefore, the Father begat the Son from Himself, why will He not be consubstantial? Let the accusers of the Word of God tell us. D For He begat Him such either because He could not [do otherwise], or because He would not. If they say because He could not, let them be ashamed to insult the essence of the Father, when they dare to attribute impotence to Him; but if by another—
that is, because He did not will it—they heap upon Him another insult, attributing to Him the most base and wretched thing of all, namely, negligence and sloth in bringing about the better and more excellent things. For if it were better to be consubstantial than to be what is not of this kind, how could it not be beyond all blasphemy to say that the divine essence was negligent in performing those things which were better and more appropriate, and did not rather will the better than the worse? Yet the Father can do all things, and He wills the better; there is nothing, therefore, that prevents the Son from being consubstantial. A
ANOTHER. From the objection of Eunomius.
Whatever exists from some cause, or has been begotten, he says, is necessarily second to that which was the cause of its existence. Thus the Son will be second to the Father, since He has the Father as His cause; and therefore He is not even consubstantial with Him. Or if someone were to urge more contentiously that He is consubstantial, then the one Godhead, by admitting some section, will be divided into a duality; for it cannot be consubstantial in any other way. It is necessary, therefore, to say that the Son is not consubstantial.
The solution to these things.
The enemy of Christ is once more intoxicated and is babbling vainly against the divine essence. For indeed, C to be cut and to be able to receive some interval between one thing and another is proper to bodies. But the divine essence of the Father, being incorporeal, is incapable of section or division; it does not exist in a place, nor is it contained by anything, but subsisting in an arcane and ineffable state, it brought forth the Son from itself without interval; nor could it be perfect in any other way unless it had begotten the Son and been shown to be fruitful; nor, again, could it be a creator unless it had begotten from itself, indivisibly, the Son through whom it performs all things. Therefore, the Son is begotten of the Father, not by any section or efflux, as you imagine; but as heat from fire, He proceeds indivisibly from the essence of the Begetter. D
ANOTHER. As from an objection of Eunomius.
If the Son is consubstantial with the Father, he says, why is He not also good in the same way as the Father? For Christ says somewhere to someone: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God." But in saying "one," He excluded Himself, inasmuch as He is indeed good, but not in the same way as the Father would be.
The solution to these things.
Since the divine Scripture calls the Son Lord, you will surely confess that He is also Lord, and this in truth, or else you will deny this along with the others. For if you say that He is not Lord, you think contrary to the divine Scriptures and to the Spirit who speaks these things. If
you have granted and said that He is Lord, you are caught speaking impiously, inasmuch as you call Him Lord and adore Him while denying that He is consubstantial with God and the Father, and you worship a creature rather than the one who is God by nature. For that which belongs to a different nature from Him who truly is God, cannot be God by nature. And of this the divine Scripture itself bears witness, saying: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. vi, 4); for there is one nature of the Godhead. And that it is right to adore this alone, you shall hear again: "You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Deut. x, 20; Matt. iv, 10). If, therefore, because God and Father is alone called good, the Son cannot be good as the Father is; and by the same reasoning, since the Father is called one Lord and God, it follows necessarily from the same argument that the Son is neither Lord nor God: how then do you adore Him who is neither Lord nor God? But if, since the Father is Lord and God, the Son is also introduced at the same time, having the same property—inasmuch as He proceeds from Him by nature—and is Lord and God with the Father, He will necessarily also be good, as is the Father, since the paternal property exists in Him in this respect also, just as it does in Him. A
ANOTHER.
Many things do the divine Scriptures preach concerning the Father and the Son, yet the difference of names does not altogether distinguish the formula of their essence, so that a certain dissimilarity might separate them thereby. For there is one Godhead of the Father and the Son, even if each is signified differently by the variety of names, not because one has any property in himself which does not exist in the other, but because everything which is said of one can be said of both, except only the declaration and the reality of "Father" and "Son." For the Father is always the Father, and He could never become the Son; and the Son is always the Son, and He could not ever be the Father. If, however, anyone wishes to say that an appellation which is attributed to one cannot apply to both, he will fall into a great evil. For what would he do, given that Paul says: "One God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (1 Cor. viii, 6)? C See how openly he attributes to the Father to be God and to be one, and to the Son to be Lord and to be one. Shall the Son, therefore, not be God on this account, because the Father has been named God and one? Or shall the Father not be Lord, because the Son has been called Lord and one? By no means, far from it! For since the Father is God, the Son is also God; and again, since the Son is Lord, the Father is also Lord. D Yet if there were any difference of essence that divided them into two, and did not permit them to agree in natural identity, the appellation of the one could not properly be attributed to the other. Since, however, all things that are the Father's appear in the Son, and those of the Son again in the Father, so that no reason can any longer hinder their identity, He shall also be good, just as the Father, and for this reason also consubstantial.A Things that are alienated from a natural communion and identity with one another are also by necessity distinguished from one another by a difference of properties in their natural relation. For example, let the things signified be a man and a horse. For to a man, the properties of a horse are alien, and to a horse, in turn, in relation to a man, the things uniquely belonging to the other are not the same. If, therefore, some natural distance keeps the Son away and declares Him to be alien and different from the essence of the Father, how is He found bearing the properties of the Father? And how does the Father, if He is of a different nature from the Son, bear the things that are proper to the Son? For the Savior speaks the truth when He says to the Father: "All mine are thine, and all thine are mine." If, therefore, all things [are shared], and among all things is also that which is supremely good, the Son will also have this as a property of the paternal nature, as one who has proceeded from Him. And he who possesses the properties of the paternal substance would certainly also be consubstantial.
B That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, from the statement: "I go unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your God."
When the Word of God took on the form of man, and for the sake of the salvation of us all—existing in the form of God, as it is written—humbled Himself, then indeed He also speaks at times as a man, yet without diminishing in any way His divine glory thereby. For if He has truly become man, and did not for this reason cease to be God, even if as one who has become man He says things that befit a man, He will not on this account be deprived of His divine dignity; but He will still be the same, with the humility that is in His words being referred to the economy. That He says these things economically as man, keeping well in word and deed the form which He assumed, we shall know from this. For somewhere He says to the woman in Samaria, adopting the Jewish persona: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know." C And yet the Son is of those who are worshipped, not of those who worship. "For let all the angels of God worship Him," He says. And concerning the angels or any other order of those subject to them, nothing such is reported in the divine Scriptures. For no one is commanded to worship angels, but God alone. For it is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." As, therefore, the Son, to whom worship is due, says that He worships economically as man, so when He, existing as God by nature, calls the Father His God, again He is speaking as man with respect to the economy; He does not for this reason cease to be God, D but as He is by nature Son, He will also be consubstantial.
ALIUD
If the Son, existing in the form and equality of God (for so Paul says), possesses as God by nature the very God and Father, the divine nature can be subject to these...
conditions; for the Father would then also have a God, even if this has never occurred. For that which is capable of coming to pass, even if it has not been completed, is in potentiality that which it is capable of being. But if this is blasphemous, then the Father is not called God of the Son by nature, but rather on account of the incarnation, insofar as He is man.
ALIUD If the Son, existing in the form and equality of God, as it is written, A humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in appearance as a man—these words of humiliation and those befitting a servant belong not to His substance, but are suited to the incarnation. And just as from the height of the deity we recognize the humiliation that is in humanity or the humanization, so on the contrary, from the humiliation which consists in the humanization, you will understand that which is great and sublime in the deity and in the essence of the Son. B
ASSERTION X
That the Son is consubstantial with the Father.The enemies of Christ, when they treat of those things which pertain to the deity of the Son, and inquire into the relationship He naturally has toward the Father, do not rightly use the words which were spoken in human fashion and uttered by our Lord when He assumed our flesh. For His incorporeal essence is not to be characterized and expressed by those things which He said as man with respect to the incarnation; rather, C we ought to know and believe that the Word, being God and consubstantial in all things with the Father, assumed a human nature and became man, so that He might also speak as man, on account of the dispensation with the flesh. He speaks also as God those things which exceed man, inasmuch as He is naturally God, and He uses that mode of speech when the time requires it. But if anyone wishes to refer those things which were spoken in a human manner and by reason of the incarnation, as I have said, to His deity, and conversely to transfer those things which were spoken in a divine manner to that time when He became man, such a person will confound the nature of things and destroy the whole rationale of the incarnation. For sometimes, as God, He says: "Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." And again: "I have descended from heaven." But if anyone wishes to preserve only His divine dignity, he will clearly abolish the fact that He became man in the latter times. For He was not in humanity before Abraham was, nor did He descend from heaven as man. D On the contrary, if anyone wishes to attribute the words and events that befit humanity to God the Word, as He was before the incarnation, he will act most impiously. For what will he do when Christ says: "Now my soul is troubled, and is very sorrowful"? Will he determine that sorrow and anxiety have happened to the divine nature, or will he say that it was subject to the fear of death?
τοῦτο A δέχοιτο ἂν, ἢ καὶ φήσειεν ἂν, εἰ μή τῳ ἄρα καὶ λίαν ἐστὶν ἔσχατα τὰ τῆς ἀνοίας ; Οὐκοῦν ἑκατέρῳ καιρῷ τε καὶ πράγματι σωζέσθω τὸ πρέπον, καὶ γυμναζέσθω μὲν τῆς θεολογίας ὁ λόγος, μὴ πάντως ἐξ ὧν ὡς ἄνθρωπος φαίνεται λαλῶν, ἀλλ' ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ἐκ Πατρὸς, ὡς Υἱὸς καὶ Θεός. Συγχωρείσθω δὲ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῇ μετὰ σαρκὸς, τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν ἔσθ' ὅτε καὶ ἃ μὴ πρέπει γυμνῇ καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὴν οὔσῃ τῇ θεότητι. Ὅταν οὖν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, λέγῃ μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθὸς οὕτως ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ, φερέσθω μᾶλλον καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τὴν μετὰ σαρκὸς, καὶ μὴ ἀπτέσθω τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ.
Ἀπολογία πιθανὴ πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτήσαντα· «Διὰ τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ;» καὶ ἐξήγησις τοῦ ῥητοῦ.
Ἐξεταστέον ὅλην τοῦ προκειμένου τὴν διάνοιαν· B καὶ οὕτω γνωσόμεθα σαφῶς, ὅπερ ἐβούλετο διδάσκειν ὁ Χριστὸς, διὰ τοῦ φάναι· «Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;» Νομικὸς προσῆλθεν (οὕτω γὰρ γέγραπται), τὸ ὅπως σωθήσεται μανθάνειν ἐπιζητῶν. Εἶτα προτείνει διδάσκαλον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν προειρηκὼς τὸ, «Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;» Πρὸς ταῦτα Χριστός· «Τί με λέγεις, φησὶν, ἀγαθόν; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός. Ὕπαγε, πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς.» Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τῆς ἐντολῆς τὸ βάρος, καὶ ἀτονήσας περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν, ὀκλάζει περὶ τὸ πρόσταγμα. Ἀπῆλθε γάρ, φησὶ, λυπούμενος. Ποῖος οὖν ἦν ἐνθάδε θεολογίας καιρός; Τῷ δὲ ἐρωτήσαντι, Τί ἄρα ποιήσας ἔσται καὶ αὐτὸς τοῖς σωζομένοις ἐναρίθμιος; ποῖον ἔχει λόγον, μὴ ὅπερ ἐξήτησε μαθεῖν ἀποκαλύψαι μᾶλλον, ἀλλ' ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὸ ἐκείνῳ ποθούμενον εἰπεῖν; Πῶς δὲ οἷόν τε ἦν τὸ ἐνεγκεῖν οὐκ ἰσχύσαντα μιᾶς ἐντολῆς C εὐαγγελικῆς φορτίον, τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντα διδάσκεσθαι μυστήριον, οὕτως ἀπονοῦντα περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔφεσιν, ὡς μηδὲ λόγῳ δύνασθαι ταύτην χωρεῖν; Λελύπηται γάρ, ὡς γέγραπται. Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἄνθρωπον βλέπων ὁ νομικὸς, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ πρόσεισι, καὶ ὡς μόνον ἄνθρωπον ἐρωτᾷ, ἐξελέγχων ὡς ἀμαθῆ, μάλισθ' ὅτι σοφίας ὑπόληψιν ἐπραγματεύετο, διὰ τοῦ δοκεῖν εἰδέναι τὸν νόμον, δυσωπεῖ λέγων· Μόνος ἀγαθὸς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ὁ Θεός. Τί τοιγαροῦν ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ προσελθὼν, τὸ μόνῳ προσὸν τῷ Θεῷ κατὰ φύσιν, ἐμοὶ περιτίθης, ἀγαθὸν ἀποκαλῶν; Εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ φύσει ἀγαθὸς, Θεὸς δηλαδή. Εἰ μὲν οὖν οἶδάς με, φησὶ, Θεὸν ὄντα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀγαθὸν, ὅτου δὴ χάριν ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ προσέρχῃ ψιλῷ; Εἰ δὲ οὐ πιστεύεις εἶναι με Θεὸν, ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπον οἴει με ψιλὸν, τί δή ποτε τῷ Θεῷ πρέπον ἀξίωμα μόνῳ προσάπτεις ἀνθρώπῳ; Ἔλεγχος οὖν ἀμαθίας τὸ εἰρημένον ἐστὶν, οὐ D θεολογίας ἀξίωσις.
ΑΛΛΟ
Εἰ διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι μόνον εἶναι καὶ ἕνα κατὰ φύσιν Θεὸν, ὥς φησιν ὁ νόμος, ἐχρῆν τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ δέχεσθαι παρὰ τοῦ νομικοῦ τὴν ἐπονομασίαν (ἡ γάρ τοι φύσις τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτή τίς ἐστιν ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ), οὐκ ἄν εἴη τοῦτο πρὸς ἀποποίησιν τῆς θεότητος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀποκάλυψιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δόξης.
δόξης. A If the Son is excluded in this part from likeness with the Father, because he is not naturally good, and is less good, and therefore not consubstantial, let one of those who are accustomed to wage war against Christ tell us what they would do if we were to propose something similar to them? For one of the saints says somewhere concerning God and the Father that God is light; but the same one says also concerning the Son that He was the true light. Behold, the Father is light, and the Son is light. But the word "true" is attributed to the Son alone. Shall the Father then be excluded from being light in truth, since the voice of John has attributed this to the Son alone? But I think no one would ever reach such a pitch of madness as to admit this impiety. If, therefore, the Son alone is the light that truly exists and is so called, the Father is also light in truth; and since the Father is good by nature, and "alone" is also applied to Him, the Son will also be good by nature, just as the Father is. And where there is identity of nature, there also is necessarily consubstantiality.
B ANOTHER. If the fact that the Son differs in some respect from the Father gives rise to the claim that He does not have the same essence as Him, but that He is of another kind and in a way foreign to Him, then it surely proves that if He differs in nothing, He is consubstantial. When, therefore, the divine Scripture says concerning the Father that He is light, and again calls the Son light, and there is nothing here that hinders or distinguishes the likeness (for "true light" is attributed to both), what hinders the Son from being consubstantial with the Father?
C ANOTHER. If the Son is of a different essence from the Father, how does the Father appear in Him and He in the Father? "For he who has seen me," He says, "has seen my Father." For we surely would not perceive the form of a man in a horse, nor, conversely, the form of a horse in a man. For like is perceived in like; but things of different species, and which differ from one another in their natural likeness, can never be seen to exist in one another. But the Son is seen in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Therefore, the Son is not, as you suppose, of a different substance, but is consubstantial, as the character and image of the Father.
That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, from the proposed saying: "I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."
D Objection as from Eunomius. And how, he says, can the Son be consubstantial with the Father, when He has God as His own? For His own voice appears to say: "I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God," and again: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If, however, He has a God, how shall He be consubstantial? For things that are of the same nature would not be gods to one another by nature; just as a soul cannot be a god to another soul, nor an angel to an angel.
A [Solution to this objection.] Again, this enemy of Christ does not perceive that he is introducing the Lord not as Son, but as a creature, and as a servant rather than a Master, and as a worshiper rather than God. For if he thinks that the Father is God to the Son by nature, and does not see the economy which exists in other respects, He will be neither consubstantial, nor Master, nor God. For he argues very well in this fashion. Let him then openly cast the Son out from both divinity and lordship, and number Him with the creatures, so that their blasphemy, having become manifest, may persuade everyone to say: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures." For whereas they ought to examine the hidden power of the Word, they indulge instead in blasphemies, positing the Son not as God, but as a temple of God, just as each of the saints is, concerning whom He says: "I will dwell in them and walk among them." B Therefore, according to their madness, He will be one of the sons and gods called by grace, to whom He said: "I have said, You are gods and children of the Most High, all of you." But that He is altogether removed from these, and separated by the excellence of nature, Christ Himself will clearly teach in the Gospel, saying: "You are from below; I am from above." By "below," calling the created nature which is subject to dominion; but by "above," on the other hand, the divinity which rules and is exalted over all. Since, therefore, Christ truly says that He is from above, this man places Him among those who are below, clearly slandering the essence of the Son.
That the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Objection as from Eunomius.
And how, he says, will the Son be consubstantial with the Father, since the Father is the cause of His existence? This is something which cannot be said of the Father. For He is not from any cause, which surely, as I suppose, everyone will admit to be true.[Solution to this objection.] C One might justly condemn the ignorance of those who dare to speak such things. For while they call Him Son, they say that He is not consubstantial, not perceiving perhaps into what folly they are entering. For if He is a Son, as indeed He truly is, He will necessarily be of the same substance as the Begetter. But if He is not a Son, according to you, reveal your naked blasphemy and say that He is a creature, so that for that reason He may not be consubstantial; and then you will be shown to be at war with all the divine Scriptures. For they name the Son "Son," and not a creature.
ANOTHER.
You affirm, O enemies of Christ, that the Father is the cause of the Son’s existence; but in what manner? For if you imagine Him to be a creature, as if from a creator, and not a Son, you openly fight against the Father, who says concerning His own offspring: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you." D But if you truly confess Him to be a Son, and believe Him to be such, it is entirely necessary that you do not think of the Father, not as...the creator/cause of the Son’s existence, but as a parent by nature. Nothing prevents this; indeed, it is absolutely necessary that whatever has naturally proceeded from something should be similar to it in essence, even if it has that thing as the cause of its existence.
ALIUD. If everything that comes to be from any cause must be altogether dissimilar to it in substance, how was Abel, begotten from Adam as from a cause, similar to him in substance? Therefore, it is entirely necessary that every generative nature, without exception, produces things similar to itself from itself, even if that which gives birth is naturally the cause of what is born from it.
ALIUD. If for this reason the Son is not similar to the Father in essence, nor consubstantial, because the Father is from no cause or principle, while the Son has the Father as His principle, B what would prevent us from saying that Cain was not consubstantial with his father? For indeed, Adam was generated by no one, as he was the first of men. But Cain had his author as a cause, for he was born from him. If, however, he who says this is entirely wrong (for Cain is consubstantial with Adam), then the Son will certainly be consubstantial with the Father, even if He has Him as the cause of His existence, proceeding from Him without time, and existing with Him from eternity.
ALIUD. FROM THE OBJECTION OF EUNOMIUS. But how, he says, will the unbegotten be consubstantial with the begotten? For there is a great difference between them. C
THE SOLUTION TO THE OBJECTION. The difficult objection of the enemies of Christ will not compel the conclusion that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father just because the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. For if differing in any respect necessarily results in a difference of nature in things, and separates genera from mutual coherence and natural similarity, let them then also distinguish Paul from Peter in terms of essence, D since they have a certain particular difference—a difference, as it were, in the individual—according to which this one is Peter and that one is Paul. Yet we see often that even things which differ greatly in another way from their mutual similarity still agree in the account of their essence. For a black man may differ greatly from a white one, but this difference does not make their substance different. If, therefore, even in our own case, a difference according to some accidental quality does not change the very being of the substance from which those who differ from us are constituted, what prevents the Son from being consubstantial with the Father, even if they differ in the fact that the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten? For there is one divinity in them, naturally flowing from the unbegotten Father into the Son.
ANOTHER. From the objection of Eunomius.
He says: He cannot be perfect, unless he derives completely from some principle. If, therefore, the Father ceased generating the Son, and to cease means an end, he therefore has a principle of existing. How then will such a one be consubstantial with the Father, who has no principle?
Solution of the objection.
If the Father ceased or stopped creating the Son, according to your opinion, O enemies of Christ, and began from some principle (for your proposition holds this), then he is adventitious to the Father. But that which is adventitious or acquired, and has a principle of existence, must by all means and necessarily be recent. How then will you maintain that the Son is God, which is not permitted by divine Scripture, if it is as you say? A For it says: "There shall not be in you a recent God." But divine Scripture knows him to be both Son and God. He is not, therefore, recent, nor did he begin to be begotten, according to you; but while begotten, he is nevertheless co-eternal as being a Son in the Father. But if being recent does not allow the Son to be of the same essence as the Father, the fact that he is not recent proves him to be consubstantial.
ANOTHER.
If adoration by nature is owed only to God by us and by the angels, and to no one else, and of us it is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God," B and the Spirit commands the angels to worship the Son, according to that: "When he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him," C then the Son who is worshipped is God. How then will there be one divinity, if he is not, according to you, consubstantial with the Father? For if he has some distance or difference regarding the account of his essence, the Son would be a different God D and the Father a different God, and it would be necessary to speak of two Gods on this account; which is impious, and not even tolerable just to hear. But there is one divinity, and so the divine Scriptures preach: therefore the Son is consubstantial with the Father. For thus the unity in the Deity will be preserved.
ANOTHER.
If the Father began to generate the Son and ceased, according to the madness of the Christ-haters, some alteration and change has occurred in him. For what he was not before he generated, he became after he generated. But if the divine is above all such things, and is insusceptible to turning and alteration, he did not begin to generate, nor did he cease, as these men say; but the Son, the maker of aeons and times, was timelessly in the Father. And since he is co-eternal, for this reason he is also consubstantial.
ANOTHER.
If the Father began to generate the Son, he entirely added
A to his essence that which he did not have at the beginning, but accepted later. But that which admits of any increase must be considered imperfect, and not perfect. But this is absurd, for the essence of the Father is perfect. Generate, therefore, was not something accessory to him, but it was in him from eternity, nor did it ever begin to be. But if he did not begin to generate, the Son begotten from him is therefore co-eternal with the Father. And just as, if he had a beginning of existing, he would not be consubstantial, so, since he did not have a beginning in time, he will entirely be consubstantial.
ANOTHER, EXPLANATORY.
As those who fight against the truth, by ascribing a beginning and an end to the generation of the Son, exclude him from similarity with the Progenitor; so we, by admitting neither a beginning nor an end regarding the generation of the Son, introduce him into an unchangeable B similarity with the Father. And that which is like in all things is also consubstantial.That the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Objection of Aetius.
How, he says, can the identity of essence be preserved in the Father and the Son, if the Father is indeed unbegotten, but the Son is begotten? For it is absolutely necessary to say that the unbegotten and the begotten are in no way similar. But if they are similar, nothing will hinder us from calling the Father begotten and the Son unbegotten, and everything will be confounded.Solution of the objection.
He who objects to these things so ignorantly shall hear from us in turn: How can the identity of essence C not be preserved in the Father and the Son, if the Son is the image of the Father and shows the Father in himself? For it is manifest and admitted by all that no one discerns one nature in another; nor could anyone say that, when he has seen a horse, he has seen one of men. For among those of the same nature, proofs of similarity are discovered, not among those which differ from one another, according to the principle of their mode of existence. If, therefore, when Philip desired to see the Father, Christ shows himself, saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," it is absolutely necessary D to say that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, as the unchangeable image and character of his hypostasis.ANOTHER.
The Lord, even though he is begotten, is seen everywhere teaching that he himself is consubstantial with the Father: for in what way does he say that he himself is the Son? Conversely, the enemies of Christ, opposing their own feeble inventions, say that it cannot be that, since he is begotten, he is of the same essence as the Father who is unbegotten. But since Christ says those things of himself, while these are from the enemies of Christ, who, I pray, has arrived at such folly as to think that men are to be believed rather than God, andnot rather proclaim that apostolic sentiment and cast it in the teeth of the impious heretics: “We must obey God rather than men”? A For if they are so sluggish and languid regarding the apprehension of the truth, I imagine they will not complain that any injury is being done to them, seeing that they labor under such blindness of mind.
ANOTHER. That the Son is begotten of the Father, you yourselves also fully confess; for he will not be placed outside the essence of the Begetter, as one of the things created. And how will he not be altogether consubstantial with the Begetter, if he truly is an offspring, existing as a sort of natural fruit of the Begetter? B If, then, you allow that things are this way, he will surely be consubstantial; but if he is called an offspring only by the service of a word and a bare label, let him also be called a creature by you, so that your blasphemy may be the more manifest.
ANOTHER. From the objection of Aetius. If, he says, God is indivisible in his essence, the offspring was not generated by a separation of essence, but was constituted by will. But how can a nature constituted by will be of the same essence as that which constituted it?
Solution of the objection. This great and profound sophism, as they suppose it to be, by which they conclude that because the divine essence cannot be divided, the Son is not of the same essence as the Father, how will it not be rejected by those who are accustomed to judge things rightly? C But let these contentious men tell us: for not because God is indivisible in his essence does he therefore lack the generative faculty, according to your opinion. Nor again, because he is indivisible in his essence, is it declared that he cannot generate. But if they think they are honoring God by attributing to him that which cannot be divided, while depriving him of the faculty to generate, so that they may infer from this that God constituted the Son by will, let them hear in return that the grace of natural operation is far greater and more excellent than the splendor of will. D For it is more worthy to believe that God generates indivisibly from himself in some ineffable and incomprehensible way than, as you opine, that because he cannot be divided and separated, he is also unable to generate.
ANOTHER. If the Father constituted the Son by will, as you say, he is also called Son in vain. For what has not proceeded from the essence of the Father, how can it be called the Son? But that which proceeds from something according to nature has also the true appellation of an offspring. Since, therefore, the Son is begotten, he is also coessential with the Father. For there is one nature of those who beget and of those who are begotten.
ANOTHER. If, just as you think, being false and deceivers,
the Son did not proceed from the essence of the Father, but was brought into existence by authority, and he himself is the wisdom and power of the Father, surely the Father is neither wise nor powerful by nature. If, however, according to your most ignorant proposition, he brought the Son into existence from without—the Son who is his wisdom and power—yet he himself is wise and powerful by nature, then it is absolutely necessary to say that the Son is also from the essence of the Father; and if this is so, he is coessential. A
ANOTHER. It is necessary for those who contend that the Son was brought into existence by the will of the Father, and not begotten from him, to be asked: what moved the Father to bring the Son into existence, according to your ignorant argument? Did he do this out of necessity, or did he wish to bestow a gift upon the Son, that he might bring him into existence just as he did us? If you concede that it was of necessity, you will then be saying that God is subject to necessity; but if not this, but that he wished to bestow a gift upon the Son, he will appear to have bestowed it upon himself, so that he might be creator, and powerful, and wise, seeing that these things reside in the Son. “For all things were made through him,” says the Scripture, “and without him was made not one thing.” And again, “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.” But we say that God the Father did not bestow these things upon himself, but is naturally wise and powerful. B Therefore, he did not bring the Son into existence by will, as you suppose, but he is as a fruit of his own nature; and since this is so, he is also coessential. For that which proceeds from God by nature cannot be alien to him.
That the Son is coessential with God and the Father.
If, on account of the form which he took, he who exists in the form of God is coessential with us because he is from us, and the Son is the form of God, then he is coessential with him whose form he is. CANOTHER. If his radiance is coessential with the light that is among us, and the Son is the radiance of the eternal light, then he himself is also coessential with the light whose radiance he is, since examples converge in likeness at least in some part of their own nature.
ANOTHER. Just as equality in intellectual things is not measured by quantity, and that which is thus equal is by necessity also equal in dignity and coessential, and the Son is equal in dignity to the Father, as the sacred Scriptures bear witness; he will therefore necessarily be coessential: by that equality, indeed, which is not judged by the standard of quantity in an incorporeal nature, but rather by identity of essence. D
ANOTHER. If things that are truly and naturally begotten, and not by adoption, are acknowledged to be undoubtedly coessential with those who truly and naturally begat them, and the Son is of those who are truly begotten, he who is—
A Son is from those who are truly begotten, far more excellent than those who are by adoption; he is therefore coessential with the God who begat him, not by adoption, but truly and naturally.
ANOTHER. If that which is substantially begotten possesses the essence of its begetter, having this in itself, and the Son possesses all things that are the Father's, he is therefore essentially begotten.
ANOTHER. If no one after the Son produces substances from things that are not, but the Son does produce them, he will not therefore be of the same genus as those who are after him, but coessential with that which produces from things that are not. For those things which are of the same operation and activity are acknowledged to be of the same substance. B
ANOTHER. If those things which are of the same operation and activity without change are acknowledged to be also of the same substance, and the Son is of the same operation as the Father, doing himself all things that the Father does, he will certainly also be of the same essence, for the reason that he is of the same operation.
ANOTHER. If the Father is by nature God, and not by participation, the Son is also by nature God. If he far excels those who become gods by participation, he will therefore be of the same nature as the Father, and not with those who participate. C
ANOTHER. If the Son were God by participation and not by nature, and there are many gods by participation, then he would excel none of the many in the dignity of essence. But if he is not by participation (for he is the creator of all who participate), he will therefore be of the same nature as the Father, and not with those who participate.
ANOTHER. If every rational essence creates not by will alone, but by acting and suffering, yet the unbegotten essence alone acts by will and without suffering, and the Son creates willing and not suffering, then his is the essence that creates by will alone, and not by suffering. D
ANOTHER. If whatever has begotten that which is not spurious has begotten its own coessential offspring, and God has begotten the Only-Begotten, not being spurious, he has therefore begotten one coessential to himself. Even if one begets, if he begets a spurious one, he has not truly begotten. For it is worse to exist contrary to nature than not to have been begotten at all.
ANOTHER. If God and Father, having begotten the Only-Begotten, has begotten in a way far more excellent than we do; yet we, when we beget, exist prior to those who are begotten from us; therefore God, begetting the Son, does not—
from his own essence, and God therefore has begotten from his own essence. Wherefore it must necessarily be posited that that which is from him is consubstantial with him A (for no one would say that he begets in a lesser way), since we also beget from our own substance.
ANOTHER. If the universal world is as it were a genus of all creatures, and things particular are species of the genus, but the Son was made, he is therefore a species of the genus, that is, of the world. But if he is not a species of the world because he existed before the world—for it is impossible for a species to exist before the genus—then he is not from the world at all. If this is so, he will be consubstantial not with the world, but with the creator of the world.
ANOTHER. If of the things that exist, one is God and the other is the world, the Son must of necessity be either proper to the world according to his origin, or proper to God according to his essence. But since he is not proper to the world—because it is impossible that what is proper be created by that which is proper to it—he will therefore be consubstantial with God, the creator of the world B.
ASSERTION XI.
That the Son is consubstantial with the Father, from the saying: "The Father is greater than I."The Objection of Eunomius. Things, he says, which consist of the same substance and are of the same nature, do not naturally admit in themselves the "greater" or the "less." For a man is not more a man than another, according to the reason of substance, nor is one horse in relation to another. If, therefore, the Son says that the Father is greater than himself, and that which is consubstantial cannot be greater than what is consubstantial according to the reason of substance, he is therefore not consubstantial with him C.
The Solution of the objection. It behooved these enemies of Christ to investigate the truth handed down in the holy Scriptures from every side, weighing what is said concerning the Father and the Son; and not to construct syllogisms for themselves according to their own caprice, and to devise webs of perverted reasoning. For if they are offended by the Son saying: "The Father is greater than I," let them be helped by hearing what is said about him: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Which John also says most clearly: "Because he called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." If, therefore, according to the voice of the saints, he is equal to the Father, how will he be of a different substance from him? For we also will say to them that those things which agree among themselves in equality of nature must necessarily be consubstantial; just as man is to man, and horse to horse D.
ANOTHER. In incorporeal things, the greater and the less are not estimated by quantity, for this is proper to bodies, but
only by thought. Let there be an example of these things said, from what is written by Paul: "For to one," he says, "is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the gifts of healing," and having set forth many other things besides these, he adds: "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit." Then again he says: "Covet the best gifts." Will they, then, argue that the Spirit differs in relation to Himself, or is not equal to Himself in essence, since He appears small in small things and greater in greater things, filling the disposition of those who receive Him? But I do not think anyone is so far out of their mind as to dare to say this. Since, therefore, the incorporeal nature does not receive in itself by its own nature the "greater" and the "less," when Christ says the Father is greater than Himself, the word will again be fitting to His humanity, and not a predicate of His divine essence, as if it were situated in things smaller, or in those in which the One who begat Him exists.
ANOTHER: EXPLANATORY, ON THE UTTERANCE.
Christ says somewhere: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." B Divine Scripture also testifies concerning Him that He "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." How, then, will He be both equal, and have the Father as greater? This must be accurately sought; for such things seem contrary to one another. But since our goal is to examine these utterances piously, we shall neither cast out the "equal" because of the "greater," nor shall we destroy the "greater" because of the "equal"; both will prevail, with a pious mode of contemplation brought to bear upon them. Therefore, the nature of the Godhead, being simple and uncompounded, would never have been divided by concepts into the duality of Father and Son, unless some difference had seemed to lie before us—I do not say according to essence, but perceived from the outside—by which the Person of each is brought forward, existing in an individual hypostasis, but bound into the unity of the Godhead through natural identity, C lest there be some melting together and, as it were, a confusion of Father and Son, by running into a solitary monad of hypostasis, while the very great likeness between them does not allow a duality to appear, so that from this point some might even suppose the Father and Son to be the same, in no way separated into a duality. But since it was necessary to know both the nature that begets and that which is begotten from it, Divine Scripture set down the name of Father and the name of Son, so that Light might be understood from Light, and in each, while preserving identity toward the other, its own proper and peculiar hypostasis is attributed to both. Following again our human custom, it assigns the "greater" to the Father, D so that from every side the duality and the "from whom" may be indicated; it additionally testifies to the "equal," so that no dissimilarity of essence between the Father and the Son may be understood. Therefore, the Son, existing as equal to the Father according to the account of essence, and similar in all things, calls Him greater as being without an origin, having an origin only in the sense of being "from whom" He exists, even though He has His existence co-eternal with Him.
A ANOTHER. Things which are of the same substance and nature can be more properly compared with one another; but those which are not so, being of a different nature, and on that account distinguished from one another by a certain diversity, cannot be compared with each other. For no one, unless he be devoid of judgment, investigating the nature of man, would say that an ox is greater than a man, or, wishing in turn to understand the nature of an ox, would say that a man is greater than it. For those things which are of the same nature and species, as has been said, are conveniently and appropriately compared with one another. If, therefore, the Son is compared with the Father, according to you, in terms of greater and lesser, He will certainly be consubstantial and not diverse from Him. Yet something consubstantial cannot be greater or lesser than another thing consubstantial by reason of substance; for man is not greater than man, insofar as he is man. The Son is therefore equal to the Father and consubstantial; but we believe that the Father is called greater B than the Son by reason of the incarnation. For when He is seen having become man, then He also says this as man.
ANOTHER. Whatever things properly admit of comparison with one another are also consubstantial: for man is compared with man, and horse with horse. The difference, however, which exists in those things that are of the same species consists in accidents; and these, for the most part, arise from passion or some other cause, and do not lie in the definition of the substance, of which any of the accidents might be predicated. As, for example, one man is greater than another in size of body and strength, in presence of mind, in acuteness of intellect; but the definition of substance is one for all, and not separately different in each. C But accidents arise, as it were, from passion: for it is from passion that the infirm person is infirm, and the dull person in intellect, and the one who possesses cowardice in his soul. If, therefore, there is one nature and the same definition of substance for those things which can properly be compared with one another; and those things which occur to substances arise from passion or from that which does not suffer; but the Son is compared with the Father in terms of greater and lesser (a definition brought in regarding Him), and He is outside all passion (for God cannot suffer), in no way will the Father surpass the Son, who is of the same essence as He and is entirely D devoid of passion. He is, however, called greater as the principle of the co-eternal offspring.
On the text, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."
From the objection of Eunomius. But the Savior Himself, he says, not obscurely or ambiguously, but most openly calls the Father greater than Himself, when He says: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." If, therefore, you allow the truth to speak the truth, and Christ is the truth, He certainly considers the Father greater than Himself. But if this is so, He will also be dissimilar to Him. But if He is dissimilar, then He is not consubstantial.
A [Solution to the Objection.]
We must ask the enemies of Christ when the Father became or was found to be greater than the Son, or however else you wish to phrase it. For no one would tolerate you for fixing a time, since the Son is the Creator of times and exists before the ages, according to the truthful words of the saints. But with time removed, it remains, according to your own premise, that the Father has always and without beginning been greater than the Son. But, good sirs, coming to your senses for a moment, consider among yourselves that what differs from something in the respect that it is or is called "greater," has set alongside it and brought along with it the "lesser," than which it is greater. For when we wish to understand what is greater, we run to the perception of the lesser and behold the preeminence of the former. If, therefore, the Father is always greater than the Son, He Himself was always; but the Son was also with Him, than whom He is said to be greater, according to you. But how will that which always exists be dissimilar to that which also always exists? And how is He greater, when the very existence of the Begotten coincides with the Begetter, and He possesses naturally all things that are in the Father?
ANOTHER
B You, who pride yourselves on the teachings of Aristotle and are puffed up with the arrogance of worldly wisdom, raise a din of empty words, not knowing that you will be exposed as being ignorant even of this. For it is truly to be wondered at that, while you examine the argument concerning the greater and the lesser, you slip into a discourse on the similar and the dissimilar, not knowing that according to Aristotle’s art, in which you very much boast, the similar and the dissimilar are not placed in the same category as the greater and the lesser. For the greater and the lesser are termed by them as being "relative." But the similar or the dissimilar is of another category or division. Whence, therefore, is your transition from the greater to the similar? And why, weaving your premise from the lesser—that is, the greater—do you introduce a conclusion of a different kind, saying: "If the Son is less than the Father, then He is dissimilar"? For you ought rather to have said: "Therefore He is not equal," or "Therefore He is not that much," lest you again be exposed as ignorant by applying "quantity" to the greater and the lesser. C For Aristotle’s art has established that it is not things that are "relative," but the greater or the lesser, that are subject to quantity. And he sets for it seven species: number, speech, line, surface, body, time, and place. Since, therefore, only the aforementioned things are by nature capable of receiving quantity, whence do you, sirs, apply quantity to the greater and the lesser, when Aristotle places those under another category? Since, therefore, you who are investigating the argument of the greater and the lesser, have ignorantly lapsed into the comparison of the similar and the dissimilar, saying: "If the Son is less than the Father, therefore He is also dissimilar," you err more gravely at once, by referring the greater and the lesser to quantity, when you say: "If the Son is less than the Father, then He is not equal, nor that much." D Since your mind is in no part sound, your proposition is also empty and vain.
ANOTHER
A Teaching that, when the "greater" and "lesser" are proposed, dissimilarity is introduced quite ignorantly, as it is of a different genus according to the discipline of Aristotle. Aristotle, the inventor of this art, explaining those names which are called "relative" and are so named by them, defines them thus: He says that those are called relative which, being what they are, are said to be of others, or in any other way in relation to another; for instance, the "greater" is said to be what it is in respect to another. And the "double" is said to be what it is in relation to another: for it is called the double of something. Since, therefore, this is the definition of things that are relative, let those tell us, who sound off about nothing but Aristotle, and who boast of their knowledge of his discipline rather than that of the Holy Scriptures, if the "similar" is what it is in respect to another, just as the "greater" and the "double" are. For the "dissimilar" is opposed to the "similar," just as the "lesser" is to the "greater"; but not in the same manner and way. For the "greater" is called greater in relation to the "lesser." But the "similar" would never be called greater in relation to the "dissimilar," nor, just as the "greater" is what it is said to be by surpassing its opposite, will the "similar" be understood to be such by being greater than the "dissimilar." Therefore, those things that do not admit of the same division and definition must necessarily be of a different genus.ANOTHER
C Names which are relative, or in whatever way they are said in respect to another, are simultaneous both in understanding and in nature; as, for example, the "double" and the "great." For the "double" altogether brings with it that of which it is the double, and the "great" also carries with it the "small," in comparison with which it is called great. For there would not be a "double" if the half did not exist, nor a "great" unless some "small" were posited. This, then, is the definition of those things which are relative; but the "similar" is not necessarily understood together with the "dissimilar," just as those are, just as neither is the "just" with the "unjust," nor "virtue" with "vice." For such things are rather privations and deviations of those things which consist in a disposition, and they are not, as those things which are relative are, understood simultaneously with their opposites. For the "dissimilar" is a certain mutation of the "similar," whereas injustice is of justice. But since, according to their discipline, privations D are posterior to dispositions, the "dissimilar" will not, therefore, be among those things that are understood simultaneously, since it is rather a privation and deviation of the "similar."ANOTHER
Names which are relative have their existence in a manner within each other, and with the removal of one, the other also perishes. Just as, therefore, with the removal of the "greater," the "lesser" is also removed; for there would not be a "lesser" if there did not exist a "greater," in respect to which it is the "lesser." If, therefore, you say that the "similar" is of the same genus as relative things,A should not the "dissimilar" also perish when the "similar" is taken away, and should they not both perish together? But it does not perish together, nor even cause to perish; for when some man exists, there will perhaps be something dissimilar to him; and when the dissimilar is taken away, the thing that is—that is, the man to whom that which was taken away was dissimilar—does not perish together with it. Therefore, "the similar" and "the dissimilar" are not among those things spoken of as relative.
ANOTHER.
Regarding the similar, and virtue, and their opposites, the terms "more" and "less" will apply. For one can say, without lying, that this person is similar to that one, or less or more similar, and more just, or less just. However, in the case of "greater" or "lesser," or "double" or "half," one cannot say "more greater" or "more lesser," or "more double" or "more half." For it has been demonstrated through many things that the species of quality are incapable of quantity. If, therefore, the similar is capable of quantity, and admits the "more" and "less," whereas the half and the double do not admit it, then it is not of the same genus as those things which are relative.ANOTHER.
"More," or "greater," is an intensification and excess of any thing whatsoever, and does not signify something dissimilar and opposite. But it is not so with the similar. For it brings in an impression of the dissimilar. Moreover, privation follows upon the dissimilar. For it is the loss of the similar B that produces the dissimilar; furthermore, because dissimilarity follows upon privation. But since "more" and "less" are an intensification of something, what sort of loss or privation could one posit in them, as one does in the case of the dissimilar? Certainly none. Therefore, the "greater" is of a different genus from the "similar."ANOTHER, demonstrating that by the statement that the Father is "greater," the Son is indeed necessarily introduced, but he is not "lesser" than Him.
If anyone should name the "greater," he will necessarily introduce also another thing besides that in respect to which it is greater. Since, therefore, the meaning is altogether so, come, let us test the divine generation by this principle, and let us exercise our discourse regarding the Father and the Son. When, therefore, the Father is called "greater," He necessarily introduces that which has a relation to Him—I mean the signification of the Son, in whom the enemies of Christ imagine there is a "lesser." Since, therefore, the Son is necessarily introduced along with the Father, come, let us examine how the Father possesses C the "greater." If the Son is God by nature, just as the Father, and is by nature good, by nature creator, and by nature king, what will be the "greater" in the Father, when the Son also possesses these things perfectly? But if He does not possess them perfectly, how can He be God, in whom some one of the good things is lacking? For that which has not yet attained the perfection that ought to be present in God could not be God by nature; but the Son is God by nature; He is therefore perfect, just as the Father. Since, however, the Father is perfect, he is certainly not "lesser." But He speaks of the Father as "greater" economically, or insofar as He became man, conceding to the nature of the Godhead the pre-eminence over created things, and granting that to the Lord by nature belongs the position of being above the...A form of a servant, even though He Himself is Lord by nature; and he grants this to the Father in such a way that He is greater, yet he himself lacks nothing in respect of essence. For thus He will be the true offspring and image of the Begetter, not expressed in some part, but possessing every kind of likeness with Him; but for the sake of decorum alone, as Son, He accords the greater honor to the Father.
Adversus dicentes, quod Pater sit major Filio.
Against those who say that the Father is greater than the Son
Objectio hæreticorum.
Objection of the heretics
The Father, they say, was always, but the Son was not always: how then will He who always exists not be greater than He who does not exist in this way? And how will He who is not eternal not be less than He who exists eternally? But if the Father is greater than the Son, then He is also of a different essence from Him.
Solutio objectionis.
Solution of the objection
It was fitting, O best of men, that so grave a question, one befitting your ignorance, should not be proposed so absurdly and crudely. For while you urge the diversity of essence in the Father and the Son, you ignorantly strive to prove it from the greater and the less, just as if those things that are capable of these necessarily differ from each other in substance. Yet, for stone with stone, for wood with wood, and for man with man, the account of their substance is the same. Nevertheless, the greater and the less happen to them. For wood appears greater or, conversely, less than wood in some respect. Since, then, the greater and the less happen even to things that are of the same substance, you absurdly endeavor to demonstrate from this a diversity of essence in the Father and the Son, and by these things you declare none the less your own madness. For the Son, being B equal to the Father, makes Himself less by reason of the incarnation, as we have said.
ALIUD.
ANOTHER
Things that are not joined by natural likeness between them, and that differ by the account of their essence, are distinguished by "like" and "unlike," and not by "greater" and "less." If, therefore, the Father and Son are one according to the account of nature, let these bitter disputants tell us, in what manner will the "greater" and the "less" apply to them? But if you say that the Son is introduced as being of an essence altogether different and separate from that of the Father, and you have conceived Him to be of another nature, how will things that are altogether separate C by the account of their existence admit of comparison with one another? For he would not be without ridicule who would compare things that in no way agree with one another, and who would call the sun more splendid than a piece of wood. If, therefore, things of different genera shrink from mutual comparison with one another, the proposition is surely inept that applies "greater" and "less" to the Son and the Father, if indeed—according to your opinion—they are not of the same essence, and if it demonstrates that diversity of essence which I know not from where they have devised concerning the nature supreme over all,
and which possesses no room for any inferiority, but rather demands the perfection appropriate to it, since there is nothing less or imperfect in Him who is naturally God, that is, the Son.
A ANOTHER. Those who are enemies of Christ, who blaspheme rashly and do not understand, as it is written, either what they say or that concerning which they confidently affirm, claim that the Father is greater than the Son. Wherefore, again opposing the truth to their madness, we shall ask them: "Tell us again, O you men, was the Father always greater than the Son, as you say, or did He become so later?" If, therefore, He appeared greater than the Son at some time, something was added to God and Father; and He who did not previously possess it is now seen to have it—so how was He perfect, to whom this was lacking from the beginning? But He was always perfect; therefore He did not fall short of being the "greater," and this, according to you, was always the case. But, O best of men, you surely see yourselves that you naturally risk being caught by the notions of "lesser" and "greater," and that your proposition will henceforth be shown to be worthless. For that which is called "greater" than something cannot be greater unless some other thing is entirely present and lesser, compared to which the former appears greater. If, therefore, the Father was always greater than the Son, there is an absolute necessity B that the Son be introduced together with the Father, compared to whom, according to your opinion, He appeared as a lesser being and thus emerged as "greater." If, therefore, according to your proposition, the Father is for this reason greater than the Son, because He Himself was eternal while the Son was not, since it has been demonstrated that the Son is always existing together with the Father, He will not be in any respect lesser or of a different essence than Him. For by the same logic by which it is argued that if He does not exist together with the Father, He falls short of equality, by that same logic on the contrary, because He does exist together with the Father, He will in no way whatsoever be disparate from Him. But in the case of those things which are naturally similar to each other in all respects, and are not measured by magnitude, what place will "greater" and "lesser" have?
C ANOTHER. If the Father is greater than the Son, according to your proposition, O enemies of Christ, how does Paul assign equality to Him, saying: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man, [and] humbled Himself"? If, then, the manner of the incarnation holds the humiliation and the so-called "emptying" mentioned here, it is absolutely necessary that the perfection of the Son be preserved in terms of the equality which exists for Him with God and the Father before the incarnation. For it is from this point that the humiliation becomes apparent to us. D For if He were lesser by Himself even before the humiliation, where then will He be seen to have descended, and what will be the manner of the humiliation for us?
ANOTHER
If we see Jesus lessened by the passion of death, according to the voice of Paul, then before the passion, that lessening was not in Him. But if He says this, it is necessary that He be perfect. Since the Son is perfect, and equalized to the perfection of the Father, He will clearly not admit of a lessening of the unequal.ANOTHER
A Paul, testifying to the equality which the Son has with the Father, says somewhere clearly: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God." He also says that He was lessened by the passion of death. Since, therefore, it is impossible for the greater and the lesser to be signified naturally of one and the same at the same time, we must search how we shall preserve both in God the Word, and allow that these two things reside in the one and only [Person]. B Therefore, in that He is God by nature, He will be equal to the God who begat Him; but in that He has become man, He is said to be lessened. If anyone denies the equality of His natural existence, and says that it is not preserved in Him in this, where then will it reside? Or what place will the excellence of the Son have, when only a lessening appears regarding the manner of the incarnation?On the same: That the Son is in all things similar to God and the Father, the proposed and examined saying being: "Amen, I say to you, there has not arisen among those born of women one greater than John the Baptist," C etc.
Objection of the heretics. But how, they say, can Christ, that is, the Son, be equal or similar to the most perfect Father, when He says somewhere openly: "No one greater than John the Baptist has arisen among those born of women; and yet the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he"? For He Himself, being lesser by reason of the time in which He was born of the holy Virgin, admits that He will only then attain to the highest measure of virtues when the kingdom of heaven shall have come, receiving this as a kind of reward for the administration of our salvation. But as to one of such a nature, how is He similar, or how is He established as equal to the Father?
Solution of the objection. D Those who think in this way interpret the power of the things said by our Savior Christ very ignorantly and ineptly. For He does not say these things to accuse His own nature, nor does He set forth being greater than John as some great and illustrious boast; He who glories in the dignity of God and Father, and naturally has in Himself all things that are the Father's, and on account of this proclaims: "All things that the Father has are mine." But the Father is perfect: therefore He is in need of nothing; and the Son, begotten from Him, is perfect. He who is thus
A naturally possesses, how then would He not be in all respects similar and equal to His Begetter?
ANOTHER [ARGUMENT], by reduction to absurdity, leading to the admission that the theorem of the opponents is counterfeit; and that to think in such a way is ignorant.
Christ says somewhere: "There has not arisen among those born of women a greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." But if the term "lesser," when applied to Christ, signifies a quantity of time, by the same reasoning it will also encompass John the Baptist. For the phrase "There has not arisen a greater" similarly signifies time. But the account which will be given by us on this point is not true, since the divine Scripture refutes it in a way, testifying that Adam, the progenitor of our race, lived for nine hundred and fifty years in total, and recounts others who in the length of their lives approached near to Adam, and were born of women, as Christ speaks, while John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, departed from life while still very young. This word, therefore, "greater," does not signify time, but rather that he achieved the pinnacle of virtue and reached the goal of justice which falls to men; by the same pattern, the "lesser" opposed to the "greater" in reference to our Savior Christ does not signify any temporal meaning. For ridiculous indeed would he be who estimates that which has a quantity of time as greater than the loftiness of virtue. For how could such things be compared with one another? But rather by necessary reasoning it signifies a lesser holiness, so that in this way Christ might be judged inferior to John in the holiness of life. Which, since it carries the refutation of the blasphemy within itself, we reject as a way of thinking. B
Objection of the adversaries.
The objection of the opponents."We follow," they say, "a simple and not overly curious interpretation of the things spoken by our Savior, and we believe that He spoke urbanely, that the 'lesser,' in terms of the quantity of time from His birth according to the flesh, will be 'greater' in the kingdom of heaven than even him who has attained the perfection of human virtue." Thus, "lesser" signifies for us the Person of the Lord; but that [other statement], "There has not arisen a greater among those born of women," signifies that the holy Baptist had attained the perfection of piety which could fall to a man: but that Christ will surpass even him, however great he may be. What is absurd in this?
Solution of the objection.
The solution of the objection.Whether there is nothing absurd in these things is not for us to say simply, but it is necessary to inquire; for with great diligence must the divine Scriptures be searched, and not at all is a simple and crude opinion to be gathered. For it is seen to bring the greatest harm to us. Even if, for the sake of argument, we understand the statement just as you say and maintain, to signify the Savior by the word C 'lesser,' D by what reasoning, then, would He surpass the Baptist-
A in the kingdom of heaven, or how shall He be greater than he? As regards, therefore, the quantity of time since he was born, no one, I suppose, who is in his right mind, would even conceive of such a thing. For how could anyone possibly get ahead of that which always precedes him and is always raced through and dragged along by the evolution of time itself? Just as, in the rotation of wheels, the progress is always toward the front, with those following being left behind in the rear position, so also in the progress of time, that which is prior is always greater than those which are posterior. It is not, therefore, in this way that one must profess that the Baptist is surpassed by Christ, but solely in terms of holiness. For how else could anyone conceive of 'greater' in their regard? But if He is to be seen as greater then, at the time of the kingdom, it stands to reason that now He is either equal to or less than him. And since, as is natural, those impious ones who hold Christ to be inferior to John would perhaps grant Him equality, let them see how weak this line of reasoning is, even for them. For what equality of sanctification could B be maintained for them? And how would Christ not prevail with incomparable superiorities, when you see the blessed John saying to Him: "I have need to be baptized by you"? And it is beyond all controversy that what is less is blessed and sanctified by the one who is more excellent.
OTHER
The blessed Baptist addresses the Jews thus: "I baptize you in water; but there comes after me a man the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing-fan is in His hand, and He will purge His threshing-floor, and will gather the wheat into His granaries, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire." What argument, then, can there be for those who place the Lord on an equality of measures with John? For if He were someday to be greater, according to their opinion, why does He not yet baptize, while maintaining that He Himself C is to be the dispenser of the Spirit? And he himself, as a servant, does not even dare to touch the thong of His sandal, yet he declares Him to be the Lord of the threshing-floor. For this is what is meant by the words: "He will purge His threshing-floor." And he speaks of Him as being about to appear as the distributor and, as it were, the examiner of what is fitting for each: so that he will introduce the just and the good, like good wheat, into the heavenly mansions, but will cast out the unjust, like chaff, to be fodder for the fire. But if He were equal to him who was to be greater a little later, why did He not also Himself baptize in the Holy Spirit, purge His own threshing-floor, and, assuming the dignity of the Lord, judge the world in justice? Since, however, the blessed Baptist John is found to have accomplished none of these things, whereas Christ did perform them with divine authority, He was therefore not equal to one who surpassed Him by such a great D interval.
B
ANOTHER.
The Word of God, promising us remission through faith, says through the prophet Isaiah: "I am He who blots out your iniquities, and I will not remember them." A Since He was already present, and was born of the holy Virgin, and appeared upon earth as it is written, and walked among men, the herald and forerunner points Him out to those who see Him, and indeed says: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." B If, therefore, as some assert, Christ is to be greater than John in the kingdom of heaven, and possesses this prize in hope, He was then certainly not in a state of inferiority, but of equality, as is reasonable. But then, how can things that are in equal measure differ from each other to such a degree that the one can take away the sin of the world, and does this by His own authority, while the other is shown to be in need of someone to cleanse and sanctify him? "For I," he says, "have need to be baptized by Thee." C Since, therefore, the greater is seen not in those who are in need, but in those who supply, and the one, as God, forgives sins, while the other is by no means able to do so, he is therefore not equal to Him from whom he differs so greatly.
ANOTHER, succinctly and rudely.
If the Saviour, as some opine, is greater than John the Baptist in the kingdom of heaven, surely at the time when He walked among men, He was either equal or minor to him. But minor He was in no way. Therefore equal. For this is more appropriate. D If they were altogether equal, let John also be called the Wisdom and Power of the Father; let him be designated the image and character, and the effulgence of His substance. Let him also carry all things by the word of His power; let him also hear from the Father: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You," and, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies the footstool of Your feet." Let him also be introduced as the firstborn into the world; let him be worshipped by the holy angels, and let him say blamelessly of himself: "I and the Father are one. He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and again: "I am the resurrection and the life," and, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, and gives life to the world." If Christ is all these things, but he who is ignorantly called equal to Him is not, how can it not be considered absurd to say that Christ will one day be greater than John, who by His own nature was always greater, being God?
ANOTHER.
If Christ is to be seen as admirable only in the future age for surpassing the virtue of John, there is nothing great in Him; since even the angels are better and more excellent than he, both by the reason of their own nature and by the excellence of their piety towards God. Furthermore, where will the most wise Paul go?
A He who places Christ so far above the angels as the divine nature surpasses the created, says: "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Sit at My right hand'? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister?" How, then, does the Son, who ascends so far above the angels who are greater than John, as to be established on the very thrones of the Father, speak as though it were something great and worthy of belief about Himself, that He shall be greater than John the Baptist in the kingdom of heaven, even though He is always greater? For how could He not be greater, who is equal to God and the Father?
ANOTHER
If blessed John the Baptist was a lamp, but Christ is the Light, how can the light be placed on an equality with a lamp, or that which has the power of illuminating with that which is in need of illumination? And that which excels by such a great interval, how, if it were less, would it become greater? B
ANOTHER
If he who has the bride is the bridegroom—that is, Christ—and the friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears Him is the blessed John the Baptist, then he is different from Him, not only clearly distinguished by number, but also destitute of equality of dignity and honor. For the one truly initiates the feast, while the other is a participant in another’s festivity, and therefore more illustrious.
ANOTHER
The blessed John the Baptist says somewhere concerning our Savior Christ: "He who comes from above is above all." Then, explaining his own condition: "He who is of the earth," he says, "speaks of the earth." If, therefore, the Savior is equal to him, inasmuch as He has not yet received what is greater, nothing, as is likely, will prevent that which is proper to the one from passing over to the other, so that the Baptist might be considered as coming from above and supreme over all, and Christ as earthly. But this is absurd. For the One, as God by nature, is above all; C the other is earthly, having grown out of the earth from a lower creature subject to God. He is not, therefore, equal; rather, he is surpassed by Christ with incomparable excellence. How, then, can he be expected to be greater at some future time, who has always so greatly excelled? D
ANOTHER
After the resurrection from the dead, the Savior, restoring in us the ancient grace of the Spirit, breathed upon the apostles, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And again, He Himself says of the Spirit: "For He will take of what is Mine." But the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ by the sacred Scriptures, as is read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Now when they had gone through Asia and the region of Galatia, they tried to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them."
A If, therefore, Christ is to be found in equality with John for the time being, just as he will be greater than him at some future time, let John also renew in us the grace of the Spirit; let him also grant it, just as Christ did; let the Spirit that is in God and the Father be called his Spirit; let him also cry out concerning the Spirit: "He will take of what is mine." However, even to think this is impious. Therefore, he is not equal to Christ, nor will he ever yield the greater position, since he is always the lesser, and as inferior as a man is to God.
ANOTHER.
The Son, demonstrating that he is God by nature, B distinguishes himself from the creature and says: "I am from above, you are from below." Would that the blessed Baptist might also say this, if he were not yet yielding his seniority, or so to speak, his excellence to Christ, and if he were destined either to yield it in the age to come, as some suppose. But he says that he is from the earth, and he was not ignorant of his own measure. Therefore, Christ is greater—not that he will ever become so, but he is always superior as God from God; for this is what is meant by "I am from above."
ANOTHER.
The blessed evangelist John, explaining precisely the dignity that naturally belongs C to the Son, and setting forth the measure of John as a true servant, says thus: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." In what way, then, will Christ ever advance when compared to the measures of John? Or how will he who knows how and is able to illuminate not always be greater than one who is in need of illumination and requires the bounty of the One who illumines him? How, indeed, will he who was taken only for the purpose of bearing witness, and who has that dignity and office alone, not entirely yield his excellence or seniority to Him for whom he was elected?
ANOTHER.
Christ, conversing with the Jews, said at one point: D "You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. But I do not receive testimony from man." But if the Savior is superior even to the testimony of John, he is therefore not equal, but always greater and more worthy. And as for one who is in such a state, in what way will he ever advance, or to what greater state will he be exalted?
ANOTHER.
The blessed Zacharias, the father of the holy Baptist according to the flesh, when he was offering up thanksgiving for him, uttered a voice full of the prophetic spirit: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His people prepared." He himself also, by the Jews...
being asked who he might be: "I am," he says, "the voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord." A Tell us, therefore, you who ignorantly suspect that Christ was at some time to be advanced to a greater state, and that John’s measure was to be surpassed only in the future kingdom of heaven, when ought the prophet of the Highest not justly to be deemed lesser? When, indeed, can the herald and forerunner, and he who performs the duty of a servant, be held as an equal to Him who is by nature Lord? A matter which I judge to be sufficiently known to all. How, then, can He who was always greater become such by the passage of time, if Christ, as though He were to be greater than John the Baptist, says thus: "He who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven will be greater than he"?
A pious explanation of the whole chapter, clearly revealing the sense or scope of that saying.
Having already, according to my own understanding, sufficiently investigated the reason for the proposed question B and carefully treated its individual parts, and having refuted the opinions of our adversaries as false, it remains for me to explain the true meaning of this saying. For I do not think it sufficient merely to rebuke those who think wrongly (by positing, of course, that Christ was to be greater than John at some future time), but it is also necessary that, by bringing forward the true opinion, it be understood that we have not approached the task of rebuking them rashly. Come, therefore, let us review the whole matter again, and briefly recounting the cause of those things which were said by Christ, let us teach our hearers what the scope of this discourse might be. C Therefore—for we shall take our beginning from thence—when John in prison had heard of the miracles of Christ, having sent two of his disciples, he said to Him: "Are you he who is to come, or are we to expect another?" To this Christ responded: "Go and tell John what you have heard and seen," and He enumerates the eminent miracles performed by Himself. But when the disciples had returned to John, Christ spoke thus to the crowd of Jews surrounding Him: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind? Or a man clothed in soft garments? Or a prophet? Certainly, I say to you, even more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before D your face, who will prepare your way before you." Then, in addition to this, He says what is sought: "Amen, amen I say to you, there has not arisen among those born of women a greater than John the Baptist; but he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Nor did He make an end of His words here. For He adds immediately: "But from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." And this, indeed, is the sum of the whole chapter. But now it is fitting that, as we go through individual points, we say for what reason John the Baptist was cast into prison; wherefore also he questioned Christ through his disciples, whether he himself was indeed the one who was to come; then
what and why Christ answered A the crowds concerning this. Furthermore, what moved him to say that none among those born of women had arisen greater than John the Baptist, and yet that he who was least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he. We must therefore proceed to the explanation of the matters proposed to us.
The blessed Baptist, leading a certain unheard-of and unusual manner of life, one which others could not imitate, justly excited great admiration for himself among the Jews. And preaching Christ, who had all but arrived—or rather, had already arrived—and pointing him out with his finger, he said: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” But since the Lord, concerning whom he had given testimony, seemed to be abandoning the worship prescribed by the Law through Moses, introducing in its place the evangelical manner of life, and transferring those things that were wrapped up in type and shadow into truth, the blessed Baptist incurred reproach, inasmuch as he championed him who, according to their way of speaking, was overturning the legal instruction. For if this man were from God, they said, he would by no means break the Sabbath. What, then, does the Baptist devise and contrive against this? Not entirely B rejecting the opinion of the Jews, but, so to speak, mocking it, he pretends to champion the Law and fight for the Mosaic commandments. For since there were many at that time sinning against the law in various ways, he approaches only Herod to rebuke him, and boldly crying out concerning Herodias: “It is not lawful for you to have her,” he paid absolutely no regard to the danger of death, so long as things might proceed for him according to the proposed goal.
The righteous man, therefore, was cast into bonds by the tyrant’s orders, and his suffering softened the prone-to-complaint people of the Jews. For since he appeared to be suffering for the law, they were compelled to love him, and they became more ready to give faith to his preaching. Thus the Baptist wished to purchase, as it were, the benevolence of the Jews and the disbelief of the more hardened by his own death. But since he was a partaker of the Holy Spirit and had been filled with prophetic grace from his mother’s womb, C and had foreseen the tyrant’s sword already unsheathed and threatening his own neck, he wished to confirm and establish his disciples in faith toward Christ the Savior; and he desired them to know, and to know very clearly, without any doubt that Christ is the one who was expected to come for the salvation of all. He pretends, therefore, by an economy, to be ignorant, in order that the disciples, having come to believe, might be found accompanying him toward belief. For there was indeed no small arrogance festering in their souls, and they did not wish to be guided by the counsels of their teacher so much as by their own. With a certain plan, therefore, and, so to speak, putting on the mask of those who are ignorant as if on a stage, he sends two of his disciples, more intelligent than the rest, and commands them to inquire and to learn from the living voice of the Savior whether he himself is the one who is expected. When
of those who were ignorant, A he puts on a mask for himself, and sends some of his own disciples—those who were more prudent—and bids them to inquire and to learn by the living voice of the Savior whether he is the one expected. But since those who were sent had already arrived at Jesus, having understood this, inasmuch as he was truly God, he practiced a more abundant generosity toward the afflicted, and was found to be a worker of wonders then even more than before; and he economically wrought at that very time those things which the prophets had announced he would accomplish when he came among us. Being questioned, therefore, he does not immediately counter by saying, "I am," but by adding the greatness of the works done to the prophetic proclamations, he says: "Go, report to John what you have seen and heard; for you heard through the prophets, but you have seen fulfilled through me." But while these men were departing, as the evangelist himself bears witness, Christ began to speak to the crowds about John: "What did you go out to see?" and what follows after this. It was indeed absolutely necessary that Christ should speak about John. For since the surrounding multitude of hearers had learned that those who were posing the question were disciples of John, and that they had come not by way of seeking to rid themselves of their own doubt, but on behalf of him who had sent them and had charged them to inquire the matter, Christ immediately perceived, inasmuch as he knows the hearts and thoughts of men, that some would surely say or ponder within themselves: "If the blessed John does not know Christ to this day, how did he point him out to us saying, 'Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world'?" And there was no small danger from this that some offense might take root in the crowds. B Accordingly, healing the passion that had befallen them, and rooting out the damage from the scandal, he says to them: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" You marveled, he says, at the blessed Baptist, and you made the journey to him often and at great length, traversing such long, desert roads, and purchasing the benefit from thence with much sweat. Did you, then, marvel thoughtlessly and rashly, he says, if you suppose his mind to be so light that it resembles a reed, bending most readily in whatever direction it is shoved? For how will he not be found to be such a person if he confesses that he is ignorant of him whom he knows, having suffered this from some great lightness of mind? But he is certainly not a reed. "What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in the houses of kings." And for these, he says, it would be more fitting to suffer from lightness of mind. For whence could he who exercises himself in perpetual labors, and continually represses and tames the affections of the body, fall into such lightness? For to suffer from this C kind of lightness of mind is the mark of a soul, he says, that delights not so much in a rugged manner of living as in worldly luxuries. If, therefore, you marvel at him as one shunning softness, attribute also to him the firmness of mind becoming to such a laborious life. But if you determine nothing further in the best kind of life, but hold him who labors in the same category as him who lives in luxury, why, having despised those who use silk garments and frequent the halls of kings, do you treat him who is in D
A solitude, and wears cheap clothing, or rather the hair of camels, with wonder? But I think you will be embarrassed by the absurdity of this in such cases, and you will call the blessed Baptist truly worthy of emulation. Do you then think him to be a prophet? Yes, a prophet, or rather one who exceeds the measure of a prophet. For the others foretold that he would come, not seeing him yet present; but he [saw] both. B Therefore, the Savior from every side shows the discernment regarding the Forerunner to be truly admirable, so that he might appear to have proclaimed the truth: and he himself testifies, raising him to a lofty dignity, and asserting that the man leaps beyond the prophetic [bounds]. And immediately he sets forth the voice of the Father as a neighbor to his own words, so that in a certain way the testimony concerning him might be sealed as if by legal authority. "For this is he," he says, "concerning whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you." Then what does he say concerning him after these things? "Amen I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist; yet the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." See, then, again, how the Savior employed the same stewardship in these things. For a long and extensive discourse has been stirred up by him concerning the holy Baptist. For he warded off the opinion from whence it was likely that he might in some way be wronged. By saying that he has something more than a prophet, he showed him to be already worthy of admiration and most lovable to those hearing him. Moreover, in addition to these things, he says that no one greater than John has risen among those born of women. Having therefore set him forth as an image of the virtue that exists among those born of women, possessing the highest degree, he sets an even greater good in comparison, that is, he who has just taken hold of the kingdom, and has been reborn as a son of God through the Spirit; so that from the things for which he, having the lesser [share], is admired, the participants of the kingdom might appear more worthy of esteem, and some might hasten eagerly to seize it, measuring the surpassing beauty of it from the honor of John. For he who contends for something by a small margin will not carry off the glory of the great one; but if he has a comparison against something great, he conquers and transcends by a greater measure. We say that the kingdom of heaven is the gift of the Spirit, according to that word of Christ: "The kingdom of heaven is within you." Therefore, he who is honored by the rebirth of the Spirit is greater than everyone born of a woman. For the former are still called children of the flesh, but the latter, inscribing God as the Father of all, pray as sons, saying: "Abba, Father." Therefore, if even [the one] born of a woman truly exists, he says, the [grace]—
A declares, saying to Jesus: "I have need to be baptized by thee." Behold, for he who was endowed with the highest perfection of virtue asks for the gift of regeneration through the Spirit, as one who was to be made greater than himself through it, no longer having that which he had from being born of a woman, but transformed unto divine nobility. The Savior himself bears witness to this, not saying, "You have, my friend, perfection in good things, even without the sanctification of baptism," but signifying indeed that he is in the greatest need of it, yet purposely deferring the gift of the matter to another time. For I think that this is altogether what the words "Suffer it now" signify.
That he calls the gift of the Holy Spirit the kingdom of heaven, and the regeneration which is bestowed through it upon those who believe in God, we can demonstrate with the least difficulty from these words of our Savior: "For from the days of John," he says, "until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." For when John preached: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight," many of his listeners, departing from sins and a shameful life, and with great zeal and tension of spirit composing their own manners unto the norm of virtue, were manifested as sons of God through the Spirit, their mind being illuminated and purified through holy baptism.
But if these things do not seem rightly B or usefully spoken to those who maintain the contrary opinion, let them teach for what cause he says that from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven is taken by force; seeing that no one had snatched away the kingdom of heaven before him. Whither, then, will the hope of the prophets depart? What will that great company of saints do, if it is excluded from the kingdom of heaven, since it began to be taken by force at that time, when John, appearing much later, cried out: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"?
However, it is easy to understand that the kingdom of heaven had indeed been prepared for the ancient fathers also, inasmuch as they were conformed to the image of his Son, and for this reason were foreknown by God the Father. But in the time of John the Baptist, and from that time onward, the gift of the Holy Spirit, along with the regeneration through holy baptism, is taken by C faith. Since, therefore, this question has now been explained from every side, it sufficiently appears how empty and frivolous it is to consider the Baptist to be greater than Christ. And since this is so, the objection of the adversaries clearly collapses.
ASSERTION XII
On the text: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and, I and the Father are one."
A Objection of the heretics.
There is nothing wonderful, they say, if the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, since the divine Scriptures also say of us: "In him we live and move and have our being." As, therefore, we also live and move and have our being in Him, as it is written, so also is the Son in the Father. For how is it possible that the Father, being greater than the Son, should be contained in Him? Or how can the Son, who is much smaller, be able to contain and fill the greater?
B Solution of the objection.
If you suppose that the Son is contained in the Father as a body is contained in a body, you would rightly, I imagine, choose to inquire about the displacement of one into the other. For in the case of an earthen vessel, or one fashioned from some other material, you might not inappropriately say that the greater cannot be contained in the smaller, nor, conversely, that the smaller can fill what is greater. But in the case of incorporeal things, whose nature is altogether devoid of matter, what place does your proposition have? And these things we have said for the present, granting something that has been ignorantly said by you, and as you in your error have believed, that the Father must be spoken of as greater than the Son; but the logic of the truth is not so: for He is equal to the Father in all things. C But I would not suppose that you would use such words at all, if you understood what is the true Father, what is the true Son, and what is the invisible and eternal light, and His radiance, and what, again, is an incorporeal hypostasis and an incorporeal character. For if you were to bring into your mind, with the precise understanding of these terms, the points concerning such matters, surely you would also, having grasped the nature of God, not imagine these things as corporeal, but, following accurately what has been said, you would inquire how the Son is in the Father, and how the Father is in the Son. For as character, and image, and radiance, and likeness, so is this seen in that, and that in this. D Since, however, you say that it is not at all wonderful if the Son also is in the Father, because we too move and live in Him, it is necessary to show how greatly you are wandering from the truth in this part as well. For it is not the case that, just as God is in each of the saints and sanctifies them, so He is also in Christ. But the Son Himself is the wisdom and power of the Father, sanctifying everything that partakes of Him in the Spirit: He Himself, however, is not holy by any participation, as we are, nor is He called Son by grace, but is the eternal offspring of the Father's essence. Nor, again, is the Son in the Father as we are: for we indeed live and move and have our being in God, but the Son, according to nature, proceeding from the essence of the Father as from an ever-living fountain, is life naturally vivifying all things: not vivified by any participation of life as we are. For otherwise He would not be natural life itself.
For that which is added and acquired from without could not be conceived of as naturally belonging to the one who possesses it. The Son says, "I am the life." Therefore, just as we are vivified in God, He also does not live and exist in the same way; but this is truly existing by nature as that which He says He is—that is to say, life—and being in the Father naturally, and existing as one with Him on account of the identity of essence, which is the Godhead. B
ANOTHER.
From the objection of the heretics.He says that He is in the Father, and the Father in Him, because neither the word which He addressed to all, nor the works themselves, were His own; but were of the Father who commanded Him to speak such things, and who supplied the power for the fulfillment of those works.
Solution of the objection.
Let it be allowed, then, by you, O heretics, that everyone of the saints also utters such a voice; since they too have been ministers of divine words, and having received power from above, have become performers of miraculous works. For the blessed David says, "I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me." And the most wise Solomon says, "My words have been spoken by God." And the blessed Moses became a faithful minister of the words of God, and, to speak once for all, every one of the prophets did not use his own words, but always had this on his tongue: "Thus saith the Lord." From these it is therefore sufficiently clear that many others also administered the word of God, and performed miracles, having received the power, as has been said, from God. Therefore, the disciples of the Savior also say to those who wondered at the things done by them: "Men and brethren, why look you upon us as if by our own power and piety we have made this man walk?" Let it be allowed, therefore, also for each of these to use that word of the Lord and to say: "I in the Father, and the Father in me"; since they too, as has been said before, each used divine words, and performed power, having received C the ability from God. And thus there will be nothing exceptional in the Son, but He will also be one of many, calling Himself the Son in vain, as it seems, if there is nothing excellent in Him. But this is absurd; therefore, the contrary will be entirely true.
ANOTHER.
If it had been permitted to all the saints, and indeed to any other creature, to say: "I in the Father, and the Father in me," certainly the Savior, not being ignorant of this, would have said, if it were true: "I also am in the Father, and the Father also is in me," so as to appear to be teaching that, just as He is in others, so He is also in me; and just as other men are in Him, so also am I. But now, not associating any others with Himself, but knowing that this belongs to Himself alone, because, in truth, He is from the very essence of the Father,
A He says with great circumspection, "I in the Father, and the Father in me." Therefore He does not share this dignity in common with all, but possesses it as His own and peculiar, as Son, and Word, and God.
ALIUD, teaching how the aforementioned saying ought to be understood.
To say that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, is to be understood in this way. The Son has proceeded from the essence of the Father, not, like creatures, brought over from non-being to being, or having the foundation of His existence from without, but He is the very property of the essence of the One who begat Him; just as radiance shines forth from light, or a river flows from a source. It is possible, therefore, for those who see the Son, to behold the essence of the Father, and from this to recognize the property of the One who begat Him. For because the whole being of the Son proceeds from the essence of the Father, for this reason He is in the Father; and conversely, the Father is in the Son, B inasmuch as what He is by nature, this also is the God-Word who proceeds from Him. And He appears and is in the Son, just as the sun is in the radiance that shines forth from it, and as the mind is in the utterance, and the fountain in the river that flows from it. For the property of the essence of the Father, being situated in the Son, and (if I may so speak) the species of the Godhead, show that He is essentially in Him. We must also take note and necessarily know that it was not by a casual dispensation that the Saviour uttered such a saying. For when, wishing to show the identity of nature which He has with the Father, He said, "I and the Father are one," lest anyone should suspect that Father and Son were the same, distinguished only by names, but not distinct in hypostasis into a duality, C He necessarily and profitably explained what He had said, and making it clearer to those who hear, He adds this: "I in the Father, and the Father in me," so that by the fact that the One is in the Other and the Other in Him, He might demonstrate the identity of the Godhead and the unity of the essence; and by the fact that one is in the other, it might not be thought that they are but one in number, who is called at times Father and at times Son; but that He might most clearly show that the Father truly and hypostatically exists, and the Son truly and hypostatically exists.
ALIUD.
The Father and the Son are one according to nature, but two D in number, not as if some one thing were divided into two parts, so as to be destitute of mutual fellowship and relation, nor again as if the one and same being were called by double names, so that the power of the duality appears only in the appellation; nor as if the same were sometimes called Father and sometimes Son—for this is the dogma of Sabellius—but they are two in number; for the Father is always Father, never transformed into the Son; and again, the Son is never transformed into the Father. And since the matter stands thus, and the number existing in duality, there is one nature for both, and the same Godhead, since the offspring is always naturally like to the One who begat it. For He is the image, and the radiance, and the character of the hypostas-
hypostaseus [hypostasis] of the Father’s essence which is the Son. For in this way we say God is one, because of the identity of the nature of the Father toward the Son, and of the Son toward the Father. A
ANOTHER.
Just as no one would say that the radiance sent forth from the sun is a light specifically different in nature from it, nor would he judge that it becomes such from the sun by some participation or condition, but rather that it is naturally emitted from it; and while one perceives these to be two lights in consideration, yet they are one by nature: so too, no one would rightly judge that, even though the Father and the Son are two in number, the Son is different from the Father in terms of Godhead and the identity of essence. But just as the sun is in the radiance which has gone forth from it, and the radiance is in the sun from which it has issued, so also the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; being B distinguished in number into a duality, and thus existing in hypostasis, yet being gathered into one Godhead by the identity of their nature.ANOTHER.
If anyone should accurately examine the divine Scripture, he will find the Son called by the same names as the Father—except only that He is not called Father; and conversely, he will find the Father called by the same names as the Son—except only that He is not called Son; and this can be proven by manifest examples. The Father is Almighty; it is said also of the Son: "Thus says He who was, and who is, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Apoc. I, 8). The Father is Lord; and "One Lord Jesus Christ" (I Cor. VIII, 6). The Father is Light; the Son also says: "I am the light of the world" (Joan. VIII, 12). C The Father remits sins; the Son also performs this: "For that you may know," He says, "that the Son of Man has power on earth to remit sins" (Luc. V, 24). Since, therefore, everything that is in the Father is in the Son, He says truly: "All things that the Father has are mine" (Joan. XVI, 15). And again, speaking to His own Father, He declares: "All my things are yours, and yours are mine" (Joan. XVII, 10). If, therefore, all things that are in the Father are in the Son, and conversely, whatever is in the Son is in the Father, He does not lie when He says: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (Joan. XIV, 10), because the identity of what pertains to them appears in the duality of persons without any difference. Since this is D absolutely true, the Son is certainly the proper offspring of the Father; for He would not naturally bear the things of the Begotten One, unless He were from Him, nor would the things of the Offspring be in the Father, unless that which is begotten were proper to His own essence.ANOTHER, by way of example.
Just as, if someone should see and admire an image painted in the best manner, and were able to behold in the panel the very countenance of the king and all that appears in him, and a desire should seize him to see the king himself, the panel might justly say to him: "You have seen me, you have seen the king"; and again: "I and the king are one," in so far as it pertains to perfect likeness; and again—"I am in the king, and the king is in me," according to the form of the image (for the painting certainly bears the form of him who is depicted, and the form of the painting is certainly preserved in him). So it is also with the Son, who says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." For the Son, possessing the property of the Father’s essence without alteration, is the precise image of the Father and the form of his Begetter, displaying the Begetter entirely within himself. Thus, you will also understand what is laid down by Paul: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God." For he was equal to God, being wholly God, just as the Father is; thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; thus whatever the Son works, they are the works of the Father. For since there is no difference between them as regards deity and nature, nothing prevents the works of the Son from being called the works of the Father, and vice versa.
ANOTHER. If all the excellent things that belong to the Father are seen to be present also in the Son, not added by grace nor by any participation, but naturally, just as they are in the Begetter, with nothing intervening or dividing them into inequality, it would be manifest and clear to everyone that the Son, being the very property of the Father’s essence, bears the Father entirely within himself; and he is entirely in the Father according to the identity of essence. And because of this, he rightly and consistently says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and, "I and the Father are one." Because nothing at all is lacking in him of those things which exist in the Father, he will be in every way such as is he who begat him.
ANOTHER. God is called Father, with the existence of the Son being necessarily understood along with him; for he would not be Father if he did not have the Word who proceeded from him. And again, the appellation of the Son necessarily brings with it the existence of the Father. For the one is named in respect to the other. If, therefore, the one is necessarily in the other, and the Father is signified with his own offspring, and the Son necessarily with him who begat him, he speaks the truth when he says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me."
ANOTHER. If everyone who believes in the Son believes in the Father, and he who honors the Son honors the Father, and again, he who worships the Father worships the Son, how shall this one not be shown to be in the other, and that one in this, according to the unalterable nature of their essence? Because of this, there is also one worship which is rendered to the Son and the Father along with the Holy Spirit; and one God is acknowledged by all, and is, since no difference lies between the Father and the Son, but they are endowed with identity of essence, and nothing
separates the one from the other by any natural property.
ANOTHER.
AA dogma as if from the objection of the Christ-opponents.
The Father, they say, is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, according to this manner: because they in no way disagree in judgments or in thoughts, but whatever the Father wills, the Son wills also, and in turn whatever the Son wills, the Father wills also; and a certain agreement and identity of wills and purpose is found in them, and in this respect the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.
Solution of the objection.
Will it therefore be permitted even to the angels, or to other rational powers, of whom the Psalmist says: B "Bless the Lord, all you His angels, His ministers who do His will," to use the voice of the Savior, and will each of them be able to say: "I in the Father, and the Father in me"? — "He who has seen me, has seen the Father." For it is doubtful to no one that all things which the Father wills, the angels, and archangels, and thrones, and dominions, and powers also will; nor does any of these disagree with the will of God. For they would not remain in their own order, if they did not have this purpose set before them. For he who desired something other than the will of God, heard: "But now you shall descend to hell, and to the foundations of the earth." If, therefore, each of these things that have been said wills whatever God wills, and remains steadfast in this, and retains its own dignity, and by no reasoning are they supported by these words of the Son, then it is not a consensus C of minds and an identity of wills that declares the Son to be in the Father and the Father in the Son, but an all-embracing likeness of essence and an identity of natural property.
ANOTHER.
Since angels and archangels and the rational powers superior to them have an immovable and unshaken state, and preserve their own proper rank, it is clearly manifest that they in no way oppose the will of God, but comply with the command and laws of the Creator, and conform their own will to the divine, so that they both will and do all things that please Him. Since this is so, nor will any man at all deny it, why is only the Son the Only-begotten, and the Word, and Wisdom? For it D ought certainly to follow, if He is called Only-begotten, and Wisdom, and the Word because He wills whatever the Father wills, that the remaining rational creatures were also the same, and were called by the same names by which the Son is called. But if none of them is either the Only-begotten Son, or the Word, or Wisdom, or light, or splendor, or form, or image of the Father, it is absolutely necessary to conclude that the Son did not say "I in the Father, and the Father in me," and again: "I and the Fa-
Father are one," because he wills the same things that the Father wills and holds the same frame of mind with the Father; but because, being the true and genuine germ of the Father's essence, he bears the Father within himself, and is in turn seen in the Father. Moreover, let this same reasoning hold true for holy men, whose aim and purpose is to obey the divine will; yet they cannot say of themselves: "I in the Father, and the Father in me."
ANOTHER
From the objection of the heretics.
A If, they say, because he is called Son and image of the Father, he is naturally one with him who is distinguished by such names, what shall prevent us too, who are men, since we also are called sons and have been made in the image of God, from being similar to him according to essence?
Solution of the objection.
B But to us, O good men, this belongs by grace; whereas to the Word of God it belongs by nature. And of him it is said: "Who is like to thee among the gods, O Lord?" seeing that he possesses this dignity not as something acquired, but as natural. Of us, however, it is said: "I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High. But you like men shall die, and shall fall as one of the princes." For unless we use our best efforts to flee from vice, we can easily fall away from what we have received. We have received by grace the privilege of being called both sons and gods, things which exist naturally in the Son. Furthermore, we are called the image of God, since we received his true image, the Word, and he dwelt in us, and in these last times he became man for the sake of our salvation. Great, therefore, and immense is the difference between us, who have been called sons by grace, and him who is true and natural Son. Your objection is thus proved to be trifling and altogether empty.
ANOTHER.
C If for this reason—and for this reason alone, O enemies of Christ—you say that the Son is like the Father, because all things that the Father wills, these he wills also, he will not be so much like the Father as he is like the will of the Father. And the Father, according to you, is such in name only; while the Son is neither a son, nor an exact image of him who begat him, but merely an imitator of his will. For Paul too, being an imitator of Christ and similar to him in that he wished for all things that Christ himself wished, and in the manner of his teaching, possesses indeed an image of his will, but he is not naturally the same as the Son of God. But since this is both absurd and impious, it is necessary to refer this similarity to the essence itself and to the characters of his nature. For thus indeed is the Son more truly shown to be the image of the Father, to such an extent that he can say: "I in the Father, and Pa-
-Ather in me," and again: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father."
OTHER, by way of explanation.
Thus the Father and the Son are one, and in this way he is akin to him, just as among us a son may be understood in relation to his own father in terms of essence, and as one might look at the brightness proceeding from the sun. Therefore, because the Son has this relationship to his own Father, when the Son works, the Father works; and when he comes to the saints, the Father also comes, just as he himself said: "We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him." For all things, as has already been said, come to be from the Father through the Son. And indeed, if grace is ever given to any of the saints, the Father is seen to have bestowed it through the Son. Paul is a witness of this, writing to some: "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Again, the same person writes to others: "Now may God himself our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you." But if there were not a unity of the Father with the Son, he would surely have said "direct" in the plural, so as to signify two. But now he does not do this; rather, clearly observing the unity of the Father and the Son, he has used the singular "direct"—not as though the Father and the Son bestow grace separately, but as though the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit, confers his gifts upon the saints from the one Godhead.
OTHER.
C If the Son were separated by nature from the essence of the Father, and if there did not exist between them6 an inseparable unity, such as there is between the brightness and the sun, it would suffice for the Father alone to confer gifts upon the saints, without the Son being associated in this. For if he were of a created nature, and something different from God, for what reason—since none of the other creatures shares with God in the distribution of divine gifts—would he alone be admitted? For no one would endure someone saying: "May God the Father and an angel grant you the requests of your heart"; and this is so even if he were to name something greater than an angel. For to give—this is fitting for God alone. But if he gives, not with any other of the creatures, but only with the Son and through the Son in the Holy Spirit, it would be manifest from this and known to everyone that he is truly a birth from the essence of the Father, and that while having the Father in himself, he himself likewise exists in the Father, and brings about and works all things and confers gifts upon the saints. Paul is a witness to this, saying: "I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God which was given to you in Christ Jesus."
OTHER.
From the objection of the heretics.
"You said," they say, "that no creature shares with God...
A in the bestowal of gifts. What, then, will you do regarding the patriarch Jacob, finding him in the holy Scriptures blessing the descendants of Joseph, namely Ephraim and Manasseh, and saying, 'The God who has nourished me from my youth until this day, and the angel who delivers me from all my evils, bless these children'? Behold," they say, "having named God, he added also the angel, as one capable of blessing along with Him."
The Answer to these points
If the enemies of Christ grant that the prophetic spirit inhabited the one who said such things, and if they believe that Jacob was truly a holy man, why are they not ashamed, while attributing such great error to him, to couple an angel with the God of the universe, and to think that a creature can bless simultaneously with Him by whom it was created? But if this is absurd, let them hear from us. If you are persuaded that Jacob was truly a holy man, cease to burden him with such insults; instead, investigate the true meaning of the things he said. If he was not a holy man, and you dare to say this B along with all the rest, why do you use the authority of a man who is not holy—as you think—to subvert matters of such great importance? Leaving aside your ravings, we shall explain in what manner the words of the patriarch are to be understood. For as a holy man, led by the divine Spirit to the knowledge of the dogmas of piety, he first said, "The God who has nourished me from my youth, let Him bless these children." Then he says, "And the angel who delivers me from all my evils." He says this so that by saying "The God," he might signify the Father; and by saying "the angel," he might signify the Word from the Father. For he knew that His name is called "the Angel of great counsel." That he means the Son here, and not an angel of the kind that custom usually denotes by the word "angel," will be evident from this: for having said "the angel," he does not stop the discourse there, but has added, "who delivers me from all my evils." Let us see, therefore, from his own words, if it is not God who delivers him from all his evils, C but rather one of the created angels.
Proof that it was God who delivered the patriarch Jacob from all evils
It is said that an angel wrestled with the patriarch Jacob, and this is set down in the divine Scripture. But the holy man, holding him, said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." And this was God. The voice of the patriarch himself is also brought forward: "I have seen God face to face." He entreats this one, who appeared to him as an angel, to send his blessing upon his descendants.
ANOTHER, from the same.
The Lord God appeared to the patriarch, as it is written, and said to him, "Behold I am with you, guard
Aing you in the way wherever you might go." It was God, therefore, who was the deliverer, and not an angel. And again, when Laban pursued Jacob and overtook him, then again God restrained the violence, not allowing him to speak harsh words to Jacob. That God performed this for him also, he himself bears witness, saying to his own wives: "God did not give Laban the power to do me harm." And again, when his brother Esau was laying snares for him, he did not call upon an angel, but prayed to God, crying out: "Deliver me, O Lord, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him."
ANOTHER, by demonstration, that the Word of God is His species.
The Savior says somewhere to the Jews, who were exceedingly disobedient: "The Father who sent me, he has borne witness of me, whose voice you have never heard, nor seen his species, and you do not have his word dwelling in you: for the one whom he sent, him you do not believe." Since, therefore, they did not believe in the Word sent from the Father, they are said neither to have heard the voice of God, nor ever to have seen His species, nor even to have the Word dwelling B in them. It is therefore evident and plain to all, that if they had received the One who was sent, they would have heard the voice of God and seen His species, and would have had the Word dwelling in them. All these things, therefore, are the Son: the voice, the species, and the Word of the Father. And if He is the species, He is certainly also the image and the character. Possessing, therefore, as a character C in Himself by nature the archetype or model of Him whose character He is, He speaks truly, saying: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and, "I and the Father are one."
ANOTHER, showing that the Word is called the species of God.
The patriarch Jacob was at one time surnamed Israel by God. For, as the Scripture says, "The sun rose upon him when he passed the species of God." But what else could the species of God be, if not perfectly the One who loudly proclaims: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and, "I and the Father are one"?
Objections of the enemies of Christ, full of impiety.
The Savior, they say, Himself prays to His own Father on behalf of His disciples and on behalf of all who believe in Him, saying thus: "Holy Father, keep them in your name which you have given to me, that they may be one even as we are." And a little further on: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word; that they may all be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us, so that the world might believe that you sent me."
A Just as we, who are human, are in the Father, so also the Son himself is one with the Father. And the Father himself, in turn, is one with the Son, just as he is with us. And just as no argument compels us to be similar to the Father by nature—because we are said to be in him—so there is no necessity to say that the Son is from the essence of the Father, since he says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." For, as we have said before, he is in the Father just as we are. Either, therefore, it is necessary to confess that we too are from the essence of the Father because we have been made one with God, or if we remain human, even though we be one with God, it is fair to judge the same regarding the Son. For he remains in his own nature, not being taken up into the essence of the Father, even though he is said to be one with him.
Solution to the objection.
The devil himself, the father of Christ's enemies and the leader of their inanities, heard these very things and therefore was told: "Now you shall descend to Hades and to the foundations of the earth." For just as he dared to say: "I will ascend above the clouds, and I will be like the Most High," in the same way these men also, far overstepping the limits of human nature and transcending the measure of their own substance, do not fear to say: "We shall be like the Most High." B Therefore, just as the Word of God speaks truly, crying out: "I and the Father are one," on account of identity of essence, so too could the enemies of Christ say truthfully: "We and our father the devil are one," on account of similarity of will. For they have now arrived at such a degree of madness that, having attained by grace the title of "gods," they imagine they can be similar by nature to the one who bestowed that grace upon them. And having been called "sons" in likeness to him who is Son by nature, they think themselves equal to him who adopted them and who, out of his great benevolence, granted to them by grace the dignity that is naturally his own.Objection of the heretics.
Even if the Son says, they claim, "I and the Father are one," he will not necessarily be of the same essence as the Father, since we too, though human by nature, become one with God; and the Son himself is the witness to this, saying: "I desire, Father, that just as I and you are one, so also they may be one in us."Solution to the objection.
If the Father and the Son are one in just the same way as we are with the Father, and the Father with us, then there will be no difference between the Word of God and us; rather, he will be naturally the same as we are and will differ only C in time, while ascending into the essence of the Father, even as D [one who is]...exists before all things. But even if he has priority in time, he will again be the same as us in essence. For what will prevent Adam from being, by nature, similar to Paul, for instance, or to any other who was born after him, even though he himself was created by God before all others? If, therefore, time helps nothing in these matters, what prevents the Son, who was born before us, from being of the same essence as we are, if there is no other difference between us and him? And if this is true according to your opinion, for what reason is he alone called Creator, while this name befits none of us? We indeed were created through him, but he alone bears the glory of the Creator. And it was truly logical that, if we were the same as him by nature, we should also occupy the same place as he does with the Father, and that each one of us should be called Only-begotten, and Word, and Wisdom of the Father. For those whose nature is one and the same, to them the name will also be common; and whatever belongs to one by nature, this will certainly reside also in those who partake of the same essence. But if this is absurd, and we are neither creators nor are so called, nor indeed are we Wisdom, or Word, or Radiance—but the Son alone is these—then he will not be naturally the same as we are, but he has his generation from the Father in a unique way, and thus he is one with his own Father, not as we who, being related to him, have attained unity through participation and communication, just as iron, when brought to fire, is heated by it.
ANOTHER, teaching with evident demonstration that things which are similar to some are not in every respect and naturally of the same kind as those to which they are similar, but that those things which naturally belong to some become, as it were, images of the motions of our will.
CThe Holy Scripture speaks to some as follows: "Do not be like the horse and the mule, in which there is no understanding;" and again concerning others: "A man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts and became like them." And again: "Furious horses they became." But the Savior more clearly says to his own disciples: "Be prudent as serpents, and harmless as doves." And again: "Be merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful." If, therefore, some have become similar to brute animals because they labored under the same lack of intelligence as they, and this makes them naturally that which those are; and, again, if the disciples, by imitating the prudence of the serpent, and the guilelessness of the dove, and the Father in heaven’s readiness to have mercy on all, become serpents and doves and even naturally similar to God himself, then nothing will prevent us, when we are said to become one with the Lord, from becoming one with God by reason of essence, just as the Son is with his own Father. But if it is only by the similarity of thought or action that we are said to become those to whom we are compared, we are not, therefore, the same according to essence D
A with God, when we are said to be one with Him. But just as He is one by nature with His own Word, so we too are made one among ourselves by similarity of mind and by harmony, since we do not dissent from one another in any way, but are bound together as it were into a certain identity by the single bond of holy charity.
ANOTHER.
Christ our Savior is accustomed to set forth the good things that are naturally present in Him, and to exhort us to imitate them and to follow their likeness, reforming us in that respect toward the divine image in which we were also made. When, therefore, He wishes to teach us to be meek, He says: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart." B And yet, when we have learned from Him and become meek, we are by no means made like Him according to nature, but only according to the habit of meekness. Therefore, when He says of us, "That they may be one, as we are one," He takes the example from Himself, not saying this so that we might become one with God according to nature, but so that, just as He is naturally one with the Father, thus we too may be made one among ourselves through harmony of mind and the same way of thinking, taking the natural identity of the Father with the Son as an image of our inseparable unanimity, which is able to form us into one body and one soul. For thus it is written of those who believed, that "the heart and soul of the multitude of the believers was one."
ANOTHER.
Things that are naturally present in some are, as it were, immutable images for those who wish to conform their own will to them; such as this: "Be wise as serpents and as doves." C Therefore, the Son now also offers as an image a pattern of the unity that ought to be in us by choice, which He possesses naturally with the Father. When, therefore, He says of us, "That they also may be one, as we are one," He does not say this meaning that we should abandon our own nature and be transformed into the nature of the Son (for that is impossible), but that, as has been said before, we should be made one among ourselves by harmony of mind, just as He is one by nature with the Father—that is to say, one. But if anyone thinks that what is said is not an image and a pattern, but rather that there will be some natural transformation, he deceives himself, not seeing the truth. For if the Son had wished for us to become essentially what He Himself is with the Father, He ought to have said: "That indeed, as I am one with Thee, Father, so may they too be." But now, D not having said this, but having used the plural number and saying: "That as I and Thou are one, so also they may be one in us," He teaches clearly that He does not wish those who believe in Him to be transformed into the nature of the Godhead (for this is impossible), but that they should take as an exemplar
A that which is in Him by nature, and strive to have this amongst ourselves by agreement of mind, which is what He Himself is naturally with the Begetter.
OTHER, showing that to be in God does not signify a change of nature, but that it is through Him or from Him.
The Psalmist says somewhere: "Through thee shall we push down our enemies." And again: "In my God I shall scale a wall." But it is evident that it is not by having come to be in God naturally that one might scale a wall and push down enemies, but that he will do this in the name of God and in His power. Therefore, when the Son says, "That they also may be one in us," He does not say this meaning that those who believe are to become one with God by nature, but that in the name of the Father and of the Son, they might have one mind toward one another, and be bound together into a unity of affection and charity. Since he adds the, "as We are one," it is manifest that He is not granting a natural change to believers, but is setting before us, as an image and pattern, that which is in Him by nature for the forming of our voluntary unity. For the word "as" does not signify the thing itself in its entirety, but a certain likeness.
OTHER, through which we learn how it behooves us to understand that saying, "That as I and Thou are one, so also they may be in us; I in them and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one."
The Word of God, wishing to bestow a certain great and supernatural grace upon the human race, draws all men, as it were, into a certain unity with Himself. For having borne the human body, He has come to be in us. But He has the Father in Himself, as His Word and radiance. Just as, therefore, He says, I am in them because I have borne the same flesh with them, and Thou, O Father, art in me because I am the property of Thy essence: so I desire that they too might coalesce into a certain unity with one another, and having been made, as it were, one body in me, all might be one, inasmuch as I bear all through the one temple of humanity which I have assumed; and thus they shall be, and shall be seen to be, perfected. For I am perfect, even though I have been made man.
OTHER, showing clearly that we are not changed into the divine nature, our own nature being lost, when we are said to be made one with God, but that we are called this because we have been made partakers of Him.
"In this," says the blessed John, "we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." If, therefore, through participation in the Spirit we are made one with God, and we are said to be in Him, and He in us; but the Word of God is not of the number of those who become partakers of the Holy Spirit, but rather is the Bestower of the Spirit: it will certainly be manifest that we are not in God and the Father in the manner in which He Himself is. For He Himself is in the nature of His Begetter, as His Word,
and the radiance of his glory. But we, through him, being rendered worthy of participation in the Holy Spirit, are said to become one with God.
B ANOTHER on the same subject. The blessed John says elsewhere: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." If, therefore, by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, we come to be in God, and he likewise in us, but the Son is not in the Father in this way—for his being in the Father is not a gift of confession—it is manifest and obvious to all that men are called by grace to unity with God, and receive this as a reward and gift of their confession and faith. But the Word of God is naturally in the Father without any such gift, and he carries the Father within himself, and is truly one with him.
ANOTHER. According to the saying of John, he who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God has God dwelling in himself, and he himself comes to be in God. Let someone have made such a confession—for let this be the premise of our discourse—and having received the Spirit as a gift of this confession, he has received God into himself, and has himself come to be in God. But it happens that one thus disposed, through some diabolical influence, shifts his opinion and departs from the confession, and because of this has cast off the grace and become destitute of the divine Spirit; for he does not dwell in those who blaspheme the Son. He has therefore lost both his being in God and his having God in himself. Yet he was a man both when he made the confession and when he departed from the confession. C Therefore, we are not transformed by nature into the divine essence, even though we are said to become one with God; rather, grace and virtue unite us to him, and vice, conversely, separates us. Furthermore, if we, by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, are in God, but by denying him are rendered entirely alien to him, and it is manifest that this does not exist in the Son as a reward of virtue, then he is not in the Father in the same manner and way as we are; but he is indeed naturally and immutably begotten of him, while we are so by grace and participation. Just as, therefore, he is the Son and God by nature, so we, by likeness to him, are named sons and gods.
ASSERTION XIII
D Concerning the likeness of the Son to the Father; and that the Son is not of a mutable nature, nor subsistent from without, but proceeds from his essence as Son and offspring.Objectio haereticorum (Objection of the heretics). If the Son, they say, is an all-around image of the Father, and is like in all things to his Begetter, let him also beget, and let him become the Father of a Son; for thus he will imitate him perfectly. But if he does not beget, how is the one who begets perceived in him who does not beget? For by this reasoning he will be dissimilar to the Father.
A
Solution to the objection.
If there were no difference between God and men, let Him be required to beget just as a man does. But if the nature of God is surpassing, it will also certainly be free from our human laws. For God did not beget as a man does, so that he who was begotten would follow the conditions of our nature and also beget, but he was begotten of the Father in a divine and ineffable manner. If, however, it is necessary that he who has been begotten should also beget, because of our natural custom, and if those things which are proper to the Deity are subject to human laws, what would prevent us from also creating a father for the Father? For that is what our custom dictates. But if the Father is from no principle, and as God far surpasses our laws and customs, no reason will compel the Son to beget. For in this way he will be all the more similar to the Father, existing as God, above all necessity. B
ANOTHER.
No one of sound mind would say that the Son appears dissimilar to the Father for the reason that he himself has not begotten, nor has he become the father of a son. On the contrary, precisely because of this, one will perceive in the Son a most admirable and perfect image of the Father. For just as the Father, being devoid of change and alteration, always remains Father and is not transmuted into a Son, so the Word, proceeding from Him as Son, remains what He is, manifesting in Himself also the immutability of the Father. Therefore, according to this also, He is similar to the Father.
Question of the Arians, by which, as they themselves think, they show the Son to be unequal to the Father.
The Son, they say, is either of free will or he is not. If he is, he is certainly good by election of the will. But that which is held to something by election and not by nature can also be changed into other things; and to whatever side the impulse of the election is carried, there will entirely be that which is governed by election. But this is change and passion. C And he who is subject to change and passion, how could he be the image and likeness of Him who is immutable and impassible? But if he is immutable and cannot be carried into anything else, but always remains what he is, surely he subsists in himself like a stone or a piece of wood, bound to that which he is by a certain natural and indissoluble tie, and having no freedom of will. D
Solution to the objection.
One ought, of course, absolutely not to answer such foolish questions as they propose. For when an answer is everywhere joined with blasphemy, it is better to maintain silence. For if I say that the Son is endowed with free will, the change of free will is immediately introduced along with it. For it is annexed to free will to undergo change, even if the will has not yet submitted to such passion. But if, passing this over, I say the other thing—namely, that the Son is immutable—they immediately, by proposing the immobility of wood to us, do not perceive
that they are speaking of things which even to conceive of in mere thought is full of danger. For what could those who dare everything so easily say if someone were to put the same question to them regarding the Father? Will they fear the same fear as we do, and will they praise silence in these matters? Or what indeed will they have to say to these things? I for my part have nothing to say, though it would certainly be good and useful if these people would even abandon such a thought. That the Word of God, being immutable just as He who begat Him, is like the Father in all things, can be made clear through this. If He is an unvarying image of the Father, and speaks the truth when He says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," and again, "I and the Father are one," He will certainly be immutable and unchangeable just as the Father is. B For how could He be an image of Him who is for ever and in the same state, if He admits of change? Or how could they say, "We are one," when they are so far removed from one another, and bear such great dissimilarity? But since it is impossible for the truth—that is, the Son—to lie when He says He is like the Father, it is absolutely necessary to believe that the Son is by nature the same as that which the Father is. He is therefore immutable, just as He is, and in all things assimilated to Him.
The same, explained otherwise.
If the Son, being of a mutable nature, exists by His own free choice and power, as they say, and has attained to this state through a desire for the good, so as to have no difference from the Father, but henceforth is able to say "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father," then there is nothing great or remarkable in Him, if it is permitted even to those who are of a mutable nature, when they will it, to become by nature what He is. But if the things that are proper to the Godhead are completely inaccessible C to any other nature, yet all these things appear naturally in the Son, He is therefore like the Father in all things; not through some progression or advancement or alteration into the good from what He was not, but proceeding, perfect from the Perfect, and immutable from the immutable Father. For how is He not perfect, who did not count it robbery to be equal with God? And how is He not immutable, who is one with the Father, as He Himself says?
Another.
If the tree is known from its fruit, and the fruit of the Father's essence is the Word who proceeds from Him—that is, the Son—then let them either declare the tree to be rotten by saying that it (the fruit) is of a mutable nature (for so they wish the fruit to be), or, if they judge the tree to be good, let them believe that the fruit which proceeds from it is of the same kind, judging it to be of an immutable, not a changing, nature, just as the tree itself is.
Another.
To Philip inquiring and saying, "Show us the Father," Christ answers, "So"
A long have I been with you, and still you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father." If, therefore, the knowledge of the Son is the knowledge of the Father, it is absolutely necessary to believe that the Son is such as the Father is. And if this is the case, and the Father is immutable, then the Son will also be this in every respect. For thus would he be known and appear in Him.
Testimonies from Holy Scripture that the Son is immutable, and the syllogism derived from them concerning this.
Paul says: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also for the ages." The Psalmist: "Thou in the beginning, O Lord, hast founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; they shall perish, but You remain; and they all shall grow old like a garment; and as a vestment You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but You are B the same, and Your years shall not fail." The Savior Himself concerning Himself: "See me, see that it is I, and I do not change." Jeremiah: "For You are sitting [enthroned] for the age, and we are perishing for the age." For there the prophet, signifying the stability and immutability of the divine nature, and that it always remains the same, says: "You are sitting for the age"; but explaining the change of created things in all time, he adds: "And we are perishing for the age." If, therefore, divine Scripture, when speaking of created things, acknowledges change, and alteration, and destruction, and variation, but removes the Son from the association with these things, saying, "But You are the same," then He is not of a changeable nature. For He would not be the same if He could be changed into something other than what He is.
ANOTHER.
If the Son is not immutable by nature, but it is an accident C to Him to be what He is, and He has an acquired likeness with the Father: was there, then, some time when the Son existed but was unlike the Father? And how can He still be thought of as Son, if He is not attested as such by natural likeness? Or how will He stand in the stability of blessedness if He has it as an accident? For if it happened to Him, it will also be able to cease to happen to Him. But if divine Scripture says that the Son remains in identity, then all things that are proper to the Godhead exist naturally in Him; but change is foreign to this; therefore, He is immutable and unalterable.
ANOTHER.
That which can be changed and altered would not say of itself: "I am the truth." For what is in one way at one time D and not at another, is speaking in contradiction to itself. But the Son says of Himself: "I am the truth." He is not, therefore, of those things which are changed and altered, but is like the Father, being immutable and unalterable.
ANOTHER, more explicitly.
Heretics, attempting to show that the Son is of those things which are changed…
A and thus unlike the Father, to prove their own madness, bring forward certain things from the holy Scriptures; and they say that the Apostle said: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow." And it is written again in the Psalmist: "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." Then they quibble over the words, saying that "because" and "therefore" signify some cause for which He was exalted, and the name which is above every name was given to Him, and He was anointed with the oil of gladness. But if some cause became the occasion for these things for Him, He has clearly been altered and changed, having become that which He was not before; and if the dignity in Him is bestowed, it can also be taken away. But how could that which is in such a state be by nature like to the Immutable, and an image of that which always remains the same?
Solution to the objection. If, according to your opinion, there was some cause because of which He was exalted, and attained the name, and was anointed with the oil of gladness, He would certainly not have been what He now is, had the cause not existed. Therefore, the Son is not God by nature, if He is God by grace because of some cause; nor is He the Son by nature, if He is Son by grace because of some cause, and if His sonship and the name of divinity are, as it seems, a reward for virtue, just as in our case. There will therefore be no difference between Him and us. B For it is possible for us, through the holiness of life, to attain things equal to these, if indeed we are called both gods and sons, and are anointed with the oil of gladness, if we show ourselves worthy of these gifts. But if this is absurd both to think and to say, the Son will be far superior, and not equal to us. For the Son, existing from the Father by nature, is true Son, as man is from man, and God is begotten from God. But we, to whom these things do not belong by nature, have obtained—instead of having them by truth—the name of sons and gods through the grace of the One who gave it, by reason of His loving-kindness; for in our case the possession of things above us is merely a matter of the name, whereas in the Son, it is natural and essential.
ANOTHER. The divine Apostle says somewhere concerning the Son: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant," and what follows: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name." Since, therefore, He became man and took on the form of a servant, the name was given to Him, and He was exalted. Therefore, before the incarnate presence and the form of a servant, according to the argument of the Arians, He neither had the name C nor was He more exalted. For if these things were present even before the advent, the argument that He received something is surely superfluous. But if He did not have it, He became what He was not. What, therefore, was He before this
B receive it, according to you? And again: “If when He humbled Himself He appears to have received these things which He now is,” and He is the Word, Wisdom, Power, Truth, Light, Life, Resurrection, the Image of the Father, He was none of these before the humiliation. Let them consider, therefore, into what a chasm of blasphemy their argument leads. For if He has these as a prize and, as it were, a reward for His humiliation from the Father, and He is seen to have humbled Himself at no other time than when He became man, we see the order of things inverted. For the divine Scriptures say that the advent of God the Word occurred for the improvement of the flesh and of the whole human nature. But if He became God, and Son, and Most High at the time of the incarnation, we see Him as rather having been improved Himself than having improved us; as having been benefited, rather than having benefited. Consequently, the Word of God did not come to us for our sake, but for His own, nor did He assume flesh for the sake of our salvation, but that His own condition might be improved. How then do the prophets and apostles call Him Savior? For it would have been more fitting to call Him the improver of His own status. And how did He die for us, He who is said to have received as a reward for this that He should be called God and Son? But if to think this breathes utter impiety, nothing came to the Son from change and alteration, but He is naturally what the Father is; and for this reason He is most like Him. C
ANOTHER.
If according to their opinion He was not the Son, or was indeed, but was later improved and became more excellent, undergoing a change for the better when, having taken the form of a servant, He humbled Himself (for “therefore God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name”), and this happened in the last times of the age when He came in the flesh: how were all things made through Him, or how did the Father rejoice over Him who had not yet attained to perfection? For that which still needs an addition is imperfect. And in what manner, again, did He begin to be worshipped in the last times, when He is found to have been worshipped from the beginning? For Abraham worships Him at the oak of Mamre, and Moses worships Him in the bush, saying: “I am who am.” How then, as Daniel says, did “thousand thousands serve Him”? How, again, is He seen sitting on a throne high and lifted up, surrounded and glorified by the Seraphim? Or how, again, do the powers in heaven, having heard through the Spirit this voice: “Lift up your gates, you princes,” and having said: “Who is this King of glory?” hear in reply: “The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory”? He did not become the Lord of hosts here, D but He is the Lord of hosts from eternity. But if, being this, He appears before the time of His advent, as He also is now, then it would certainly be superfluous to say—or rather, it is full of danger—that the Son is subject to change, or to a good disposition
A of His will, as if He had received the sonship as a reward, or being Wisdom, the Word, and God. For being unchangeable and unalterable, He is in all respects like to Him who begat Him.
ALIUD: That the Son is not like the Father by an alteration from a worse to a better state, but naturally.
If, existing in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, one might suppose that He had receded from His natural dignity just as much as the distance is between God and man. For He was not man before, and subsequently became God; but being God, He became man. Nothing, therefore, of greater excellence accrued to the Word of God from this. But if He is said to be exalted, and to receive as a present the name that is above every name, it is manifest that He is being brought back, in company with the flesh, to that state in which He was even without the flesh. And He Himself also says somewhere: “Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” What, then, was the glory of the Son B before the creation of the world? Truly, to be in the form of the Father. There is nothing, therefore, that was added to the Son through a change for the better; but the glory and exaltation which is now bestowed upon Him as a gift is a dissolution of the dishonour that accompanied the flesh, effacing the contempt incurred by the assumption of the form of a servant. And these things are said to be given by the Father; for it is more fitting, and more proper, that those things which are above humanity should be administered by God, without the Son being excluded from this administration in accordance with the unity of the Godhead, even though He is C specifically designated as Son in relation to the Father.
ALIUD: To the same effect.
If, according to your opinion, when He humbled Himself, He was superexalted, and for this reason there was given to Him the name that is above every name—that is, He was called God—and for this reason was also anointed and named Son, it is absolutely necessary to say that the Word of God was not these things before the humiliation; for surely no one would receive what he already possesses even without receiving it. And if, before the times of the humiliation, He is found saying to some: “I said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High,” it appears that many have become sons and gods D before Him. How, then, is it true that all things were made through Him? Or how is He Himself before all things, when many are prior to Him? Or how shall He be firstborn of every creature? And if those who are sons by grace are established in imitation of the true and natural Son, how will these be prior to Him who is naturally Son? Likewise, if we are made sons by the participation of the Son through Him, how shall that which becomes a participant be prior to that which makes it a participant? And how could he who first attained this not be more excellent than the many generations that followed? But these things are full of absurdity. The Son, therefore, is unchangeable and unalterable, not having His likeness to the Father by grace, nor by any addition or supplement, but essentially and naturally.
B ANOTHER, demonstrating that the Son is [existent] from the essence of the Father, and not produced extrinsically, as the enemies of Christ maintain. And because He is not extrinsically produced, He is like unto Him.
The argument of the heretics: What, they say, is more excellent in God? Or how will He not be similar to us, if He too begets the Son from His own substance, just as we do? But since He exceeds human nature as much as He exceeds [all] creatures, He will by no means imitate us, nor, like some one of us, will He produce the Son from His essence, but will constitute Him from the outside. But if this is so, He will certainly be dissimilar.
The solution to the objection: I would rightly say to these enemies of Christ: if God rejects every likeness to us in its entirety, He will possess nothing at all that befits a man. For if they shall say that the divine essence does not deviate at all from ours, their proposition will be found to be empty, and one that has a refutation conjoined to the very confession itself. But if they insist ignorantly and pertinaciously on those things which they bring against us, let them tell us: if man is a substance, why do they not deny that God is a substance? C And again, since man is a rational being, let them make God irrational, so that He might reject human properties. But if, while we are these things, God is also these things, He will not be foreign to begetting the Son from Himself, since we also beget in this way. But rather it was to be understood that we, who were made according to the image of the divine nature in imitation of it, have also attained this in addition to other things. But when He has begotten the Son from Himself, and has not constituted Him from the outside, it is clearly necessary that we should hold Him to be similar [to the Father].
ANOTHER. From the objection of the heretics: But we, they say, as if using some matter which is supplied by the corporeal nature, beget offspring from ourselves; just as when we wish to construct something outside of ourselves, we do it by taking matter. But God, since He is entirely incorporeal, has no abundance of matter from Himself to beget the Son; but He creates from nothing. D Therefore, all those things that are of our custom being rejected, He does not produce [the Son] from Himself,
A nor does He work anything of those things that are from a pre-existing matter; but He calls all things from without into existence, together with the Son. If this be so, then He is also unlike.
{Solution of the objection.} And how, good men, shall the Son be found to be only-begotten, if He Himself also is from without, like all other things? And how in general is He the Son, if He does not exist from the substance of the One who begat Him? For if it is possible that even those things which are from nothing, or rather, things generated from without, are called and are sons by nature, nothing, as it appears, will prevent all created things from being called sons. And the Son will no longer be only-begotten, having many brothers by nature. But if that cannot be, and He alone is only-begotten, He therefore has an existence that is altogether distinct—not as one called into being like the others, but as the Son proceeding naturally from the Father, and for this reason, B [He is] like.
ANOTHER. If all things are from nothing, and the Son is with all things, for what cause is He Lord by nature, while those are slaves by nature? For either it is just that all things be honored with the dignity of lordship according to nature, having the same origin as the Son, or He Himself must be and be called a slave along with all. But now we do not see Holy Scripture proclaiming this. But it acknowledges the Son as Lord by nature, while the creations are slaves, saying, "All things are your servants." C And again, it introduces the Son as being hymned and glorified with the Father, while the creation is celebrating the praises and glory of the Son. He is not, therefore, equal to all, nor [is He] from without, like those; but the Son is [Son] by nature, and the others are slaves and creations. Since the Son is thus, what prevents Him from being like the Father?
ANOTHER. They are ignorant, as it seems, those who rely on foolish reasonings and boast in the empty clamor of words rather than in the precision of the theorems, that that which truly exists and is able to beget according to its own essence is the divine [nature]. For It says of Itself: "I am who I am," while all other things are not existing before they come to be, but have been brought into existence by the divine will. Therefore, that which truly is—to which also the name "to be" most properly belongs—this alone will beget according to essence. For the other creations, as for instance men, were moved rather by the will of God to have the ability to beget, D or do they do this according to their own essence? For a certain divine law compels even that which is not accustomed to beget to beget. For because the Creator thus willed, so also it has come to pass. For if creatures had the ability to beget from their own substance, properly and specifically, why can they not all beget? Since, however, some beget—evidently those that have been commanded—it is manifest indeed that it is not by nature that such things are [inherent] to the creatures according to their own essence.
Therefore, that which properly begets from itself is Divine; but we beget by imitation of that [Divine] act. How then would it not be absurd for a man to beget from himself by imitation, while the archetype, or the pattern by which he is formed, should be conceived to beget not so much from itself, but rather to have its power of begetting from without? Since, therefore, the truth of this matter has been sufficiently declared, there will be nothing to hinder the Father from begetting the Son from Himself. And if this be so, He will also be like Him in all things, since the property of His nature naturally concurs in the Son.
ANOTHER: On the likeness of the Son to the Father. An objection of the adversaries.
If no one, they say, is good except God alone, according to the voice of the Savior Himself, and since He excludes His own person from essential goodness, saying to the Scribe, "Why do you call me good?" in what way will the Son, if He is not such, be naturally similar to the Father who is naturally good?
Resolution of the objection.
The enemies of Christ maintain that the Son is unequal to the Father, having by no means contemplated the peril and loss that follow from their words, or, if they do contemplate them, they are playing in matters of such great importance rather than acting as investigators of the truth. For if, according to them, the Son is unlike the Father, let them tell us whom they would indeed maintain to be naturally good: the Father or the Son? For if they attribute this to the Father, it is absolutely necessary that he who is not similar to the Father cannot be good. But if they are afraid to say this, and transfer essential goodness to the Son, they will again be necessarily driven to the requirement of saying that the Father is not good, since He shrinks from likeness with the Son. But since it is supremely absurd to utter such blasphemy against either the Father or the Son (for since the Father is good, the Son, who proceeds from His essence, will also altogether be good), He will certainly not be in any respect unlike the Father; for it is clearly necessary that the good should be similar to the good.
An objection of the enemies of Christ.
In this, they say, we confess the Son to be like the Father, not because He has an essential and natural likeness to Him, but because the Father merely willed to constitute Him such as He Himself is, and thus He has a likeness to Him. Just as, perhaps, a house constructed into a certain form and shape is, as it were, an image of the model which the one who built it had conceived in his mind: in respect of matter, it is diverse from it; but in that it was made just as he had devised it in his spirit, it is similar.
Resolution of the objection.
A discourse worthy of laughter, or rather of tears. For who
A of those who are sane would not naturally sigh at those who have fallen into such folly? And who would not lament those who have slipped into such lack of judgment? For if the Son is dissimilar to the Father in essence, but similar in form gloss: or 'mode of thought'], first it is necessary to say that the Son is composed of different things, and these, moreover, things that are in great conflict and opposition to each other—I mean 'the similar' and 'the dissimilar'—which are in themselves, in one and the same subject, unmixable and incompatible. And if he is similar in some respect, he is not wholly light, nor is he wholly truth, nor is he God by nature. Furthermore, in addition to this, the weight of the blasphemy will pass even to the Progenitor himself. For the Father will also be found by us to be composite, consisting of essence and thought, if indeed he is dissimilar to the Son according to the rationale of essence, but similar according to thought. How then will the Father B be found to be the beginning of all things, being—as you claim—composite and not simple? And yet nothing can be conceived as prior to the beginning. But since nothing can be conceived prior to the beginning, from nowhere can the composite accrue to it. For a composite results from a gathering together of simple things. Since, therefore, the absurdity in these positions is manifest from every side, the proposition of the Christ-fighters will be shown to be most rotten. But when this blasphemy is removed, the Son will be similar to the Father in essence, in no way excluded from the natural similarity to Him.
ANOTHER
If the Son is not similar to the Father in essence, but is only a character and, as it were, an image of his thought, he cannot possess perfect similarity C to Him; since even we, who have been made according to the image of the Creator, are seen to preserve this most especially when, having become participants of His divinity through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, we are fashioned toward the divine nature. And indeed, those who have not yet partaken of Him have not yet become conformed to the image of His Son. If, therefore, there is no natural similarity of the Father in the Son, but only markers of thought appear in Him, it will not possess that which is perfectly similar, which alone is what is absurd to think. For how could He be equal to God? If this is absurd, then the other position shall prevail, which is also the more truthful: that the Son, being the very property of the Father's essence, shall also be similar to Him in essence.
Demonstration from the Holy Scripture, that it is through participation in the divine that we are formed into the image of Him. For it did not suffice for the construction of man itself, so that he might appear and be the image of his Maker, that there be merely a thought of Him held in the mind.
Paul says somewhere: "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Rom. VIII, 9). But if it were enough, even D without participation in the Spirit, for man to appear to the image...
of God, we would all have been Christ's, even if we had not become partakers of the Holy Spirit. Blessed John also says somewhere: "He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us" (I Joan. III, 24). If, therefore, keeping the given commandment is found to be the cause of the participation of the Spirit in us, and having become partakers of the Spirit we are formed to the image of the Creator, then it is A clearly manifest that it is impossible for one who does not in some way partake of His nature to possess likeness to God. And again, the Savior, renewing man to the image which he had lost, breathed upon the disciples, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (Joan. XX, 22). Therefore, it must be believed that what this renewal and restoration possesses, the original state of man also possessed. In order, therefore, that that image of the divine essence may be more perfect, the participation of the Spirit is granted to man, not simply that he is fashioned in the thought and mind of God to be such as He is. But if, by receiving the Spirit, we receive the form of the Son of God and are formed unto God, how will the Son be unequal to the Father, seeing that He bestows upon us through Himself that by which we are conformed to Him?
Objection of the adversaries
"The Father," they say, "is incommunicable, and cannot be participated in by us through Himself, on account of that supreme excellence and eminence of the Godhead, which cannot be perceived by human nature. He is perceived, however, and is in us, through the Son, namely, as through one who is lesser. How, then, will He be similar to the Father, when the Son can be perceived by us, but the Father not at all?"
To this, an exception or solution
Those enemies of God are like drunken men, as it appears, and do not know what they are saying or what they are contending about. For if, as you say, all things in the Father are great and supernatural, it is necessary to confess that the goodness which is in Him is of the same condition. How, then, can He who is supremely good not be participated in by those who are in need of goodness? Or how can He be considered good in any sense if, by some excellence surpassing all creatures, He excludes them from participation in Himself? For it behooves Him who is found to be truly and in every way good, as is most true, to propose His own goodness to all, and to make the enjoyment of it easy for those who need it. And indeed He is seen to do this, when He promises that He will dwell and walk in us, and declares us His sons. Vain, therefore, is the proposition of the impious. D For He does not turn toward ferocity because of His excellence and the eminence of His nature; but rather, being so great, He shows forth supreme kindness. And of all things that are in Him, the most beautiful is His goodness, which, through the Son, as Scripture says, comes to both the evil and the good, and excludes no one at all from participation in it. Participation in the Father through the Son in the Spirit is truly and
A properly fulfilled. Just as we are made partakers of the sun through the radiance produced from it, not without the heat which is a certain image of the operation of the Spirit—and surely no one would say that the light or the heat which is emitted from the sun is dissimilar to the sun, because it is through these that the sun is partaken of—so too, nothing compels the Son to be judged dissimilar to the Father because it is through him that we become partakers of the Father. Indeed, it shows him to be similar in all things. For where we partake of the Son, we are not deprived of participation in the Father; how, then, will there not be an identity of essence between the Father and the Son? And where there is an identity of essence, what place can there be for dissimilarity? Let the Christ-opponents answer us.
Objection of the heretics.
And by what account, they say, is the Son similar to the Father in essence, when he is seen to be so much inferior that he does not even see him? For indeed he himself bears witness to this somewhere, saying: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." B If, therefore, the Son says that the Father is invisible to all, and he himself is included among all, how can he be similar in essence who is so much inferior?
Solution of the objection.
But how can you not be thought to be openly fighting against the truth and to be contradicting all the divine Scriptures at once, when you allege that the Father is not seen even by the Son himself, and you deny to the Only-begotten the faculty of beholding the Father face-to-face; even though he himself openly cries out that no one has seen the Father except he who is from God, he has seen the Father? And how, if the Father is not perceivable to the Son, does he reveal him to us also, C saying: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"? And how does his Spirit know all things, even the depths of God, just as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him? And how, again, are the heavenly angels described as beholding his face, if this is not even granted to the Son, according to you? Or how can he not be speaking the truth when he says: "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father"? And again: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him"? He, therefore, who not only knows the Father but is also able to reveal him to others, how does he not see him? And how does he not know the Father, he who is from whom he is, and who says to him: "All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine"? D Just as, then, if the Father were invisible to him, as you suppose, he would not be similar to him in essence, so since he sees and knows the Father, he will surely be similar to him in all things, and your calumny will again be proven false.
Replicating objection of the heretics.
In this way only, they say, will we concede that the Son is similar
138 Objectio replicans hæreticorum.
to the Father, inasmuch as He has abundantly partaken of Him, A He has been fashioned in a certain manner and formed according to Him. Just as we also, as far as is possible for men, having become partakers of the divine nature, as it is written, have received the image of the heavenly [one], and are being formed, as it were, into divine characters.
Solution of the objection.
But who, I ask you, who has read the sacred Scriptures, could bear such trifling of yours? For the divine Scriptures proclaim that God is not recent within us; yet you, rashly resisting those who speak by the Spirit, are not ashamed to bring before us a recent and, so to speak, newly made God, the Son. For that which has been feigned and fashioned according to Him B by communication and participation of the Godhead, possesses as adventitious and acquired that which belongs to it through participation. But it must be admitted that whatever has received something is transferred from a state in which it was not from the beginning to something else. But this is an accident. And how is it not easy to lose that which one has received? For that which is given can also be taken away: and that which is acquired can also be lost. Either, therefore, let them say that the Son can fall away from being God, and Lord, and Son; or if they fear to say this, and will rather confess that no alteration of happiness can happen to the essence of the Son, let them also lay aside that opinion that He was C conformed by participation in the Father: and let them attribute a natural and essential likeness to the Word who proceeded from the essence of the Father.
ANOTHER.
Those who have been called to holiness by participation in the sanctifying God keep for themselves by sobriety that which was given to them; but they cannot make others partakers of the holiness that has been placed within them. For no mortal man who has received the Spirit by participation can bestow Him upon others, since he himself has received Him from God; but it belongs to the source of holiness alone to confer holiness upon whomsoever He wills. And so the angels in heaven, though they are holy by communion D and participation of the holy God, have never been seen to confer holiness upon men. Similarly, the blessed Moses, when the seventy elders were appointed for the unavoidable necessities of the congregation, did not himself give the Spirit; but God, as it is written, took [it] from that which was in Moses, and bestowed it upon those who were chosen. Therefore, those who are holy by participation can enjoy the grace that has been given to them, but can in no way bestow it upon others. But the case of the Son is far different: for He, as the source of holiness, sanctified the disciples, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And the Father is also found to perform this same act. But He who has the same [power] with the Father according to the capacity of sanctifying
how will He not be considered to have a true likeness to Him?
ASSERTION XIV
A On the likeness of the Father and the Son, regarding the proposed saying: “As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself.” And it is gathered from the syllogisms that the Son is life by nature, even as the Father, and for this reason, [is] similar.Objection of the Arians
How, they say, can the Son be similar to the Father according to substance? Or how will he who receives something from Him not be posterior to Him, even as He Himself says: “For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given to the Son to have life in Himself”?Solution of the objection
Nothing, O good men, harms the substance of the Word in receiving something from the Father. For He does not have his being in the receiving, but being, and existing beforehand, He receives something. And insofar as He is naturally begotten of the Father, He brings with Him all things that are proper to the Father. Just as, if the light proceeding from the sun were said to receive something from it, since everything that is in it is seen to be of the sun that begat it, neither does it compel one to believe the sun exists before the radiance—because the radiance which proceeds from it, proceeding inseparably from it, naturally possesses those things which belong to the sun—so too, just because the Son receives something from the Father, it is by no means necessary that He be posterior to Him in time. For He gives something to Him who is and subsists, not to one who does not exist, nor to one not yet made.ANOTHER
If we define existence for those things that exist by their receiving something, and this suffices for the clarification of a substance that is predicated of something, what prevents those who utter blasphemies from saying that the Father had the beginning of His existence when He is said to receive something by us? For it is permitted to hear the Psalmist saying: “Give glory to God.” If, therefore, the Father is not said to exist in the receiving of glory from us (for He is, and exists, and receives the doxology as from servants), the Son’s existence will not consist in His receiving something from the Father. For, being and existing without beginning, and having proceeded from Him from eternity, He is said to receive the things that are naturally in Him; just as a son who has proceeded from men would be seen to carry all the things of him who begat him, along with all that is his, having his very being from him. But let the divine and ineffable generation again be set above the power of the example brought to us, and let the matter be understood in a manner worthy of God.Objection of the heretics
That, they say, to those that are already in existence and subsisting,A it is more suitable that something should be received, and we also concede this. However, it is now necessary to say this: that he who receives something from another, receives it as one who does not possess it. If, therefore, the Father has this, that He is life according to essence, but gives it to the Son as to one who does not possess it, clearly, how then will He be similar to Him according to essence, receiving from Him that which He Himself does not have?
Solution of the objection.
The sentiment of the very statement of which we are speaking must be accurately examined, good people, and then we shall see the force of the argument. You will hear from us in turn: If the Son possesses life just as the Father does—that is, in Himself, B by which "essentially" is signified—what will prevent those who possess it in like manner from being of the same substance? For if the Father has life in Himself, and the Son, in turn, has life in Himself, not by way of addition, as you imagine, He will also be equal to the Father according to essence, having life in the same way as He, and not otherwise.
ANOTHER.
If the Son is not life according to nature, how does He speak the truth, saying: “He who believes in Me has eternal life”? And again: “My sheep hear My voice,” and “I give them eternal life”; and again: “He who believes in Me shall never taste death”? For He ought to have said: “He who believes in Me will receive from Me the life which the Father has given me.” And again: “The Father will not allow him who believes in Me to taste death.” But if it is seen that He did not say this, but promises that He will give to those who believe in Him the life which naturally and essentially is in Himself, how can it be understood that the Son, not possessing life, has received it from the Father? For this is more grievous than any blasphemy. But, as has already been said, proceeding from the Father, He brings with Him all things that belong to the Father according to nature, and for this reason, C just as He has received it, so is He understood to be the radiance and image of Him. And one of the things that belong to the Father is life.
ANOTHER.
If the Son of God is not life according to nature, but only a partaker of life, as the enemies of Christ imagine, He is something else according to essence than that which is partaken of by Him. How, therefore, does He come forward into our midst, saying to us: “I am the bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”? For He ought to have spoken like this, if He were not life Himself according to nature: “In Me is the bread that came down from heaven,” and, “If anyone eats of the bread that is in Me, he will live forever.” But when He says, “I am,” He designates Himself, and not one of those things which are D added to Him or are present in Him. If, therefore, He
is the bread which immortalizes those who partake of it, He does not possess the power to give life from without or as an acquired trait; but being life by nature, He truly promises to give life to those who partake of Him.
A ANOTHER. If the Word of God does not possess life as His nature, but, as you claim, has it as an adventitious quality, how is He able to give life? What would prevent us from saying that angels, who have truly become partakers of life, are also able to give life? But this cannot be the case at all; for only the Son is able to give life, just as the Father is. Therefore, the life-giving power is not adventitious in the Son, but belongs to Him by nature and essentially, just as it does to the Father.
B ANOTHER. When the Son says, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself,” He clearly shows the unchangeable likeness which He has with Him who begat Him. For He possesses life just as the Father does—namely, as something natural and essential. And by adding “He has given,” He signifies the natural and essential procession from Him. For the Father surely did not give it by taking away something of what He Himself possesses and adding it to the Son who did not have it, in the manner of bodily segmentations or intervals, whereby something is transferred from one thing to another, either spatially or by being thought of as divisible. But just as a plant propagates its own natural quality into the fruit that proceeds from it, so the Son is understood to have received from the Father the things that exist in Him, being everything that the Father is, save only for the fact that He is the Father.
C ANOTHER. Objection of the enemies of Christ. If the Son is life by nature, as you argue with more contentiousness than is necessary, how will what Paul says regarding the Father be true: “Who alone has immortality”? For if the Son also has it, then the Father does not have it alone; but if He alone has it, then the Son, clearly, will not have it.
Solution of the objection. Many things are said to belong to the Father alone, even though the Son is not lacking in all of them. For since it is written, “The Father is the only true God,” then the Son is not true [God], but bears a spurious and false name and an adventitious title of God. Yet how is He worshipped by us and by the angels as being God by nature, when the divine law expressly says, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve”? And how shall we observe the commandment, “There shall be no new D God in you”? For if the Father is the only God by nature, and for that very reason He excludes the Son from being so,
then a recent and new one, in a way, beyond Him who was from the beginning and by nature, will be brought in. But this is absurd. Therefore, just because the Father is said to have immortality, it does not mean the Son will be capable of opposites, but as if the paternal property naturally flows into the offspring, He too will be thought to be essentially that which is He who begat Him. A
ANOTHER. Many excellent and, as it were, peculiar things are said to belong to the Father. But if the Son were said to be devoid of these, and Paul says somewhere: “To the immortal, invisible, only wise God,” then by your opinion the Son will be neither immortal, nor invisible, nor wise. But this is very impious even to think. For how will He who is the Author and Giver of incorruption be corruptible? Or how can the nature of God be seen by eyes? Or in what way shall we consider the Son foolish, of whom it is written that He is “the power and wisdom of God”? For it remains to say that the wisdom of God is foolish or devoid of wisdom. The Son, therefore, will nevertheless be naturally the same as the Father, even if some things are predicated of Him alone. For all things that are in the Father naturally and necessarily pass into the Word, who proceeds from Him. B
ANOTHER. If the Father is naturally life, as He truly is, the Son also altogether has this. For He says truly when He says: “All things that the Father has are mine.” C
ANOTHER, the same from the contrary. If the Father is naturally life, but the Son is not so, how does He speak truly when saying: “All things that the Father has are mine”? But the truth cannot lie. Therefore, the Son is clearly life by nature, even as the Father.
ANOTHER way the same. If the Father is naturally life, but the Son not so, but has a life that is accessory and added on, how does He speak truly to the Father, saying: “All mine are thine, and thine are mine”? For either He has naturally that He is life Himself, which belongs to the Father; or, if not this, but those things which are His own are the Father’s, since the Son is not naturally life, then not even the Father will be naturally life: which is absurd. For the Father is naturally life: therefore the Son shall also be this, lest He depart from the likeness with the Father. D
ANOTHER. If the Son is the all-comprehensive and completely undistinguished character of the Father's hypostasis, He will naturally possess also this, that He is life, lest the character of the Father be obliterated and corrupted.
ANOTHER. Christ says somewhere to His own disciples: “He
who has seen me, has seen the Father.” If, therefore, this life is incidental, or by participation, and not essential, the same will be true of the Father. Shrinking from the absurdity of this argument, you will be forced to acknowledge the contrary; for the Son is life by nature. B
ANOTHER. If the Son is said to manifest the essence of the Father with absolute likeness, and yet is not life by nature, but receives this as an addition, the Father will also be regarded as such. But this absurdity necessarily introduces the opposite conclusion, which is indeed the truth.
ANOTHER. No one in his right mind would say that things of different genus and nature have the same operation. For fire and water would not produce the same effect; but as they have a different principle of essence or quality, so will they produce a different operation. If, therefore, the Father is life by nature, but the Son is not this by essence, as the enemies of Christ think, how will He possess the same operation as the Father? For Christ says somewhere: “Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He will.” C For they will surely not say that those who receive this from the Father are quickened in one way, while those who receive it from the Son are quickened in another. For He said that the Father gives life in the same way that the Son gives life, defining Himself as possessing in all things the same operation as the Father. Therefore, He will not be unlike Him who begat Him; but just as that One is called and is life by nature, so too is the Son.
ANOTHER. If we give credence to the words of John, we shall grant that the Father performs all things through the Son. If this be true, and one of the works of the Father is to quicken certain ones, then the Son, through whom He quickens all things, must certainly be life by nature, so that a spurious mediator is not introduced, who would show that that which is quickened in relation to Him is devoid of participation in God. D
ANOTHER. If the Son is the mediator between God and man, as if bringing together the extremes into a natural unity, it is necessary to say that—just as He was joined to men naturally when He became man—so too is He attached to the divine nature, being God by nature. If this is true, since the Father possesses the fact that He is life essentially and not from without, then He who is joined to Him and is naturally from Him, the Son, will also be such.
A ANOTHER. Everywhere the divine Scriptures call the Son Truth, and He Himself says this concerning Himself: "I am," He says, "the truth." If, therefore, the fact of life in Him were feigned, and not essential and true, how would He not be a liar in saying that He is the truth? But He is not a liar; for it is impious even to think this: rather, He is the truth. Therefore, it is true that He is life.
ANOTHER. If the knowledge of the Father gives life to those who possess it, and the knowledge of the Son likewise gives life, how will He who so excels in the properties of the Father as if He were the Father Himself not be naturally the same?
ANOTHER, by reduction to the absurd. "As the Father," says the Scripture, "has life in Himself, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself." Here, those who are unwilling to think rightly fall into the extreme danger of blasphemy. For if the Father is said to have life in Himself, it is a different thing from the life that is in Him. But if this is seen to introduce a certain duality and composition B in Him, how then is God simple and not composite according to essence? But this is absurd. Therefore, the life which the Father has in Himself is not some other and different thing from the Son; and in turn, the life which is in the Son is not different from the Father, and He speaks truly saying: "I in the Father and the Father in Me."
ANOTHER. Calling the properties that belong to God and the Father natural and essential, Paul says somewhere: "Who alone has immortality." If, however, anyone in saying "immortality" understands nothing other than life, and the Son is life, saying, "I am the life," then the Father has life in Himself, namely the Son, and not something different from Him. And He Himself, likewise being life, gave Himself to the Son; not as if committing body to body, nor as if yielding His own hypostasis to the Son and henceforth having His being in the Son; but being that which He always is, C Father and God. But by the identity of essence and the unity of nature, He is ineffably coupled to the Word who proceeded from Him.
ANOTHER. Whatever is said to belong to the Father naturally and essentially, all that is the Son. The Father is said to be the only true God, because He alone has the Son who says: "I am the truth." He is likewise wise and powerful, because Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. He is said to dwell alone in light unapproachable; for He has in Himself Him who says: "I am the light." He is said to have immortality alone; for He has in Himself the Son who says: "I am the life." If, therefore, whatever is proper to the Father, this same thing is the Son, whenever it is said D
The Father having life in himself signifies the Son, and not something other than Himself. Existing also Himself in the Son according to the sameness of essence, and being life by nature, He has given Himself to Him. D
ALIUD. The Son, existing as life by nature, says that He receives this from the Father, not in so far as He is the Word or the radiance naturally possessing the things proper to the Father, but in so far as He has become man, to whom all things are God-given. He will make this clear in what follows, explaining the cause of why it was given. For, He says, "He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man" (John 5:22). But if, because He is the Son of man, He is said to have received the authority to judge, we, turning the same argument back upon them, shall say: Because He has become the Son of man, wearing the likeness of those who are formed by nature to receive all things from God, He is also said to have received life, while indeed preserving for the sole and naked divine nature that which is incapable of any participation and which is able to grant all things to all. A
ASSERTION XV
On that which is said in the book of Proverbs, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works" (Prov. 8:22). That the word "created" is not concerning the essence of the Word; and that the Son is not a creature or a work. The leaders of the madness of Arius, coloring their own impiety with persuasive, as they think, words, say: The Son is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; He is a work, but not as one of the works; He is an offspring, but not as one of the offspring. CVarious refutations of this operation follow. If the Son is a work, how will He not be one of the works? And if He is a creature at all, how will He not be one of the creatures? For this is a most ridiculous thing to think. For if the Son is not numbered among creatures or works at all, surely He would be neither a creature nor a work. But if He was created and made according to you, how would He not necessarily be one of the things that have been made? D
ALIUD. They say that the Son is a work, but not as one of the works. And they think that by these means they are offering some exceptional honor to Him, seeing that they confess Him to be indeed a work, yet not as something one of the works. But there is nothing exceptional in this; but He will appear as one thing among other created things. For as long as it holds true concerning Him that He has been made, and He is believed to be a creature, He will differ in no way from the others in this respect, even if He should excel in regard to nature or in some other way. For so it is to be seen how those things which have been created by God are related, if one looks at them...
A and compares them with one another. One will find that those things often excel others by certain excellences and differ in their natures, so that anyone might say of each of them: It is a creature, but not as one of the creatures. For example, the sun is a work, but not one of the works; for there is no other sun. By similar reasoning, the moon, the heaven, the stars, the earth: for all these are works, and each of them is not merely one of the works. For creatures have only this in common, that they have been made. But each one has obtained its own particular form, species, and nature. Therefore, there is nothing more in the Son if He be said to have been made; even if He should exist as something else great and excellent beyond the remaining creatures; for the sun, too, would not cease to be a work because of its excellence, by which it far surpasses the remaining stars. The same reason holds also for those rational powers which are in heaven, to all of which it is common that they have been made. But the reason for what each of them is, is different. B
ANOTHER
If the Son, according to your opinion, is a creature, and, being such, has the power of creating because He is not as one of the remaining creatures: why do the other creatures also not have the power of creating, since the nature in them is varied and diverse, and each of them is a creature, yet not as one of the others? For there is one heaven, one sun, one moon, the nature of the stars is one, and the earth is one; one human being, insofar as substance is concerned; and these have nothing in common with one another by reason of nature, even if it is common to all that they have been made. Nevertheless, nothing of the creator is perceived in the creatures, but rather they worship the creator, the Word of God, and extol the glory of the Maker. For "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands" (Ps. XVIII, 2). And as Esdras says: "All the earth calleth upon truth, and the heaven itself worshippeth it, and all C creatures shake and tremble before it" (III Esdr. IV, 36). But the Son says of Himself: "I am the truth" (John XIV, 6). Therefore, He is not a work, nor a creature having the power of creating on this account, because He is not as one of the creatures, but because, being the proper offspring of the essence of the Father, showing the whole Father in Himself, He also has the power of creating as the Father does. D
ANOTHER
If the Son is a creature and is worshipped by the remaining creatures because He exists as something different from them, and He is not as one of the creatures, it would follow that they also ought to be worshipped by one another, because they are endowed with natures that are diverse among themselves. For there is a great difference among creatures, and each one has its own peculiar nature or quality, and it is not entirely the same thing as another. Yet none of them is worshipped; rather, all worship the creator, the Word of God. Therefore the Son is not one of the creatures, nor a creature, as you imagine. For how could it be that He who is worshipped, is in the number
of those who worship, or He who is glorified, of those who glorify? For the difference and distinction between these is great, clearly defining what is proper to each.
ANOTHER.
A If the Son is a creature, and the Father works all things through Him, then He is the maker and creator of Himself: but this is most absurd even to think of. For how could that which, according to you, does not yet exist, create itself? Therefore He is not a creature, nor a work, but rather a fruit of the Father’s essence, having, as God, the power to create and to make.ANOTHER.
If the Son is a creature, how will the ability to create and to bring what does not exist into being reside in Him? For if it is at all possible for a generated nature to bring something from non-being into being, then other creatures will also be creators in potentiality, even if this is not yet seen in act; just as, indeed, a child of tender age is a parent in potentiality, as he is male, though not yet in act. But that which naturally possesses something cannot be said not to have it, even if it does not yet appear, its natural operation being still hidden for some reason or B because of time. Therefore, other creatures would also be creators, and there would be nothing excellent in God. But this is absurd. For none of the creatures creates. Therefore, the Son, through whom all things were made, is not a creature, lest the same being appear to be making and made, creating and being created; but rather He is God, as being from God and the Father.ANOTHER, with the connection of another syllogism.
If the Son is a creature, how does He alone reveal the Father, when other creatures cannot do this? And how does the Son alone know the Father, when other creatures do not know who He is? "For no one," He says, "knows who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." How then, when no one has ever seen God, as the evangelist says, does the Son alone see Him? For is it not written, "No one has seen the Father, except He who is from the Father?" Therefore, if the Son alone sees and knows the Father, and reveals Him, He is not then a creature, but His own Word, who is naturally Himself. He knows this to exist, knowing the Father from whom He blossomed, and displaying Him in Himself, even though other creatures cannot do this. For the likeness of the Creator is not preserved in the works, nor C is the Unbegotten preserved in those generated, nor D will He who exists always and in the same way be seen in those things that have been brought into existence from non-being. But He is seen in the Son; for He is His exact image. He is therefore similar to the Father in essence, not an item of work or a creature. Since the Father, whose image He bears, is none of these things.Demonstration by observations from Holy Scripture that no creature is to be worshipped as God, and that those who are worshipped do not endure to be worshipped or glorified.
A Blessed Peter restrains and wards off from himself Cornelius, who was worshipping him, saying, "Do not do it, for I myself also am a man." The angel, too, in the Apocalypse rebukes John, who was worshipping him, saying, "See that you do not do it; I am a fellow-servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book." An angel also forbade Manoah, the father of Samson, when he was offering sacrifice, saying, "If you sacrifice a kid, you shall sacrifice it to the Lord." But concerning the Son it is written, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." In Isaiah it is written, "In you they shall worship, and in you they shall make supplication. For you are God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel, the Savior." B It may be that this utterance was that of those who were called from the nations, who thereafter knew God. But if, in knowing the Son, they knew God and worship Him as God, He is therefore not a creature, lest, against their will, the nations should appear to worship a creature instead of the Creator.
ANOTHER.
Christ says to His disciples, "You call me Lord and Master, and you speak rightly, for I am." Then Thomas says to Him, "My Lord and my God," C and yet He did not forbid the disciple from saying this, as the angels did to the saints. The Psalmist also says, "Your throne, O God, is for the age and beyond the age." If He Himself were also a creature, He would not have been worshipped, nor would He have been called Lord, nor would He have endured anyone saying to Him, "You are my God." But since these things are His by nature, as He possesses the things of the Father as the Son and true offspring of Him, He also accepts those who speak such things of Him, as confessing the truth.
ANOTHER.
D An objection from the dogmas of Arius, containing the reason for which the Son was made, as they believe it to be true, and a refutation of it following, with persuasive syllogisms.
"Since," they say, "God of all wished to establish the nature of created things, because it was not able to contain His immense power and virtue, He first created the Son, whom He also named the Word, so that through Him, as through a medium, the remaining creatures might be rendered capable of such great virtue. For otherwise it was absurd for the ineffable virtue of God to reach down to such minor things and to labor over such insignificant matters."
Solution of the objection.
If the nature of creatures cannot contain and bear the virtue and power of God, by what means did the Son bear it, when He is also Himself created and made from nothing, as you suppose? Or by what means did He sustain that immense operation of the Father, being, as you say, a crea-
-Ature? But if the Son, according to you, is a creature, and yet sustained the Father’s operation, then other creatures will also sustain it, and the Son’s generation or making will henceforth appear superfluous, since other things could be created [without Him]. Moreover, this will put an end to that insulting sophism which concedes a certain superiority to the Son among created things; for in whatever they intended to honor Him, they will rather be caught being insulting. For whatever is entirely enumerated among created things must necessarily be of a generated nature, even if it appears to excel the rest by immeasurable degrees of superiority.
But if they say it is absurd for the ineffable power of God to reach even unto the most insignificant things, let them be put to shame by hearing Christ say: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin, and not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father who is in heaven?” And again: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, and your heavenly Father feeds them.” And again: “If B God so clothes the grass of the field, which exists today and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will He clothe you?” But what could be more contemptible than grass and sparrows, for which God nonetheless provides out of His goodness? And how could He then not deign to be the creator of those for whose providence He does not refuse to care? But these men, in their ignorance, impute pride to God, saying that He disdains to be the creator of minor things. If, therefore, He is the creator of all, and out of His benignity even permeates to the smallest things, and makes all things capable of Himself, the proposal of the heretics—who say that the Son was produced on account of minor creatures—is empty.
On the text, “The Lord created me,” showing that the Son is not a creature.
If, according to you, O enemies of God, there was need of a mediator because the nature of generated things could not contain the unmixed operation of God C and the Father, and for that reason the Father created the Son, how did the Son, being a generated thing according to you, contain the power of the Father? For it would be necessary to also give him a mediator. But that one, if he exists as a generated thing, would again stand in need of a mediator, and thus the argument would proceed into an infinite crowd of mediators. Your sophism is therefore futile, overturning the entire creation at once. For if a mediator is not found, or rather, not sought, generated things would not have subsisted.
Another.
When the orthodox say: “If the Son is a creature, how is it natural for Him to be a creator? For this is surely not a property of creatures,” the heretics object the following, to which the solutions are subjoined.
Objection of the heretics.
The Son, they say, is a creature and is one of those things that were made; but he learned the faculty of creating from a master D or craftsman, and ministered to God, who taught him, in His works.
A Further Solution. If everything that seems to be an accident in anyone, and not inherent in his nature, but acquired in some way, is also capable of being lost, then, the nature of an accident being such as it is, the Son’s being a Creator would also someday vanish. And He would be deprived of His dignity, losing what He had learned. For he who has once learned what he did not know, can also suffer the affliction of forgetting it.
ANOTHER. To bring creatures from non-existence into existence is not the work of art, but of creative power. For art transforms existing things into something else, but creative power calls things that do not exist into being. B If, therefore, the Son can be a Creator through art and learning, let them see what they would say concerning the Father, if someone were to say these same things about Him. But you will say that the Father is such by nature, but the Son is taught. It is possible, therefore, for anyone through learning to acquire the natural operation of God, and having learned to create, to become by nature what He is. There will be, then, no difference between God and creatures, except for a disparity of knowledge; but we would not differ from Him by nature, but would only be inferior to Him in knowledge. Once this was added to us, we would all be gods by nature. How, then, is there one God, if it lies solely in learning to become gods? But if there is a great absurdity in these arguments, the Son is naturally a Creator, and not through learning, as you suppose.
ANOTHER. Wisdom is one thing, and the wise man is another; for wisdom is the very thing that makes one wise, while the wise man is he who receives the thing that makes him wise. If, therefore, the Son says that He is wisdom Himself, how did He become wise? For if He were in any need of learning, He was not wisdom. And if wisdom is accidental in Him, He will be able at some point not to be such, since that which is accidental can also not be. C What then was He before this? For He was not wisdom, being in need of wisdom. But the Son was always wisdom. For this is what the divine Scriptures proclaim about Him. It is false, therefore, and ignorant to say that anything came to be in Him through learning.
ANOTHER. If the faculty of creating came to the Son through learning, and thus the Son became a Creator, they load the Father with the vice of envy, if, being able to teach many, He taught only one. For what harm would it have done for there to be many creators around Him, just as He has many archangels and angels? But now the Son alone works what the Father does; therefore, the faculty of creating is naturally inherent in Him, not acquired by learning, lest the Father be thought to have laboured under envy: D inasmuch as He did not teach, but begot from Himself the one Creator, through whom He works all things.
A ANOTHER, as it seems, probable argument. If, as you opine, the Father created the Son that He might be seen as the fashioner of created nature, it is altogether necessary that He should have ceased once the Son was created. How then does He work even after the Son? For the Saviour Himself says somewhere: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." If, then, He works even after the Son, the Son would be, according to you, superfluous. But this is absurd both to think and to say. The Son, therefore, was not brought into being that He might become a creator of other things, but, proceeding from the ineffable essence of the Father as Son, He works all things that are the Father’s with the Father, existing naturally as that which He is—being, clearly, God, and therefore the Creator.
B ANOTHER. If, as Divine Scripture testifies, no one has resisted the Divine will, and this alone suffices for the constitution of all things (for as soon as He willed something, it was immediately brought to pass, according to the word of the Psalmist: "He hath done all things whatsoever He would"), what need was there of a mediator? The Son, therefore, was made to no purpose. But this is of all things the most absurd to say. He is, therefore, the substantial and living will of the Father, through whom He brings all things into being. How, then, was this will itself created? Or how was it not in existence, as your argument would have it?
C ANOTHER, and a sharp one. If they say that the Son was created in order that God might create us through Him, let them realize into what impiety their argument falls. For it appears that He was made on our account, and not we on His; and that we are the work, while He is the instrument of the work. Let Him, therefore, be grateful to us, as it were, for having been constituted for our sake. And He shall be our glory, just as the woman is the glory of the man. "For the woman," he says, "is the glory of the man," and he adds the reason, saying: "For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man." If, therefore, the Son was made for our sake, and not we for His sake, we shall certainly be more excellent than He, just as Adam was more excellent than the woman who was made for his sake. But this is absurd; the Son, therefore, is not a creature, nor was He made for our sake; but being God by nature, as the Father is, He likewise by His own power brought us into existence.
D ANOTHER, and a sharp one. If the Son was made for our sake, as they say, He is not even the first among us before God; for the Father did not, with Him in mind, afterward create us through Him, but, having thought about us, He created Him for our sake.
ANOTHER. If the Father created the Son for our sake, He did not do this entirely out of choice, but as if by necessity on account of
A our cause; and perhaps the Father did not even wish to create the Son, but only with difficulty did need lead Him on to the act of willing, and thus, according to them, He became God under necessity. Flee from the absurdity of this argument.
ANOTHER. If the Father created the Son for our sake, and the work for which He was created has already been accomplished and completed, then the Son is henceforth superfluous, being simply an instrument for that work which is now finished, for whose sake He had been created.
Other probable theorems. If the Father created the Son for our sake, He deliberated about us first. But if the design concerning us first occupied the Father, why is He created before us, who was the last in counsel and deliberation? Or why, when He created Him first, did He not also deliberate about Him first? And why, when He had us first in thought, does He call Him Son and heir, while calling us servants and the inheritance of Him who was made for our sake? For it was fitting, on the contrary, that we should be sons and heirs, and that the instrument of our making, which was also made for our sake, should be a servant and inferior to us. Let such an absurd line of reasoning vanish!
B An exposition of the correct opinion and faith. The Son was by no means made for our sake, nor, indeed, was He made at all. For even if the Father had not wished to produce creatures, the Word was in Him, and the Word was God, as it is written. Yet it was altogether necessary that the things which were to be created should come into being through Him. For just as light could not illuminate in any other way than through its own radiance, so the Father would not accomplish any of the things that exist except through His own Word. "For all things," it says, "were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made." For this reason He is also called the "right hand" and "arm" of God. For He performs all things through Him as if by an hand.
C A certain observation from the holy Scripture, beautiful and useful. God said, the Scripture says: Let there be light, let there be a firmament, let there be luminaries; and it was so. He said: Let us make man; and God made man. But in all these instances one nowhere sees the Son addressing the Father, as if wishing to learn what manner of things those to be created ought to be; rather, the voice itself becomes the work. But if works come into being by the Word according to the will of the Father, the Word is therefore the living and substantial will of the Father, being Himself in the Father and holding Him in Himself.
D Another observation, from which we learn that it is the custom for angels and holy prophets, when commanded by God, to sometimes put forward questions, being ignorant of what has been commanded. But the Word of God is not found to act in such a way. God promised a son to Abraham, and he himself asked:
"By what shall I know this?" A Moses was sent and says: "If they ask me, What is his name? what shall I say to them?" And the angel in Zechariah also inquired of God, saying: "O Lord Almighty, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?" And he waits until he hears good and comforting words. And Habakkuk also says: "I will stand upon my watch, and will ascend upon the rock, and will watch to see what God will speak in me." For all these, as servants and creatures, needing the mediation of the Word, asked to be taught the counsel of the Father by Him. But the Son does not seek to learn, being the Word of the Father and His inherent will. Therefore, He does not possess His being as Creator through learning, but essentially and naturally.
B Further regarding this: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." That the Son is not a creature, but coeternal with the Father. How one must understand "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways," we shall learn from the things that follow.
First, it must be said that things spoken proverbially seem to signify something according to the obvious sense, but they do not have the meaning as they are spoken; rather, they contain a different sense. For instance, the Savior said to His own disciples: "These things I have spoken to you in proverbs, but the hour comes when I will no longer speak to you in proverbs, but plainly," C as if the proverb did not contain plainness. Therefore, "He created me," the Wisdom speaking more clearly, puts forward again such a statement: "Wisdom has built herself a house." If, then, Wisdom is the Word of God, and He builds a house for Himself, where will "He created me" fit in? This must be reasonably sought. It is, therefore, Christ who says this, as one already born and having become man; regarding whom, as man, the saying "He created me" may be said without blasphemy. But the house of Wisdom, constructed by Him, became this common body born of the holy Virgin, in which the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell bodily, according to the voice of Paul. Therefore, since the Word became flesh, the divine Scripture applies to Him the "He created me," insofar as He has become flesh; D and thus the statement must be understood.
ANOTHER, That this, "He created me," merely existing, does not signify cause in a general sense, but a change from some constitution or thing into something else. Let it be, if you like, that "He created me" is said indefinitely of Christ.
"The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." If any one wishes to understand the written text exactly, he will find that "created" here does not signify the essence of the Word as something made, but indicates another certain proper sense. For things that already exist are said to be created, as well as those not yet come to be. But how that which already exists can be said to be created, and to take on another beginning, it is fitting to see. For if "created" be applied to those things which are not yet made, it may reasonably be said that they have come into being after not yet being.
A But for things that already exist, and which have need of being "created" in terms of their state of being, it no longer signifies their essence, but a translation from one state to another. As David says: "And the people who shall be created shall praise the Lord." And again: "Create a clean heart in me, O God." And Paul also says somewhere regarding Christ: "Having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create in himself two into one new man." And again: "Put on the new man, which is created after God in righteousness and true holiness." B Certainly, David did not signify some people being created according to essence, but [those] translated from error to the knowledge of God. Nor does he ask that his heart be created into something other than what it had, but he asked that it be transformed into purity. But the most wise Paul does not say that two men are being recreated into a natural unity through Christ, so that they might receive a principle of existence; rather, he says that the people from Israel and those from the nations are being transformed into a newness of mind; the former having forgotten the legal worship, and the latter the error to which they were accustomed. And again, he commands us all to put on the new man, who is created according to God. And it is manifest that he does not signify some man who has been made according to essence, whom one ought to put on, but [rather] a life according to the norm of virtue, and the renewal of the will. If, therefore, "to be created" does not always signify essence, what reason is there—or rather, how would it not be foolish—to rightly accept what is written concerning those who are truly creatures, but to interpret this wrongly concerning the Word of God, C in whom it is especially necessary to observe this? For "The Lord," he says, "created me," and he does not fix the force of the statement at this word "created," but he adds: "the beginning of his ways for his works he created," and not "bringing into being," but "he created the beginning of his ways for his works." You will understand it thus: the legal manner of life was honored among the Jews, but among the Gentiles the life according to righteousness was not known at all. Therefore, the Word of God became—that is, was created—flesh, meaning man, so that he might be found by all as the beginning of the ways and works of the Lord. For the evangelical life shone forth in the first Christ. D And as for the ways and works of the Lord, what else ought we to think them to be than his commandments? By keeping and practicing these, we proceed to him as if by many and various paths. But that "works" signify an excellent and upright life, and the commandments of God, hear what the divine Scripture says: "Cursed are those who do the works of the Lord negligently." And the blessed David, calling the commandments of God "ways," thus exclaims: "Make thy ways known to me, O Lord, and teach me thy paths." Alternatively, the same: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." This word, "created," does not relate to the essence of the
A Word. It would indeed be truly blasphemous and impious to say that He who is always and in the same manner with the Father has now been created. But you will understand it more persuasively in this way: "He created me," he says, "the beginning of his ways." Here he calls the lawgiver Moses and the prophets "ways," over whom Christ is set as a kind of beginning, authority, and power, transferring what was said by them to the novelty of the evangelical preaching, and doing so with absolute authority. For the Law says: "You shall not commit adultery," 17 but Christ says: "But I say to you: You shall not covet." 18 He called the saints "ways" because they are able, through their admonitions, to lead [men] to God. Thus you will understand that which is set down in Jeremiah: "Stand on the ways, and ask for the eternal paths of the Lord, and learn which is the good way, and walk in it, and you shall find purification for your souls." 19 And it is manifest that he does not speak concerning these ways as they are understood in the common sense. For how could anyone ask them questions? Or how could he learn from them? But if one directs his reasoning toward the saints, he will find the usefulness of the sense. For if one applies B his mind to the holy prophets as though to certain ways—not passing over them lightly, but accurately drawing out the meaning of what is written in them—he will learn the good way, that is, Christ, who says: "I am the way." 20 Through Him he will be purified, obtaining the forgiveness of sins. "He created me," therefore, he says, that is, He has established upon the law and the prophets a beginning, or authority, not entirely establishing their typical sayings, but transferring the law to His own better works. But that the word "created" does not entirely signify the essence has been said sufficiently before.
Idem aliter.
"The Lord created me," is the same as if He were saying: "The Father prepared a body for me, and as it were created me as a man for the salvation of men." Just as when John says, "The Word was made flesh," 21 and Paul writes concerning Christ, "That he has become a curse for us," 22 and again, "Him who knew no sin, he made sin for us," 23 we do not believe that the Word was changed into flesh, nor indeed do we say that Christ C truly became a curse or sin, but since the holy Scripture speaks in this way, we understand it piously; by the same reasoning, if the Word of God says concerning Himself, "He created me," it must be understood as "He made me man," and we must not interpret what is said according to His essence.
ANOTHER, that the Word of God is not a creature.
If the Word of God is the offspring of the Father, and is so called by the divine Scripture, how can He also be a creature? It is necessary that He be one of these two things. For either, D since He is begotten of the Father, it is not possible that He be a creature...
for no one ever calls his own production a birth or a son. But since He is a birth, He will be understood as the Son and not a creation.
ANOTHER, on the same theme.
The holy Scriptures call the Word of God the Only-begotten. If this is so, how could He be thought of as created in His essence as a beginning of others, whom the author of Proverbs calls "ways"? For if He is altogether numbered with others and is a beginning of some, He would be a part of the whole body, and He would not be the Only-begotten, having many who follow after, of whom he says He was created as a beginning. For even if He was created first of others, He will not on that account be alone. For a beginning of something, even if it precedes in time those things that are after it, will nevertheless be one of their number and even of the same kind. Ruben, for instance, became the beginning of the children of Jacob, but he is not on that account the only-begotten, nor is he alien in substance from those who were after him. B If, therefore, the Word was created as a beginning of some things, He would neither be the Only-begotten, nor again, according to the principle of nature, would He be alienated from those of whom He is the beginning, and thus He would be numbered with the creatures. And the Father would be a liar by calling Him His Son; and the blessed John would also be a liar, saying: "In the beginning was the Word." For how was He, if He was made? And how was the Word God, if He is created? And how would He be Lord, who together with others has been made a servant, and is a part of the whole creation? C But this is absurd; therefore, "He created" will not be referred to His essence.
ANOTHER.
If, according to you, the Son was created in His essence, existing as the beginning of the rest, as it is written, how does He have the ability to create, or how did He become the maker of others? For it is necessary that that which is an existing beginning of something be of the same substance as the whole of which it is the beginning. If, therefore, being a creature, the Son has a creative power, the other creatures will have this as well, even if they have been made through the Son, and they will be endowed with a creative nature. Nothing, therefore, will be greater in God than is in the creatures. If, however, He is not the beginning of other D creatures as a creature Himself, the Son is therefore also the Only-begotten.
ANOTHER, by reduction to absurdity.
"The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works." If someone wishes to examine what is said more contentiously, they will crookedly say: If He was created first and became a beginning, as you suppose, how is He created "for works"? For He did not say: The Lord created me that I might make His works, but "for His works." For it is as if the works were already constituted, and He says He was created for them. But if this is so, how is He still the first, being made second after them? Or how would He be the beginning of others, who was made after them? How is everything through
Him made, if He Himself was made after them? If, then, it is wicked to think this, the word "he created" is not to be interpreted in relation to the essence of the Word of God, but is to be explained by us piously, and referred to the account of the incarnation. A
ANOTHER.
From the objection of the heretics. They say that He calls the Father "Lord," surely being conscious of His own created nature. For all created things are slaves of the God who created them.Solution of the objection.
But just as He calls Him Lord, so too does He call Him Father. And if for this reason He acknowledges Himself to be a slave, He knows also for this reason that He is the Son. But if He is the Son, He would not rightly be called a creature of the Begetter, but is confessed to have come forth from His essence. B Therefore, He is indeed Son by nature; but when, for our sakes, having put on the form of a slave, He became man, then He also calls the Father "Lord." For just as, being Son by nature, He speaks truthfully in calling God Father, so too, when He did not refuse to take on the form of a slave, He fittingly and rightly calls the Father "Lord." And He Himself knows this distinction, saying: "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." Behold, He declares God to be His Father, but Lord of those in heaven and those on earth. But if He Himself were also a created thing like those, He would by no means have reserved for Himself the rank of Son as a sort of singular inheritance, subjecting C all other things to the yoke of slavery. For when He says, "Lord of heaven and earth," He left nothing free, except only Himself, as one who, being Son, calls God Father.ANOTHER.
From the objection of the same. They say that He calls his Father "Lord." But if He were Son by nature, He would not have said "Lord."Solution of the objection.
How then do we, though being slaves by nature (for we are men), call God Father? For if because He calls Him Lord, the Son will not be, as you suppose, begotten of the Father, then we too will not be creatures by nature, D calling the Creator Father. But if grace, which permits us to call the Master Father, does not place us outside the state of being created, neither will the Son fall away from being Son by nature by calling the One who begat Him "Lord," because of the need and what is fitting for the economy regarding us. For the Word of God came among us so that, having taken up into Himself the things of humanity, He might bestow His own things upon our nature. And He shows this by saying: "I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." For He gives to human nature what is His own, permitting it to call God Father. And He Himself takes up the things of humanity, calling the Father His God. But neitherdo we deny our natural servitude when we call God Father, nor does the Son lose His natural dignity, in making Himself like unto us. A
ANOTHER
"The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works." B Yet the Son shall not on this account be considered of a created nature, nor shall He be thought a creature according to His essence; for He does not say that He was created simply, but "for His works" and "as the beginning of His ways." Since, therefore, the cause is set forth for which He says He was created, it would be manifest that He does not signify the very movement or production from non-being to being, but rather a translation from one state to another. For the Word was in the beginning, and having become flesh, according to the voice of John, He became the beginning of every good way for us. Thus, the Word, existing always, declares that He was created for the works of the Father in the sense that He has become man.
Observations from Holy Scripture, that when the Son signifies His generation from the Father, or someone else among the holy ones says this of Him, it adds no cause. For He does not exist or was begotten of the Father for the sake of something. But when the Holy Scriptures wish to signify His likeness to us and His birth through the Virgin, they immediately subjoin the cause, so that we may learn for what need the Word of God, existing always, became man, not then receiving C the beginning of being, but in respect to the form of a servant, as far as the outward appearance is concerned, He was transformed, and in this respect is understood to have been made and created.
"In the beginning was the Word"—it has no cause. "And the Word was with God"—it has no cause. "And the Word was God"—it has no cause. "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." "I and the Father are one." "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." "I am the light." "I am the truth." Being the brightness and the express image of His substance, all these things signify the essence of the Son, but they do not add the cause for which these things are. But when Scripture speaks of the incarnation, it recounts the causes together. The Savior Himself therefore says, "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me." And again, "I am the light, I have come into this world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." And again, "For this I was born, and for this I have come into this world, that I might bear witness to the truth." But the blessed Paul, explaining most manifestly the cause of His arrival among us, sends word, "Since therefore children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same." And again, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead." And again, "For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God"
A sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." And again: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him." And again, the Savior says concerning himself: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." Since, therefore, he became man in order to fulfill these works, and to become the beginning of such ways, he would justly say concerning himself: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." For he was not created so as to be brought into being, but since he always is and subsists, he was created flesh for the causes already mentioned.
Another on the same: "The Lord created me," that the Son is not a creature.
Paul says somewhere concerning our Savior Christ: "For he himself is our peace, who has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity in his flesh, abolishing the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create in himself the two into one new man." If, therefore, Christ creates two in himself, and reshapes them into one new man—that is, into a life according to virtue—for we are those created in him, inasmuch B as he assumed our likeness, and in him we have first obtained the beginnings of a manner of life that is acceptable to God, being recreated into a better life—he may justly say, even now, as being created for our sake into the one man: "The Lord created me."
Another.
It is written somewhere concerning our Savior Christ: "That he himself takes away our infirmities." And again: "He became a curse for us." And again: "Him who did not know sin, he made to be sin for us." As, therefore, he is said to have been infirm, although he never suffered any infirmity (for he is the power of God), because he bore our infirmities; and the divine Scripture says he became a curse, not signifying that he himself was changed into a curse, but that he bore the curse for us; and again, he is said to have become sin, not being forgetful of his own nature, nor having been moved into sin—he who does not know it—but because he bore our sins, as it is written, in his body upon the tree: so too, when we are created in him into one new man, he is also said to be created. And for this reason he says: "The Lord created me," not being a creature himself, but the true offspring of the Father's essence.
Another.
If, according to you, the Word of God is in himself a created nature, and says of himself: "The Lord created me," then the Word did not become man for our sake C who
A lived long before us. But if anyone were to grant this to hold, that neither were we created in him, nor did he himself have us in himself, how then are we created into one new man in Christ? For Paul will put you to shame, even if you do not desire it, saying: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." If we were created in Christ, then the Word of God is not of a created essence. But when he became man, we are created in him, and he himself is, in a certain way, the one saying through us: "The Lord created me." For insofar as he is the Word, such B an expression by no means befits him; but for the sake of our salvation, although being Creator, he became flesh, that having us created in himself, he might say: "The Lord created me." And just as, declaring his eternal existence with the Father, he says: "I was that in which he rejoiced, and daily I was glad in his presence"; and again: "Before all the hills he begat me"; so when, for the sake of the salvation of us all, he assumed the form of a human being, he rightly, as a man, says: "The Lord created me."
Another.
If Christ is believed to have truly become man, how is it not necessary that he should also speak C things fitting for a man? For it was necessary for him to say: I was not man in the beginning—which befits the divine nature alone—but to observe what is appropriate for the nature of created things. But the man is a created thing; therefore he says: "The Lord created me," because he became man, so that "always existing without beginning" might be preserved for God alone.
Another.
"The Lord created me the beginning of his ways." If, on account of this utterance, you suppose the essence of the Son to be entirely created, when you hear him immediately after saying: "Before all the hills he begat me," let the accusation of his being a creature flee away, since he declares that he has been begotten. For a begotten thing is one thing, D and a creature is another. For the one proceeds naturally from the substance of the one who begets; the other is put outside, as something foreign. If, therefore, the Word, being God, became man, let him speak as a man: "The Lord created me." But let him be understood as signifying his pre-eternal existence by crying out: "Before all the hills he begat me."
Objection of the adversaries.
They say: "Indeed, this word 'begat' does not entirely show the Son to be from the essence of the Father. For Holy Scripture uses words indifferently. For even regarding creatures about which there is no controversy, it uses the word 'begat,' as when it says: 'I have begotten and raised up children.' And again: 'You have forsaken the God who begat you.' And, 'Who is he that begat the drops of dew?'" For surely it is not meant that God is the father of dew.
father naturally, we say that God is [the Father] for this reason. Therefore, to beget and to create will be the same thing, even when applied to the Son.
Solution to the objection.
We will often find the holy Scripture using words indiscriminately and without distinction, not because it does not know the power of each, but because it sometimes adopts them in a catachrestic sense. For regarding works, when it wishes to show that they are of a created nature, it says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and "God created man." He did not beget, but created. But explaining the generation of His own Word, God says: "My heart brought forth a good Word." A And again, the holy Scripture, defining the beginning of existence for creatures, says: "In the beginning He created," but concerning the Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word." Thus, for creatures, time is the beginning, but the Word of God, existing before the ages, has the unoriginate Father alone as His beginning, being eternally in Him.
Just as, therefore, when "He begat" is used regarding those that are truly creatures, it must be understood catachrestically and not naturally, so also when "He created" or "He made" is applied to the One who is truly Begotten, it must be understood catachrestically, while His natural genuineness is preserved for Him. For grace grants to creatures that "He begat" is used of them; but to the unbegotten and uncreated Word of the Father, B the need of human nature grants that He says He was created. And creatures are called to the adoption of sons by the word and will of God. "For I have said," He says, "I did not beget." But the Son, revealing His ineffable and natural generation from the Father, said: "I came forth from the Father and I am come." And again, showing Himself to be other than the nature of generated things, He says: "You are from below; I am from above." For surely no one of sound mind would say that the Word of God glories in heights that are local and measured by spatial intervals; rather, the lowliness of the created substance is signified by "below," C and the height of the divine nature, which transcends all things, is understood by "above." Since, therefore, there is such a difference between "created" and "begotten," the words may be used indiscriminately, when no harm is done to the things signified.
ANOTHER interpretation, more explicitly, on this very point: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways," and onwards: "Before all the hills He begat me."
If He says that He was begotten before all things, He would certainly not be one of all things, but something other than them. For all things have their own beginning within themselves; D for all things would not be, if anything were found remaining outside of them. If, therefore, the Son was begotten before all things, all things will be contained within their own number, while the generation of the Son will be understood as outside of them. But He who cannot be numbered with generated things must be of a different nature from them. He was begotten, therefore, inasmuch as He is the Word, from the Father; but He was created, inasmuch as He is man, and was made the beginning of the ways. Just as, therefore, we, because [we have] the Word of God within ourselves
are called sons of God, while by nature we are creatures, so He too, when He assumes our flesh, is called a creature and a work, although in nature He is the Son. And again, just as God, being our maker, becomes [also] our Father, so also the Father of the Word of God, existing as Father by nature, becomes [also] creator, when for our sakes He is made like unto creatures. If, then, we are sons by nature, He too will be a creature and a work by nature. But if we are called to sonship by appointment and grace, He too is a creature by appointment because of the economy for our sakes, not losing the dignity that is His by nature. A
ANOTHER, a clear teaching as to how one ought piously to understand the saying, "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways."
Adam was made the first man, and a way of salvation was given to him by God. He lost this, having transgressed the divine commandment; he fell into corruption, was carried away into sin, and descended into death. It was necessary, therefore, that a different way be manifested to us, by which we might be able to ascend to that ancient state. Since, however, no man appeared capable of this, of necessity the Word of God Himself, who loves mankind—being uncreated in His nature—is created as man for our sakes, having taken on our flesh by the will of the Father; so that, as Paul says, He might inaugurate for us a new and living way, and satisfy the works of the Father, B renewing the body unto incorruption, destroying the death that had gained empire through sin, condemning sin itself, and performing all other good things that have come to human nature through Him. If, therefore, He became man so that He might also become for us a way of good things, and might fulfill those works which are accomplished by the Father through Him, He would rightly say, "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works." And then, again, signifying His existence before all ages, He says: "Before the age He founded me." But if He is both begotten and created, let what is fitting be attributed to each. For He is begotten as the Word from the Father before the ages, as He says; but C He is created as man, when for our sake He became flesh: thus says the evangelist.
ANOTHER.
The Psalmist says somewhere concerning the Word of God: "Who is before the ages." If, therefore, the Son exists before the ages, but says that He is created for the works of the Father, it is absolutely necessary to understand Him as being created when the works were already established. For after the creatures had been brought into being, in the final times He became man; D at which time He says, quite fittingly and opportunely, "He created me." How then could He be their creator, if He was created after them? But if the Word is before the works
A of God, and is created unto them, then the word "He created" could not be indicative of His essence; rather, it would quite reasonably signify the Incarnation, when He became flesh for the restoration of the works of the Father. And for this reason He says: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works."
ANOTHER, by way of summary.
He says that He was created as the beginning of ways. And what those are, you will learn from what follows. First, enumerating the virtues which He, having practiced first, taught us also: "Be," He says, "merciful," and, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. From him who takes away your goods, do not demand them back." The Law, He says, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you: "You shall not covet," B and whatever else is contained in the evangelical proclamations. For these things began in the first Christ, and run on successively to us. Therefore He says: "I am the door, I am the way." Having thus become the beginning for us of such works, when for this purpose He took on our flesh and became man, He might reasonably say: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works." And you shall apply this same reasoning also to the resurrection from the dead, and the change of the flesh into incorruption, and the ascent into the heavens. For of these, too, He has become the beginning for us, and on their account He is created.
ANOTHER.
Christ died for us and on our behalf. Just as, therefore, C when the body has died, He Himself is said to have suffered this, although He is immortal by nature, so too, regarding the created body, He says that He Himself is created, although He is uncreated in essence. For since the flesh is His and not another's, the things that happen to it become His own.
ANOTHER.
Man is the most beautiful and excellent work of those upon the earth; and he, having been made perfect, was found imperfect because of the transgression, having fallen from immortality into death, and from incorruption into corruption. Since, therefore, it appeared as one of the most absurd things, and was truly shameful for the D work of God to remain imperfect forever, the Word of God, being perfect, necessarily clothed Himself in the imperfect man; and for this reason He says that He is created unto the works, so that He might perfect them, and so that He might again clothe them with perfection, filling up what was lacking in man through Himself. And so, in the Gospels, He says to His own Father: "I have glorified You on the earth, having finished the work which You have given Me to do." And again: "The works which the Father has given Me to finish, those very works bear witness of Me." If, therefore, it is when He became man that He finishes the works, and is created unto them, it is manifest, then, that it would be indicative not of the essence of the Word,
A but rather of the time of His advent, inasmuch as He is said to have been created as having become flesh. For then, having completed the works of the Father and having restored human nature to its ancient state, He presented to Himself the Church, having neither spot nor wrinkle, nor anything of that sort, but holy and blameless; and we have become in Him a new creation, no longer laboring under that imperfection which we had contracted through transgression, nor dead in sin, but henceforth having attained perfection through the obedience of Christ and His resurrection from the dead. Therefore, having become man for these reasons, He might justly say: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works."
OTHER, on the saying, "The Lord created me," that the Son of God is not a work or a creature; and on that, "Before the ages He founded me."
If the Word of God is a creature, as you imagine, O inventors of all impiety, how have we been glued to God and become gods, being united to Him? And in what way is Christ the mediator of God and men? B For He is united to us in that He has been made man. But if He is a creature and not God, how is He united to God? And what is the manner and reason that joins Him to Him? For things that are dissimilar in essence can never be naturally united to one another. And how, if He is a creature, have we been saved through Him, when the Scripture says: "Not a messenger, nor an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them"? And how are those who believe in Him justified, if He is a creature? And how is that which is said, "Earth you are, and into earth you shall return," resolved through Him? For it is not the work of a creature to overturn a sentence given by God. And how, if He is a creature, can He blot out sin, when the prophet says of Him: "Who is a God like You, taking away iniquities and passing over injustices"? C And how, if He is a creature, could He say: "Unless the Son shall have set you free"? He set us free, however, as the heir of the Father, and not as a creature, as the insane heretics imagine.
OTHER.
If, by imitation of the natural Son, even those who are sons by adoption are so called, it is absolutely necessary that the natural Son be other than they and different in essence. If, therefore, the sons by adoption are creatures, the natural Son will certainly not be a creature or a work, lest He be the same as those who are so by adoption. D
OTHER.
If, according to you, O Arians, the Son of God is a creature, in what wisdom, then, was He made? Or what hand created Him after other things? For it is written: "You have made all things in wisdom." And God Himself says somewhere: "My hand has made all these things." But if all things have been made in the wisdom and hand of God, and the sacred Scriptures everywhere proclaim concerning the Word of God, that "All things were made through Him, and without Him"
there was not anything made; He could not be a work of the wisdom of God, but rather He is Himself the wisdom and the hand through which God effects all things. Therefore, He is not a creature, nor is He an artifact.
B 169 Observations from sacred Scripture, that the Son is not one of the creatures, but rather is called and is their very creator.
The youths in Babylon, when they were enumerating almost every creature, recounting the things that are in the heavens and the things upon the earth, and declaring that God must be celebrated by all, nowhere place the Son among those things that ought to bless God; nor did they say: "Let the Word or the wisdom of God bless the Lord." But knowing that with the Father He partakes of worship, when they had made mention of all the creatures together, they passed Him over in silence, as the Lord to whom blessing and praise are owed. Nevertheless, the blessed Psalmist, too, frequently bidding God to be praised, and naming all of creation, naming the ministers and angels, and the powers, and the heavens of heavens, and the moon and the sun, saying that they must be subject as servants to the worship of God, nowhere places the Son among these, but on the contrary, he commands Him also to be worshipped, crying out: "And let all the angels of God worship Him." If then every creature worships, but the Son is worshipped, He is not therefore a creature, but the true Son worshipped together with the Father.
ALIUD. That the Son is distinct from the creatures, and is not one of all things.
C Divine Scripture also, when it signifies that all things were made through the Word of God, says thus: "All things were made through Him." And again: "One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things." Paul, however, most clearly distinguishing Him from all things, says: "For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and laid open to His eyes." If therefore He is the creator of all things, and all things are laid open before His eyes, He would not be one of all things, He who is the creator of them. And He to whom all things are naked and laid open could not reasonably be thought to be one of the things laid open. For in saying "all things," He left nothing outside; and if all things are fulfilled in creatures alone, He would be distinct from them, He who is not numbered among them. Thus also the blessed Paul understands the power of "all things." For interpreting that, "You have put all things under His feet," he adds clearly: "But when He says 'all things,' He left nothing to Him unsubdued." If therefore "all things" is comprehensive of the whole, and the Son makes all things, and all things are laid open to Him, He would not be one of all things, but distinct from them.
ALIUD. It is written that "In the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth."
A If every knee bows to the Son, He would not be among the number of those who bow, but distinct from them. And again it is written: "For the whole creation groans and travails in labor until now, awaiting the redemption of the sons of God." If all creation groans and awaits the redemption and freedom of the sons of God, and the Son is neither found groaning nor awaiting adoption or freedom, but is Himself the one who fulfills the hope of the creatures, who adopts those who groan, and who bestows freedom, then He is not one of all things, nor will He be numbered among the creatures, but is distinct from them. Inasmuch as the creatures groan in need of the helper's aid, He, however, as Son, sets those pressed under the yoke of slavery into freedom.
On the text, "Before the ages He founded me."
It is written, "God founded the earth with wisdom." If, then, wisdom founds the earth, and it is the firmness and stability of all things (for through it the earth remains stable), we must diligently investigate B in what manner wisdom, which founds the earth, is itself founded by God. It is spoken, therefore, in the manner befitting the proverbs, signifying it obliquely, and having within itself a truer understanding, for such is usually the proper style of the proverbs. Wisdom, that is, the Son of God, is founded, not in that inasmuch as He is the Word He received a beginning of existence, but inasmuch as He became man and put on our likeness, He became a beginning and foundation for us, C as we are built up into piety through faith in Him, and are reformed into a new creature, as it is written. He does not simply say, "God made the Word or the Son," lest an opportunity be given to those of different opinions to calumniate His substance as if it were created, but absolutely, "He founded me." For what he said in the preceding, "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works," this also is signified through this. For there He says that He was made the beginning of His ways; here, however, He affirms that He was laid as a foundation for those who are built up, saying the same thing in different ways, and explaining the same reasoning in other words. For it is just the same whether you say "beginning" or "foundation." For just as in those passages it is a beginning, so also here it becomes a foundation for those who are built up D upon Him through faith.
ALIUD.
The most wise Paul writes somewhere thus: "No one can lay another foundation besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." If, therefore, Christ is laid as the foundation, it is necessary that those things which are built upon Him should altogether be such as the foundation upon which they are laid (for thus the structure, being joined together, as it is written, shall be fulfilled into a temple
A of the Holy Spirit inhabiting us). It is manifest, certainly, that it is not as the Word that He says He is founded; for there is nothing naturally similar to the Word, nor could any of the things that exist be joined to Him naturally: for He is the creator, but they are creatures. But insofar as He became man and like us in all things, sin excepted, He says He is laid as a foundation for those who are built upon Him and are able to be joined to Him. For just as He Himself became man, He has a great affinity with us by reason of the nature of the flesh. Therefore, this must be referred to the incarnation of the Savior, in order that we may escape the blasphemy (which we would incur if we said that He wthe Wisdom of God itself was created and received a beginning of existence). For just as He says that He is a vine and we are the branches, not indicating that the branches are alien or of a different genus from the vine, but that they are from it by nature; so here He says that He is our foundation, so that He might show the natural affinity of those who are built upon Him with Himself, now that He has become man. For then we are joined to Him also according to nature, and being attached to the homogeneity with Him, just as the branches of the vine, we bear the fruit of piety toward God. Thus, the Word of God became our foundation when He assumed humanity; but we, as certain holy stones, are built upon Him, that we may also be named a temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.
ALIUD
C « Before the ages He founded me. » I think it reasonable and necessary to refute the senseless heresies of the heretics with visible examples; for perhaps, having been shamed in this way, they might abstain from blasphemies toward the truth. That which is founded, then, and taken for such a use, is not seen to have the beginning of its existence in every way at the very time it is placed as a foundation. For, suppose one says, let there be a stone cast down and hidden in the earth; it is necessary that it first be hewn from some rock or mountain to be fitted for such a use; but it exists first, and only then is it cast down into the earth as a foundation. If anyone should D give a voice and intellect fitting to a human to the stone thus cast into the earth, it could explain its own situation, saying: "I was indeed a stone lying in a rock or on a mountain; but now I have become a foundation, covered by the earth that holds me." So also you may judge piously concerning the wisdom of God, that is, the Son; for He was in the beginning with God, and was God, as it is written. But when, like a stone hewn from a mountain without hands—that is, having proceeded from the essence of the Father—He put on our flesh like a certain earth, then He says that He has been founded, as if saying: "The Father, though I am the Word and the true Son, has clothed me in an earthly body, so that I might become a foundation and a beginning for those who are built upon me through faith, so that, having become corporeal with them, I might receive them into one structure with myself.
ANOTHER
From the objection of the heretics.
A And how, they say, can that text, "He founded me," be understood of the incarnation of the Word, when He Himself says that He was founded before the ages, before the earth was made, and before the mountains were established? For it is manifest that the incarnation of the Word took place many ages after the whole universe and everything in it had been made.
Solution of the objection.
B It is by no means difficult to answer such objections of the heretics; yet the prudence and piety of the hearers are necessary. For that the advent of Christ in the flesh took place at the end of the present age, no one, I suppose, among those who think rightly will deny. For the things that the holy Scripture proclaims are manifest. But God, who knows all things that are to be, did not learn of what was to happen in the last times only when the events themselves actually occurred; rather, He knew them even before the foundation of the world. Therefore, in doing what is fitting for Himself, He does not deliberate about us for the first time when we have been made, but even before the earth and the ages were created, He possessed the knowledge of our affairs within Himself. And He proposed His own Son, as far as pertained to His own foreknowledge, so that we, having been built upon Him, might rise again into incorruption—we who otherwise had fallen into destruction and corruption through transgression. For He knew that we would indeed be dead through sin, and that we would lie in the dust of the earth, as it is written, and would hear: "Earth you are, and to earth you shall return." But since the Creator and Maker of us all had foreknown from eternity even those things that concerned us, He foresaw and foreordained Him who was to become man for our sake and on our behalf—that is, His own Word—so that He might be found as the beginning of the ways and as a foundation, with human nature being restored to incorruption in Him, and that He might be called "the firstborn among many brethren," and might rise as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For that which the all-wise Solomon says in the Proverbs, "Before the age He founded me," and what follows thereafter, this selfsame thing Paul explains, writing to his disciple Timothy as follows: "Share in suffering for the Gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the eternal ages, but has now been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who indeed destroyed death and brought life and incorruption to light." If, therefore, before the ages—that is, when we had not yet been made—we were called by a holy calling according to the grace and purpose of God who foreknew all things, and if we were called in Christ Jesus,
A it would be manifest and clear to everyone that the Word of God does not receive the beginning of his existence at the time when he is said to have been founded; rather, by these words he interprets his coming in the flesh, and he says that he was founded before the aeon and before all creatures, according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
ANOTHER. On the text, "The Lord created me," and on the text, "Before the aeon he founded me."
Paul, writing to the Ephesians, says as follows: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself." If, therefore, while we were not yet born, we were predestined to adoption through Jesus Christ unto him, and are blessed with spiritual blessings in the heavenly places, how would one, upon hearing the Son of God saying, "Before the aeon he founded me," not assume that he is saying such things with respect to the foreknowledge B of the Father, according to which we were called, being foreknown in him, and enjoy every blessing, even though we had not yet been brought into existence at all, but were born many ages later? But the Lord himself, teaching us this very thing most clearly, says: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." If then the kingdom was prepared by the Father for those not yet made, and before the foundation of the world, and was prepared entirely in Christ, he might fittingly say of himself: "Before the aeon he founded me, before the mountains were settled, before the fountains of water came forth." For all these things signify the transition of the creature from not-being into being.
ANOTHER, C narratively, through which we learn the cause, as it were, of our being predestined in Christ and our having been assigned to adoption out of the love of God and the Father.
God and Father, foreseeing the things that would be beneficial to human nature, and knowing that it would certainly lapse into corruption, but seeking for it a way of renewal and return to incorruption, planted in his own Son, as it were, roots of such hope, and predestined us to adoption through him, and counted us worthy of every spiritual blessing, even though we were not yet made; so that when it should happen that we fall into death through the transgression, as if from an ancient root we might again blossom D into life, and as if already having been blessed beforehand, we might not be entirely subjected to the curse when it hears: "You are earth, and to earth you shall depart." Therefore, Christ is laid as our foundation, and we are all built up in him, and this before the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of the God who knows all things, so that, as we already said, we might have an older...
of His foreknowledge, so that, as we have just said, the blessing may be more ancient in us than the curse, the promise of life more ancient than the condemnation to death, and the adoption into freedom more ancient than the diabolical slavery. Nature returns to its original state, having overcome the things that subsequently befell it, by the grace and benefit of Him who founded it in good things in Christ, and it becomes again exactly what it was in the foreknowledge of God, predestined from love to all things best through the Son. A
ANOTHER, by way of illustration and example.
Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate more accurately how the wisdom of God was pre-founded for us before the ages. Just as if some wise architect, beginning the construction of a house, and thinking with himself, as is proper, lest the house should in the course of time receive some defect of the kind that is wont to happen to houses, lays a most firm foundation, and devises as it were an unshakable root for the works, so that if it should happen to sustain any defect, while the principle or foundation remains safe, he may be able to rebuild the house upon it again: in the same way, the Creator of all things pre-founded Christ as the foundation of our salvation even before the creation of the world, so that when it happened that this was undermined by sin, we might be restored again in Him. B As far, therefore, as concerns the counsel and purpose of the Father, Christ is founded even before the ages; but the work itself was accomplished in its own proper time, as the necessity of the case required. For we were restored in Christ at the time of His advent into the flesh, having Him as the foundation of our salvation from eternity.
ASSERTION XVI.
Concerning the eternity of the Son, and that He emanates inseparably from the substance of the Father.
The objection of the Arians; which their solutions follow.
But how, they say, can the Son be eternal? And how, when proceeding from the Father, is He not altogether separated from Him? For that which proceeds from anything, necessarily must be a part of the essence from which it has proceeded. C And that which is once separated and divided, D cannot, as is understood, be whole and entire.
The solution by way of example.
What, then, will they say happens to the sun, when it sends forth its own radiance? What do they think happens to fire, when it sends forth heat from itself? Do they imagine that separations and divisions occur in substances of such a kind? But does not the sun so shine that it is in no way diminished? Nor indeed could anyone separate its radiance from it locally. But from the fire we do not see the heat proceeding separately; rather, it is a fruit of the very essence of the fire, proceeding inseparably from it, just as the radiance is from the light. For neither can light subsist without radiance, nor fire without the power of heating. For the things that are begotten from them always adhere and are innate to such substances. Thus...
A conceive of the Son to me as proceeding from the essence of the Father, existing eternally in Him, and being understood in His own hypostasis, and in no way diminishing the essence of the Father, nor being partitioned off from it; but that He is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself, so as also to speak truly: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me"; and on account of the identity of essence, that He is in the Father, and the Father is seen in Him, and thus He is able to say: "I and the Father are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
ANOTHER.
Those who say that the Son has been cut off from the essence of the Father because He proceeds from it, and is therefore a part and not the whole, B let them say that the radiance has been cut off from the light, and heat from the fire from which it proceeds, and the word from the mind. And let them demonstrate that these are separate parts of the substances from which they also proceed, or that the light ever existed without radiance, or fire without heat, or that the mind is without reason. And then let them imagine some such things concerning the Word of God. But if these things always co-exist with the substances from which they proceed, and do so indivisibly and not separately (for they do not cause passions or cuttings in them), how are they not to be judged as being beyond all impiety, by attributing to the divine nature those things which no one of sound mind would concede to happen even to the nature of created things, if indeed he had sense and thought aright?
ANOTHER.
From the objection of the heretics.
And how, they say, can the Son be eternal with the Father? For the sons of men are born after their fathers, and come into being much later in time, not existing before they are born. And again, how can the Son be the Word, or the image of God? C For the word that is uttered by men is neither substantial, nor does it endure after it has been spoken; but it is immediately resolved into non-existence, having signified what was in the mind to the speaker, and having made manifest the thoughts in the depth of the heart.
Solution of the objection.
If God is just as man is, and there is nothing more in Him than in us, then human conditions must prevail in His case too; and He must pre-exist His own offspring just as we do, and that which proceeds from Him must be from non-existence. But if the Divine is far removed from our nature, and has nothing in common with us in regard to the definition of substance, D how are they not ashamed, while binding it to human inconveniences and evils, to subject it to our necessities? For by as much as it exceeds human nature, by so much, I think, it will also be better than the customs and natural laws that obtain among us. Therefore, we are corruptible; God, however, is incorrupti-
incorruptible. We have been brought from nothing into being: but God always was and will be. Whatever is the one who begets, such must also be that which is begotten of him. Now God the Father is eternal; therefore, the light from him was also eternal, and is. The radiance, then, was coexistent with the light. And the word that proceeds from man dissolves into non-being, and is neither living nor active. For even the man who has begotten it is out of nothing and subject to corruption. But the Word of God is living; and having proceeded from him who is living, it was always, and is. For God was not, nor will he ever be, without the Word. And so Paul says concerning him, that "the Word of God is living and active." He is, therefore, the Creator, and all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made. B
ANOTHER. From the objection of the heretics.
Christ, they say, is not the innate and subsistent power and wisdom in God, but that other one is, of whom Paul also speaks, "his eternal power and divinity": Christ is one, separate from that, and there are many other powers and wisdoms called by his name along with him. And the innate and truly real power of God is the creator of the universe; but these others have been made by it, even if Christ is a certain preeminent power of God above the rest, made for this purpose, namely, to empower those in need of power, to make wise those needing wisdom, to justify those who do not possess justice. There is, therefore, they say, the innate power of God, lacking a beginning and unbegotten, eternally in the Father. But Christ was made for the stated reasons. But if some think Christ himself to be the innate power of God, because Paul writes, "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God," what, then, will they say when they hear God saying concerning the locust, "My great power"? Or what will they do when the Psalmist establishes many virtues and powers of God, saying, "Bless God, all his powers"?
Solution of the objection.
If Christ was made for this reason, that he might bestow justice, wisdom, virtue or power upon those who are in need, then we are the cause of why he himself was made; and he would not have been made like us, unless God had first thought of producing creatures. And if this very thing is the cause of our utility, then he is an instrument of our creation, not existing as such of himself, but made thus for our sake. As, therefore, he is called power on account of those to whom power is given, and wisdom on account of those to whom wisdom is conferred, so also will he be called Son on account of those who become sons: and nothing will be properly in itself, but all these things will be for our sake. In what way, then, will that which is sung in the Psalms hold true, "He made us, and not we ourselves," if we are the authors and cause of his being? For even if he should appear to be of the
the worker of our existence, but we have become to him the seeds of his own existence, and for our need he was created, according to you. Just as perhaps the heaven [exists] to cover those who are on earth, and the sun to shine for those in need of light, and the earth likewise to nourish those in need of nourishment. And there is nothing extra in the Son compared to the creatures, if indeed he too, like them, has a ministerial role: which is in the highest degree absurd. A
ALIUD, ex iisdem. You admit, even if unwillingly, heretic, that the innate and uncreated wisdom and power of God exists in him. When, therefore, you hear that the Son is unbegotten, do not say again: There are, therefore, two unbegotten ones. For we believe that this very wisdom B and power in God, existing in an unbegotten and timeless manner, is the Son, who also created all things, and for our sake, according to the voice of John, became flesh.
ALIUD, per interrogationem, demonstrationis vim habens. Wherefore does the Father work all things through the Son? Or why, again, is the Son named together with the Father in holy baptism? And why, since he is of a created nature, according to your opinion, is he numbered with the creator? What need was there of a created thing for the perfection and sanctification of all? Or why do we call upon him as our helper? And although many other things C have been made as creatures, none of them is taken up for the aforementioned needs; but the Son alone [is taken up], always co-existing with the Father. For what reason is there, if he himself is not God, to believe in a creator and a creature [simultaneously]? And why is he called creator, if he is not by nature that which the Father is? And yet the Son himself said: "All things that the Father has are mine." But the Father has the ability to create; therefore the Son has it too. Similarly to sanctify, to save, and whatever is fitting for God, all [is done] through the Son. For he always co-exists with the Father, as the radiance with the light. D The Son is therefore God, not made, as those liars assert, but proceeding naturally from the essence of the Father as a genuine offspring.
ASSERTION XVII.
That of the things which pertain to the Son, nothing pertains to the creature naturally, but they have them by participation or according to the likeness of Him who gives; but the Son is not so. And for this reason he is different from them. Which being so, the Son is not a creature.Defensio simplex ex puris syllogismis. If every creature is established in ignorance of the Father—for no one knows who the Father is, but the Son alone knows—he is therefore not a creature.
ALIUD. If nothing of those things which have been made is by nature God, but the Son is by nature God: he is therefore not of those that have been made.
A At if our former life was ridiculous, because we served gods that do not exist by nature, surely we ought to be considered much more wretched now, because we worship one who is not God by nature: which is absurd.
ALIUD. If anything that is made is totally different in nature from that which is not made, it cannot participate equally in his glory. "For my glory," says God, "I will not give to another" (Isa. XLII, 8). But if the Son participates, coming in the glory of the Father, then he who is clothed with the glory of the Uncreated is not a creature. B
ALIUD. The Holy Scriptures call the Son true God, and so we believe. But if everything that is made is recent in respect to the Uncreated, and it is not right that we should worship a recent and new God: then the Son is not a recent God, since he is that which is not created.
ALIUD. If anything that is created is entirely different from the Uncreated, it ought not to be worshipped. For this is forbidden by divine command. But if we are commanded to worship the Son, and not some other god that is created: then the Son is uncreated.
ALIUD. If whatever is made is a servant of him by whom it was made: it is therefore impossible for it to bestow freedom upon another which it does not itself possess. But if the Son bestows it, he is therefore not a servant, but rather Lord and God. C
ALIUD. If every creature standing under nature serves that nature under which it was also made, but the Godhead is free and superior to every natural necessity: it is manifest that God does not serve nature. Since, however, the Son is God, he will certainly not be subject to nature, which is the property of creatures. But if he differs from the creature by natural kinship, how could he not be of a different nature from it?
ALIUD. If no creature is naturally and perfectly similar to God and the Father, but the Son is similar, so that he who sees him sees the Father: then he who bears the perfect and absolute likeness of the Father is not a creature. D
ALIUD. If all creatures serve God, but are not lords of glory, while the Son is not so, but is Lord of glory (1 Cor. II, 8): he is therefore not a creature.
ALIUD. If everything that has been brought from nothing into existence is capable of being reduced again into nothing, this indeed is not
r. II, 8): he is therefore not a creature. A
ANOTHER. If it is a property of creatures to be capable of sinning, and this is by no means the case with the Son, he is therefore not a creature.
ANOTHER. If nothing of those things which have been brought into existence has ever been shown to create substance from nothing, but the Son does create, how can he be one of those things that have been brought into existence?
ANOTHER. If all created things are similar to one another in the fact that they have been created, and one does not differ from another in the respect that each has been created, and yet the Son also has been created, he will therefore differ in nothing as far as he too having been created is concerned. But if he differs from all created things in every respect, it is clear that he differs also in the manner of his generation, which is that he has not been created. For thus he will differ from those things which have been brought into existence. But if this is so, how is he not God? B
ANOTHER. If the whole of creation was brought into existence in an interval or time, and nothing of these things precedes the generation of the Son, he has therefore not been brought into existence. But if he is preceded by a temporal and created interval, how is he the creator of all things, being preceded by a created interval? But if this interval were uncreated, it would follow that there is some interval or duration equal to the divine eternity. But if no moment or interval of time, nor anything else, precedes the Son, how do they say that the Father existed beforehand, when they cannot find anything that signifies what it means to exist beforehand? C
ANOTHER. If nothing of those things that have been brought into existence is called or is God over all, and the Son is God over all, he is therefore not of those things that have been brought into existence. But if the Son, being God over all, is also created, and the Father is also God over all, then, according to them, the Father will also be created, which is an impious thought. D
ANOTHER. If nothing of those things that have been brought into existence can perform the same works as God, and the Son performs all the works that the Father performs, he is therefore not of those things that have been brought into existence.
ANOTHER. If all generated things have their existence from another, much more so the title of gods. If they are gods by participation (for generated things are not gods by nature), and those who are not gods by nature are forbidden to be worshipped, while the Son is commanded to be worshipped as being God by nature—which created things are not—he is therefore something other than a creature.
ANOTHER. If it were possible that he who brings substances out of nothing
produces and constitutes, were to be made or created by another, while the Father creates from nothing: it is therefore possible, according to their opinion, that the Father also is made from nothing. But if this is inconvenient, and even impossible, that he who creates other natures should be created by another nature: then it is far more absurd to suppose that the Maker of universal nature was created by another nature. For that which creates would be created, and that which is created would create—if the Son, being made as they suppose, were to create—which is most absurd; since those things which are proper and peculiar to the divine nature are to be attributed and left to it alone, of which one thing, and the chief one, is the ability to create from nothing.
ASSERTION XVIII
BThat creature and son are not the same: nor is creating and begetting the same in God: and other conclusions inferred by reduction to the impossible. A simple defense from bare arguments. If to beget and to create were the same in God, that declaration would not have been issued concerning the Only-Begotten, "This is my beloved Son," since even those things which are inanimate by nature would be sons of God, if creature and offspring were the same.OTHER. If, just as "creature" is properly said of us, so also is "offspring," and likewise of the Son: he will have nothing more than us, since he is properly a creature and an offspring.
OTHER. If offspring and creature are the same, and the Holy Spirit is also, as they wish, a creature: then certainly he is also an offspring. But if the Holy Spirit is an offspring, and the Son of God is an offspring, and all things are offsprings, how is the Son said to be "only-begotten" among many brothers?
OTHER. If whatever is a creature of God is also an offspring, then nothing of the things which have been made is alien to adoption as sons. But if this is true, God announces adoption to us in vain, since even inanimate things would naturally attain it: insofar as whatever is a creature, is also an offspring or son properly speaking.
OTHER. If offspring and creature are the same, but that which is begotten by God is naturally a creature: then the creature of God and the natural offspring of God are the same. But if that which is begotten by nature, and not by adoption, is consubstantial with God: then everything which has been made will be found to be such by nature, insofar as a creature is also an offspring by nature, and not by participation.
OTHER. If a creature is also an offspring properly speaking, surely C
A much more so would the angels be offspring properly speaking, above all others. But if things that are far superior by measure are not offspring properly speaking (for to none of the angels did He ever say, "You are my Son"), then this creature will not be an offspring properly speaking. B OTHER. If creature and offspring are the same, then He who creates will also be the Father. But if the Son creates, He will be the same as the Father. And if this is true, the Father of the Father will be unbegotten, having nothing more than we do in His own divine begetting, since this offspring happens to be also a creature. OTHER. If a creature is truly also an offspring, as the Son is, then the Son will be the brother of all, but not Lord God. But if He is Lord and God, then He is not a brother. If, therefore, to the Son, being the Only-begotten, nothing of those things that exist can be called a brother, then neither are the rest offspring properly speaking, but they are creatures properly speaking; how then are creature and offspring the same? OTHER. If a work is also an offspring, then he who makes it will also be a begetter. And bringing forth the all from Himself as a begetter, C but making the same thing from without as a creator. If, however, he creates this from without and is able to beget from Himself, with one and the same way of acting being in both, how could that which is united in one thing possess the titles of two things, unless one of them is false? OTHER. If this creature is also an offspring, and if the Spirit is, as they say, a creature, it is clear that He is also an offspring. But if He is the offspring of the Father, the Son is no longer the Only-begotten. And if He is of the Son, He will be the Son of the Son, since this creature happens to be also an offspring.
That creating and begetting are not the same in God.
If begetting and making are the same in God, and He begets the Son immediately by Himself, it is clear that He also begets or makes all things immediately by Himself. If He begets not through anyone else, D but does not also make all things immediately by Himself, how is begetting the same as making in God? He makes earthquakes, pestilence, and floods; therefore He will also beget the things He makes, if indeed begetting and making are the same in Him. OTHER. If from where God begets, from there He also creates, He will differ nothing from a spider, according to them, which does not beget in any other way than it makes. But that creature, led by the law of nature, from where it begets, from there it also creates. God, however, since He is not subject to nature, is disparaged by them as if He were subject to the laws of nature. OTHER. If, because the Divinity is not composite, it likewise has with regard to the be--Agetting and the creating, the same ratio and judgment, in order that in this respect too it may be simple. But if this is so, it will be creating the evils which it foreknows, if indeed these things are the same in Him, because He is also simple.
OTHER. If God has begetting and creating in the same way, because He is simple, then seeing and begetting would also be the same in Him, so that all things in Him would be altogether simple. But if these things exist in Him not as indifferent (for Bit is not the case that what He sees, He also necessarily brings forth), His simplicity is not impaired; nor will the fact that He begets in one way and creates in another effect that He is composite.
OTHER. If in those cases where begetting and creating are diverse, these produce from themselves, but create from without; yet where begetting and creating are the same, in those instances creating from without does not exist, just as begetting from within does not. But if they only concede to Him the "from without," which is to create, but are unwilling to concede begetting, He will be a father by adoption, who is a creator by nature.
OTHER. If begetting and creating in God—because He is not composite—are the same, but not so in us, because we are not such, then in Him foreknowing and begetting will be the same. For in us this is not the same, because we are composite. But if His simple and non-composite nature has forced the difference that is in us not to be diverse in Him, then neither will the fact that He begets in one way and creates in another effect that He is composite.
OTHER. If begetting is the same as creating, the begetter will be creating that which is begotten, and begetting that which is created. But creating belongs to operation, whereas begetting belongs to nature. Nature and operation are not the same; therefore, begetting and creating will not be the same.
OTHER. If he who creates is a craftsman, but he who begets is a father, certainly creating and begetting are not the same, since father is one thing, and craftsman is likewise another. But if creating is the same as begetting, he who creates will also be a father. If, moreover, the Son is a creator together D with the Father, and he who creates is also a father, then He Himself will also be a father, which is absurd.
OTHER. If father and creator are the same, since begetting and creating are the same, and "creator" is a name of operation, then "father" would also deservedly be a name of operation, not of relationship. But if both this and that are names of operation, then at one and the same time He will be begetting and creating
God, A of the operation, since it exists no differently in the begetting than it does in the creating.
ASSERTION XIX.
Against those who say that the Son is not the true Word of the Father, but is different from Him and an alien; and it is from this concluded that He is consubstantial with the Father, and not from without, but from His own essence.Objection of Eunomius.
If the Son, he says, is the Word, and you say that He is consubstantial with the Father, He should not differ from Him in any respect whatsoever; for that is how He would be consubstantial. But if this is so, then the Father also should be called and be the Word. But B the purpose of Divine Scripture and the preaching of the holy apostles do not allow this. For they know the Father to be the Father and not the Son; and in turn, they assign to the Son only the name of the Son, and do not permit Him to be called or to be the Father: therefore, He is distinct from Him and separated in essence. Consequently, He is neither the true Word, nor does He proceed from Him, being separated by nature.Solution of the objection.
But what, pray tell, C will you make of John, who calls the Son the Word, and attributes to Him this name as most proper, one which most signally expresses His essence? For he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You see how this term explains the very essence of the Son, and when He is called the Word, it signifies what He is by nature. For, he says, the Word was God.If, however, this word, "Word," did not explain the very nature and essence of the Son, it would surely signify something else. Furthermore, we must ask: what is the Son by nature that He should be called the Word, if this word does not signify His essence? Just as when someone calls a man a carpenter, a sculptor, or a scribe, he is not defining what he is by nature, but is revealing the sort of pursuit he follows. D If, therefore, the name does not signify the essence of the Son, and if His being called the Word does not reveal what He is by nature, but only indicates, so to speak, what sort of pursuit He has, why do we admire the Evangelist in vain? And why do we call the son of thunder one who has spoken of something great and sublime?
And yet, although sacred Scripture calls the Son by many other names, by calling Him the Word, it has spoken of something wonderful and transcendent; and it has added nothing else to this title, as is seen in the case of Paul: "Paul the apostle." It was sufficient for him to have said "the Word" to declare the essence of the Son. He, therefore, is the true Word of the Father, and not someone else besides Him.
ANOTHER.
If it is for this reason that the enemies of Christ suppose the Son not to be consubstantial with the Father, because neither is the Father the Word, nor the Word the Father, and that the unity of nature can be shaken by the difference of names...let them tell us A how the first parent Adam is consubstantial with him who was generated from him, when neither can he himself be Abel, nor will Abel ever be Adam? Yet the difference of names does not take away the identity of substance. And this is so in created and generated nature. How, then, would it not be impious to suppose this in the ungenerated nature, which is by far superior to all created things? Just as, if he were of a different essence, he would not be the true Word, so, since he is consubstantial, he would indeed be the true Word.
ANOTHER.
Names that declare the substance of things are primary and most proper; yet one may see a great difference in them. For some signify things more universally and explain them in a general way; but others, cutting universals into particulars, make many things appear. For example, the name "man," said simply and absolutely, signifies the whole human race, or the substance itself; but "Paul" or "Peter," B or "James" or "Cephas," divides humanity into particulars and makes many men exist. Therefore, the difference of names is accepted indeed among those who are of the same substance, nor does it take away the natural similarity among those that are of the same species. When, therefore, the Father is called Father, and the Son the Word, neither will this one be dissimilar in nature to him, nor he to this one, since they are distinguished by names alone. But it has been shown that the difference of names does not at all subvert the natural similarity between those things that are consubstantial. Nothing, therefore, prevents the Son from being consubstantial with the Father, even if he is called Son, and is not the Father himself, but his true Word. For since the essence of the Father is simple, it will receive no other intermediate [element] for the generation of the Word proceeding naturally from him. And as he is truly one with him, C just as he is also by nature God, he has shone forth as living from the living Father.From the objection of Eunomius.
In the Gospels, he says, we find the Son speaking to the Father: "Father, glorify thy Son"; and the Son hearing in return from him: "And I have glorified, and will glorify again." Now in what way could the Son be truly the Word of the Father, when the Father speaks to him? but speech cannot be made without a word. Either therefore he is speaking to himself, or if the Father really speaks to the Son, he will surely be other than the Word which is implanted and existing in God by nature, which he addresses D according to the will of the Father.Solution of the objection.
Will that man not cease to slander the incorporeal essence, persuading himself that a word is brought forth from it such as the human one is, which is pronounced by the aid of lips and tongue and strikes the hearing of those standing by, so that the will of the speaker may be understood.A For if you wish to preserve the reason appropriate to an incorporeal nature, you will not judge the voice of the Father to be such as to be borne to the hearing corporally. For not only did the Lord hear the Father saying: “And I have glorified it, and will glorify it again,” but also those who were with Him. But Christ, teaching clearly that that voice was not properly and naturally the voice of the Father, but a certain sound similar to a voice, declared the Father's will concerning the Son. And that it was not for His own sake, He says to His hearers: “This voice did not come for my sake, but for your sake.” B Notice carefully how He did not say, “The Father did not speak, or cry out, for my sake, or anything of that sort,” but, “This voice did not come for my sake, but for your sake.” If, therefore, through some divine energy that voice came to be—not for the sake of Christ, as He Himself testifies, but for the sake of those who were with Him, and it was impossible, since they were men, for them to learn the will of the Father in any other way unless they were taught by a human voice—why do you pointlessly refer back to the incorporeal essence those things that occurred as an economy and were managed in a human way for our sake, recklessly attributing to the uncreated nature what is appropriate to a created nature?
Another. Objection of Eunomius.
C It is found somewhere, they say, that the Father says to the Son: “Let us make man.” And the Savior Himself again, speaking to the Jews, says: “I do not speak from myself, but what I heard from the Father, these things I tell to you.” If, therefore, someone should ask you who boast in the correctness of your doctrines, whether the Father spoke what He was about to say to the Son as to one who knew, or as to one who did *not* know, what would you answer? For if he did not know, and learned only at the time when the Father’s word was addressed to him concerning something, he would be different from Him who exists by nature; but if he did know, how would it not be absurd to speak to one who knows as if he did not know? For even among men, such a thing would be beyond reason. If, therefore, it is absurd to attribute this to God, it is evident that He spoke as to one who did not know. D Therefore, he is not the immanent Word himself, nor would he have known what God and Father wills, had the word from Him not been addressed to him.
Solution to the objection.
The Word of God speaking in the prophets and announcing things to come to them will therefore differ in nothing from the prophets; for they did not have the knowledge of these things from themselves, but the foreknowledge of future events belongs to God alone. What then shall we do, when the Lord clearly separates Himself from their likeness? Thus He says: “If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and it is not possible for the Scripture to be broken, whom the God sanctified and sent into the...
world, you say that you blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God.” For if He had a natural likeness with the prophets, He would not have made a comparison as with those inferior to Himself, taking their case as a power of example. For by saying, “If He called those gods to whom the word of God came,” He A clearly shows that the word of God was not made to Him, as it was to them, but that He Himself is the Word of the Father who is spoken to the prophets. How then will He—who is separated by such an interval from the prophets and is placed somewhere far above—have nothing more than they do, according to your impudent assertion, O blasphemer?
ANOTHER.
If the Son does not know the will of the Father, but, as the enemies of Christ assert, receives the word from Him B so as to learn it, and the Father addresses Him just as He does one of the prophets, then He is equal to the prophets. What then will the holy Psalmist establish for us again, when he says in the Spirit: “Who in the clouds will be equal to the Lord? And who will be like the Lord among the sons of God?” For see how he openly says that no one among the prophets—whom he calls clouds figuratively—nor among those who have been C adopted into sonship to God by grace, will be equal to the Son by nature. How then will David be speaking the truth, saying such things in the Spirit, if the word of the Father comes to Him just as it does to the saints, and He does not know the will of the Father just as they do, but receives the revelation of it through hearing? But if it is blasphemous to say that the Spirit lies, as it is entirely blasphemous, and the matter is not otherwise, certainly God will be superior to the prophets with an incomparable excellence, D inasmuch as He is the true Word, and the will and wisdom of the Father.
ANOTHER.
If the Word naturally existing in the Father is different from that which the holy Scriptures set forth to us, so that one is something hidden and latent in the Father, while the other is that which truly announces what the Father says—which John says is God the Word—how then will the simple and non-composite nature be preserved in God the Father? For it is necessary that he who has something hidden and something manifest would not be simple, but rather composite and consisting of two things. But God is by His nature simple, and has nothing composite in Himself. Therefore, there is one natural and indwelling Son in Him.
ANOTHER.
If, as the enemies of Christ dare to say, the Word that is preached to us in the Gospel is different from Him who exists by nature in the Father, and does not know the secrets of the Father, but learns when He addresses Him: then He is brought from ignorance to knowledge, and from lack of understanding to discernment. And how will He speak truly: “I and
the Father are one”? A Or how will He be the unalterable image of the One who begat Him, if He is held by ignorance, just as man is? For it is absolutely necessary either to say that the Father also is ignorant of some future things, or, if He knows all things, and has the Son as the image of His own eternity, it is impossible that He should not possess the same knowledge as the Father, of whom He is also the character and unalterable image. B
Objection of Eunomius.
And who, he says, is so ignorant as to dare to say that the names which are applied to things are not different from the things themselves? For behold, heaven, that great and excellent work of God; the name by which it is signified is different from it; and we shall know this from the following. For heaven is a visible thing, but the name applied to it does not fall under the power of sight, but can only be perceived by hearing. Therefore, just because the Son is called the Word, He is not altogether that which some think, but He is indeed called the Word, yet He is something else by nature.Solution of the objection.
One ought to be silent and answer nothing to so foolish a fabrication of discourse. However, those who say such things must be asked whether the names C which are properly applied to things do not signify their substances, even though they may be different from them. And so, the name "human" signifies the nature of the human, yet it is a different thing from him. For the human is a visible thing, but the name applied to him can only be perceived by hearing. Therefore, if someone were to name a human, since the name itself is not the thing, according to their syllogism, one must understand something else, and not at all that which the name signifies. But if this is full of madness, the proper significations of names are not to be rejected, nor is anything else to be understood than that which is signified through them; for thus the madness of the heretics will be restrained. Let this shrewd reasoner show us that "Word" is not the proper name for the Son of God, and let him set himself against the holy Scriptures D and against the blessed evangelist John, who knew the most fitting and most proper appellation of the Son through His being called the Word: “For in the beginning,” he says, “was the Word.”191 Another objection of Eunomius.
And how, he says, could the Son be the Reason and Wisdom of the Father, since wisdom is knowledge, but reason is the mere utterance of a word? Now knowledge is not something subsisting hypostatically, nor indeed is it a living being, and the same account applies to reason. But the Son is a living being; therefore He is neither knowledge, nor wisdom, nor reason. Furthermore, in addition to this, how could there be a word in a word, when it is altogether impossible for the like to be in the like? For color would not exist in color. If, therefore, the Word was truly theA Son of the Father by nature, how could a word be addressed to Him, for instance, in the passage, "Let us make man"?
*Solution of the objection.* You stumble again, not raising yourself above human thoughts, and as if you had forgotten that you are discoursing of the divine essence, you measure it by things that are proper to us. Or are you unaware that the Divine is addressed by names that are customary to us, yet all things are quite otherwise than as we are? For it is not because the word or speech of a man does not exist hypostatically and is but a sound of the tongue emitted into the air, that the divine Word also behaves in like manner; rather, He proceeds living from the Living, and existing hypostatically from the One who exists hypostatically. And again, it is not because the wisdom and knowledge that is in us does not lie in a hypostasis in and of itself, that the wisdom which is in God shall be deprived of being hypostatic in and of itself. But if you confess that God is not like us, you confess also that all His attributes are not our attributes, but are as much more excellent than ours as He Himself is preeminent in the nature of His essence.
Another, on the same.
This illustrious debater does not perceive into what a huge blasphemy he falls: for he calls the Lord an "animal," not understanding that "animal" is something different from "life," just as C knowledge is something different from the one who knows. For if anyone says "life," he signifies that very thing which, if it be present in someone, makes it to be living; but "animal" is that which is a participant of the thing that vivifies. And yet the Lord does not call Himself so, but rather "life." If, however, because He is life, He is also an "animal," according to his insanity, let the Father also be called an "animal," since He Himself says of Himself: "I live, saith the Lord." But bidding farewell to the trifles of that lost man, and saying to him that apostolic word: "Thy thoughts be unto thee for destruction," let us betake ourselves to the truth of the doctrines, and let us say that the Lord is not an animal, as they do, but Life itself, which vivifies all things, since in Him, according to the word of Paul, they also move and have their being.Another, on the same sentiment.
That rash and—needless to say—illustrious interpreter of the mysteries of God imagines again that the divine Scripture calls the Son the "Word," that is to say, a prolation of words of such sort as are human; he does not understand that the sacred Scriptures so name Him according to our custom. For the Father speaks arcane and ineffably to the Son, to whom the will of the Father is naturally known, nor does He await a word which might explain His hidden will, since He Himself is the Word. When, therefore, anything is said or predicated of God of those things which are rather fitting to men, the hearer should raise his thought above the human custom, and D toward the spiritual...A and that which consists in the divine intellect, let him ascend in understanding.
Objection from Eunomius.
But, he says, the name "Word" is not sufficient for the indication of the Son, nor is His essence explained by such an appellation; for it is applied to many other words which do not exist as substances.Solution of the objection.
Therefore, not even the name "God" would suffice to explain the essence of God. For it is applied even to those who are not gods by nature, according to the text: "I said: You are gods." But what would prevent us from saying this, that since the name "just," and "good," and "holy" is also applied to men (for many are such by participation in Him who is truly and in reality good and just), each of the aforementioned is not predicated of God in the strict sense? But if the names are common to us with Him, but the reality is true of Him alone by nature, nothing will prevent the Son from being called the Word in the strict sense, and from having this title as a manifestation of His essence, even if there were many other words used improperly and by way of imitation of that which is truly so called. For this reason the Son says of Himself: "I am the truth." So that whatever one might say about Him that is becoming to God and worthy of the divine generation, one will say it of Him strictly, but of others no longer so, but rather improperly, as has been said.Objection from Eunomius.
The Word, he says, has been spoken of in the holy Scriptures, not as existing from the Father by nature, or being Himself the immanent word, but because He hears the Word of the Father and announces it to us; just as it is also said that He is sanctification, because He sanctifies, and justice, because He justifies.Solution of the objection.
If, according to your blasphemy, O best of men, He is called the Word not because He exists as this by nature, proceeding from the Father and manifesting the essence of the One who begat Him, but because, having heard the Word from the Father, He announces it to us; observe the same consistency and consequence in other things as well, so that you may offend more grievously and openly. For if He is the Word because He has heard a word, it is necessary to say that He is also justice and sanctification because He is a participant in justice and sanctification, and not that He is these things by nature. But things that do not belong to some by nature, but have come to them from without, can easily be absent. And so, according to your opinion, the Word of God would at some time be empty of justice and sanctification, He who says of Himself: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father." Since, therefore, this blasphemy extends even to the Father Himself, the wickedness of these Christ-fighters must rightly be detested.ALIUD.
Do not impose a law upon the sacred Scriptures, O enemy of Christ; for no one will be so much out of his mind, that when the Holy Spirit declares something else concerning the Son, he should prefer to give credence to your captious expositions rather than to Him. The Holy Spirit, therefore, calls the Son the Word: but you do not make Him the Word, but a participant of the Word. For if you say that He is called the Word for this reason, because He announced to us that which He heard from the Father, how could you not be judged as raving? For he who is such is no longer the Word, but a participant of the Word: for the participant and that which is participated in cannot be the same thing in respect to itself. For example, wisdom is one thing, and the wise man who participates in wisdom is another; grammar is one thing, the grammarian who participates in it is another: for the thing itself is one thing, and he who participates in that thing is another. B It is necessary, therefore, either to confess that He is the Word and not a participant of the Word, or, if He participates in the Word, no longer to call Him the Word. For the one invalidates the other. And this contradicts that, and the Son must necessarily be one of the things said; but in no way both. Since, however, the divine Scripture calls Him the Word, let those who wish Him to be not the Word, but a participant of the Word, be disregarded.
ASSERTION XX.
In that: “He endured the cross, despising the shame, therefore also God exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name.”
Objection of the heretics.
It is written, they say: “Let this mind be in you, brethren, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God;” up to: “Therefore also God exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name.” If, then, He was exalted by God, and glorified, and received the name which is above every name as if by way of grace, because He humbled Himself even unto death: C therefore He received this honor and name above all things as the reward of His humility, not being God or the Son by nature, but having become this by some addition. But that which needs some addition is imperfect, and not absolute and complete in its own nature; and that which was at some time exalted must necessarily have been raised to it from a lower state: and that which receives grace entirely stands in need of it: and he who desires to be honored must not have been such as he was wishing to become. If, therefore, the name which is above every name was given to Him, certainly by His own nature He was not this, but was made so afterwards by grace. But that which is so, cannot be God: for it is recent.
Brief solution of this objection.
But what manner of addition of honor was made in Him who, when He was in the form of God, put on the form of a servant? D And how would it not rather be called a diminution, since, having left the greater, He assumed that which is less?
A And how is He glorified, who has descended from glory to dishonor? And how has He become high, who despised the dignity of His divinity and descended into humanity? And how did He, who descended, become raised on high? What improvement can he have who has become less, whereas he was among the better things? If, being God Most High and dwelling in the heights, He is said to be exalted, whither beyond the nature of God will that which is exalted ascend? And how was He humble, while existing in the bosom of the most high Father? What increase did God need? If for this reason He descended, that He might also be exalted, what was the need for the descent? If for this reason He humbled Himself, that He might also be glorified, what was the need for the humiliation? And how is he not unwise who seeks with B labor that which he could have had without labor? And how did He receive the name which is above every name, He who is worshiped in it at all times?
Authorities that the Son is God.
"God, by Thy name save me"; and, "Let them worship Thy name, O Lord, the great one." "Before the sun His name continues. Give glory to His name. These in chariots and these on horses, but we in the name of the Lord our God shall be magnified." How, therefore, did He receive that which He is seen always to have had?
Another solution.
If "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God," but in the last times for our salvation He humbled Himself, and for this reason is said to be exalted, how will it not be clear to everyone that this has come to pass not C concerning the nature of the Word, but touching the mystery of humanity? For to whom humility is appropriate, to him, it follows, exaltation is also fitting. Now, humanity is a humble thing; therefore, exaltation will also be understood relative to it. Nor will you find the Scripture saying anything of the sort about the Word of God before this: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." If, therefore, the humiliation is said to have come to pass concerning the assumption of the flesh, then because of it and concerning it the exaltation will also have come to pass.
Another, on the same subject.
Paul, writing to the Hebrews, says that "Jesus, as a forerunner, has entered for us, not into the counterparts of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Just as, therefore, D existing always in the heavens and in the face of the Father, He now enters into heaven for us and appears to the Father, so again, even now, He is exalted and glorified for us, and receives "the name which is above every name," so that just as in Him we also enter into heaven and appear before the Father, so also, being glorified and exalted in Him, we might be called sons of God.
A ANOTHER. The Psalmist, explaining our Savior's assumption into heaven through the Spirit, says: "Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in." (Ps. xxiii, 7) For here the Spirit commands the holy powers in heaven to open the gates to Christ as He enters. But He was within the gates and in the heavens even before the assumption, as God. What need, then, was there for such commands of the Spirit? Or how is He who is within said to enter? Just as, therefore, He does not enter the gates of the heavens as God, but as man, for our sake and on our behalf, bringing us into them through Himself—and for our sake He inaugurated this way—so also, being the Most High, He is exalted for our sake as man, that we might be exalted in Him who bears the likeness of us, and so reforms us into Himself to the image of the Creator, restoring nature to what it was from the beginning.
Annotations concerning the Incarnation, pertaining to the same.
On the passage, "He gave Him," (Philipp. ii, 9) and, "He highly exalted Him," and other such things said concerning Christ.The Word of God is always the Most High, as God; but He is exalted as man. And since He is in need of nothing, as God, He is said to receive as man; He was always worshipped as God, but now He receives worship as man. If He died as man, and this brings no disgrace to the Word of God, neither will it be any injury to say that He received something. For just as that came to pass regarding the humanity, so also these things do likewise. If, being immortal as God, He is said to have died as man, being the Most High as God, He is said to be exalted as man.
How Jesus Christ is for the glory of God the Father. Because through the assumption of humanity, what was lost has been saved; what was broken has been bound up; what was wandering has been returned; and all these things tend to the glory of God the Father.
B ANOTHER. If, being God, He became man, and was willing in reality to undergo this, let no one be scandalized if things that befit the humanity and the servile condition are also attributed to Him; for as man He is said both to receive and to be exalted. But He who underwent humanity itself surely cannot be reasonably blamed if He does not refuse to undergo those things which are proper to humanity. C But it is proper to human nature to receive from God, according to that saying: "For what do you have that you did not receive?" (I Cor. iv, 7) He received, therefore, as man by grace, what He possessed naturally as God.
D ANOTHER. If the Father works all things through the Son, and without Him was nothing made (John i, 3), it must necessarily be said that He Himself gave the exaltation to Himself, and the grace from
the Father provided it. For the deified temple which He assumed A received it, and the Word of God existing by nature as God from the Father was the recipient; yet He was again exalted as far as He became man, and appearing in the form of a servant was worshipped, having possessed this from eternity with the Father. Grace and exaltation, therefore, will be concerning the humanity, the Son, the Word of God, appropriating to Himself the things happening to His own temple. For it was not the body of another, but His own; and therefore it is reckoned as Himself. For one is Christ, composed of humanity and the Word of God, not through a change into that which He was not, but through the assumption of the temple from the Virgin.
ANOTHER.
David sings somewhere: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Then he says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." B Yet the Word was reigning with the Father even before the anointing. How then is He who always reigns and is holy anointed and sanctified as king? Just as, therefore, being always this, He is said to have reigned in the last times; so also, being most high, He is said to be exalted on account of the economy of the Incarnation. He is exalted, and anointed, and sanctified for our sake, so that through Him grace might henceforth flow into all, as already bestowed upon the nature, and from then on being saved for the entire race. Thus also the Savior said in the Gospel according to John: "For their sake I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified." For whatever things are in Christ, these are also for us. He did not receive sanctification for Himself (for He himself was the One sanctifying), but that He might secure it for the nature through Himself, becoming as it were the way and the beginning of the goods that have come into us. Therefore He also says: "I am the way," C through which, as if toward us, divine grace has descended, exalting and sanctifying and glorifying and deifying the nature in the first Christ.
ANOTHER.
If, being God, He became man, and not being man He became God, but is anointed as man, that he might be glorified, it is clear that the grace is conferred upon the humanity.
ANOTHER.
If He Himself is the dispenser of the Spirit, according to that which is said of Him: "Receive the Holy Spirit," it is said of the humanity that it receives, and both the gift and the receiving are in like manner. D
ANOTHER.
Christ says somewhere, speaking to the Father: "For their sake I sanctify myself." But He who is able to sanctify Himself, and does not ask this from another, is the Lord of sanctification. And if He is not in need, the sanctification is accomplished for those who are in need. And it is human nature that is sanctified. And this was therefore
done for our sake in Christ, that we might be sanctified in Him.
ANOTHER. From the objection of the heretics.
It is written, they say, “You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you.” We shall not, then, grant that the Lord was anointed at all, unless He loved righteousness and hated iniquity. For this causal particle, “therefore,” being placed in between, shows the anointing to be as it were a reward for virtue. But if He is anointed for this reason—that He loves righteousness and hates iniquity—then He receives sanctification as a gift. Yet he who stands in need of any addition must necessarily be imperfect, and not similar to the perfect Father.
Solution of the objection.
BRise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and listen in turn, O heretic. Because it says, “You have hated iniquity and loved righteousness, therefore God has anointed you,” do not let anyone suspect that the anointing was received as a reward for virtue, but let us understand what is said in this way: Our first parent, Adam, was of a mutable nature, and was inclined at one time to love righteousness and hate iniquity, but at another time to pass over to the contrary habit and love iniquity while hating righteousness (for this is characteristic of those who possess a mutable nature), and he was led astray by the devil. Since, however, it was necessary for the cure of such a malady that the immutable Word of God should set Himself against the devil on our behalf, so that just as we were defeated through the mutability of that one, we might win through the immutability of the Word (for He is thus anointed as one who always and immutably loves righteousness and holds iniquity in detestation, and who cannot be changed)—therefore, when He says, “You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God has anointed you,” understand it thus: “Since among all created things possessing a mutable nature, nothing could withstand the devil; but You, being immutable from an immutable Father, the God Word, always love righteousness and hate iniquity, God has anointed You,” so that in You, C and indeed primarily in You, human nature might be seen as victorious over him.
ANOTHER, inferred from the same syllogism.
Many things of this kind are said in the Holy Scripture concerning God the Father, such as, “The Lord is righteous and has loved righteous deeds,” and again, “You have hated all who work iniquity,” and again, “I am the Lord who loves righteousness and hates robberies from iniquity.” If, then, anyone were to say: “Great is our Lord, because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity;” will this title, “great,” be a reward of virtue for God the Father, because He loves these things and hates those? Certainly no one would ever be so insane. As, therefore, such things are correctly and piously said of the Father, so also they are correctly D spoken of the Son.
For the image refers to the archetype, and the archetype to the image.
On the utterance of the Apostle which says: "Having sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made by so much better than the angels."
Those who dare to slander the essence of the Word of God, and who strive to rank the Son among things created, say, perverting the truth: "If the Son has become better than the angels, then he has obtained this from a change for the better; for he became what he was not. But what can be changed at all, and be carried over from one thing into another, must necessarily be of a mutable nature. And if it is of a mutable nature, it will also be of a created nature, to which mutation is proper."
Solution of the objection.
Primum quidem, it is fitting for one who enters upon an investigation of the divine Scriptures to observe the time A in which something is said, and the person from whom, and for what purpose, and of whom it is spoken; for in this way the mind will be kept unerring, for those who wish to think correctly. We shall understand the usefulness of the time, hearing the holy apostles saying to Christ: "When will these things be, and what is the sign of thy coming?" 76 And from not knowing the time, those around Hymenaeus and Alexander were penalized, thinking the resurrection had already happened, and saying this. That the knowledge of the persons is also necessary and useful, we shall understand B again, when the Eunuch says to Philip: "I pray thee, of whom does the prophet speak? of himself or of some other?" 78 Or as when the blessed Paul, wishing the person of the Savior to be understood, says: "For he of whom these things are spoken, has part in another tribe. For it is manifest that the Lord has sprung out of Juda." 79 That it is also necessary not to be ignorant of the thing itself, is evident from this. When the prophets proclaim things that pertain to the Savior, and one says: "Behold, a C virgin shall have in the womb," 80 and elsewhere again: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter," 81 if these things are not understood properly concerning Christ, the mind will stray far from the truth, and will wander away from pious thoughts. Therefore, the attentive consideration of the things said is necessary. If, therefore, anyone accurately observes the time, the person, and the thing, he will discover that this was said by Paul because the Word of God was made man for us, when, having made a cleansing of our sins, D he sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high; then he became better than the angels—not having changed his nature into something else, or having become later what he was not before; for Paul is not now speaking of the nature of the Son, but of a thing that happened in the time of the incarnation. He does not, therefore, mean that he was made more excellent than the angels by wishing to compare the nature of the Son with the nature of the angels, but he compares things and actions among themselves, and that for this reason the Son was made more excellent.
A The meaning of what is said is as follows: Paul, discoursing with the Hebrews and desiring to demonstrate with great boldness that the ministry of Christ is more excellent than the mission of the prophets and the administration of the law given through the angels, makes a comparison based on the dignity of the persons, and says: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Having therefore attributed to the Son such great glory, and having ascribed to him those things which are proper to the nature of the B Father, he then says that he became more excellent than the angels, to the extent that he has obtained a name more excellent than they, inasmuch as he is Son and heir, and brightness, and character, and image, and seated on the same throne, and creator. But if through these things he is considered much more excellent than the angels, his administration also will be more excellent than theirs. But when it is said that he "became," it does not signify that he was brought into existence from nothing (for the Word was in the beginning), nor that he was changed from a lesser state to a greater (for the Son was perfect from a perfect Father), but rather that, as it were, through a comparison of glory and dignity, the greater and more excellent [nature] appeared. C Just as if one were to compare a man to a horse, one might say that the man was made more excellent by the one judging, because he participates in reason. For that this word "to become" does not always signify a change of nature is manifest from David saying to God, "Be thou to me a protecting God," and again, "The Lord became my salvation," and, "The Lord became my refuge." The comparison of the Son to the angels is therefore one of administration and glory, and not of nature.
Examples by which it is declared that this word "better" is used in sacred Scripture even concerning things that differ greatly from one another, whether for reasons of nature, or of dignity, or according to the measure of grace.
As regards grace: "A day in thy courts is better than a thousand"; for what can be found equal to the courts that are in the heavens? As regards dissimilarity D of nature: "Receive instruction, and not silver; for wisdom is better than precious stones." Isaiah introduces God saying of the eunuchs: "I will give them an everlasting name, that is better than of sons and of daughters." Therefore, "better" is said not of just any difference, but of a great and often incomparable excellence.
ANOTHER, on the same theme.
Blessed Paul, explaining his own statement and showing most clearly what is meant by "being made better than the angels," adds to what he has said:
A "For to which of the angels did he say at any time: Sit at my right hand?" and further, that it is written concerning the Son, "And let all the angels of God worship him." Now, if the logic of the comparison is such that it introduces the one as sitting with the Father and being worshipped, while the others are introduced as standing by and commanded to worship, then the word "better" will certainly not be spoken of his essence, but of the dignities that accrue to the substance and of honors external to the nature. Therefore, the Son is not one of the created things, but something different from them, that is, the Word proper to the Father.
ANOTHER, on the same theme.
"He has been made," when said alone and by itself, signifies many things; nor does it entirely denote a substance, but when something is joined to it, then it will reveal the power of that of which it is predicated. For example, to say that someone has become a carpenter or a stonemason does not strictly denote the man as a human being so much as it denotes [his trade]; but when [we say] that a man has become a carpenter, being capable of the craft, the term "has become" is said strictly of his scientific skill, and not of his substance or his production into existence. Therefore, if Christ is said to have been made B better than the angels, he does not have the comparison regarding the logic of his nature, but regarding honor and dignity.
ANOTHER, on the same theme.
"Having become so much better than the angels." Even if "has been made" were to be applied to the essence of the Son, the force of the expression would do it no harm, as it is often used indifferently concerning created beings. Now, in the case of those things that are truly generated and made, one could not demonstrate that "being generated" refers strictly and by nature [to their essence], because even if a thing appears generated, it still has prior to itself the fact that it was made by the Creator. For instance, a man is generated, but he has been made, and this is more proper to him than the former. And if some are said to have been generated through the Spirit, yet even these are so called in imitation of the Word who is truly generated from the Father, and they do not cease to be things that have been made; so that the name of generation would be used in those that are created impropri C erly rather than naturally. But "that which has been generated," even if it be said that it "has been made," suffers no harm, since the divine Scripture uses this term indifferently. For it says that "there were born to Job seven sons and three daughters." And again: "Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac his son was born to him." If, then, that which is generated is said "to have been made" even among men, let anyone who hears this in reference to the Son also take it indifferently. But in the case of created things, he will not take it indifferently, for the reason already provided.
ANOTHER.
In the same theme, from a heretical objection.
It is written, they say, concerning the Son, that "Having become so much better than the angels." Since comparisons are always wont to be made among those of the same kind (for D not even...
no one would reasonably compare a human to a horse or a dog, but a human to humans and a sheep to a sheep), it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that the Son, who is compared to the angels—who possess a created nature—is himself created. A
Solution of the objection.
Comparisons are indeed customarily made among things of the same kind. But when such things are judged against one another, the term "better" is not gladly or properly admitted; rather, "more" and "less," or sometimes "greater," is more fitting for them, as this indicates a more proper comparison—just as Joseph is said to be "fairer beyond his brethren." Again, one star is not called "better" than another, but is said to "excel in glory." Thus, when the Savior is compared to humans as a human, he is not called "better" in beauty, but "fairer than the children of men." But when things of different kinds are compared with one another, then "better" is said more properly. And so it is written: B "For wisdom is better than precious stones." For what communion of nature exists between wisdom and stones? If, therefore, the comparison of things of the same kind has a different rationale, but for those which are by nature of a different kind the term "better" is applied, the Son will not be similar to the angels, nor made as they are, but this is said by way of a hyperbolic comparison. And by that very reasoning for which he is called "better," he will be of a different kind rather than of the same kind as them.
ANOTHER, on the same matter.
If, because the Scripture says, "Having become so much better than the angels," the Son is of the same kind as the angels because he is compared to them, let them see what a dangerous consequence follows from this. For what would prevent us from saying that angels can sit with God and reign with Him, and that there is nothing more excellent in the Son than in the angels? For those things which are of the same kind, even if they have some difference among themselves, are nevertheless of the same nature. C For by this reasoning they would also be of the same kind. Therefore, since it is said regarding the angels, "Who maketh his angels spirits," and regarding the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," if the angels and the Son are of the same kind according to their opinion, because he is compared to them in being called "better," then nothing will prevent the angels also from being able to sit with God, even if none of them has been deemed worthy of that honor. And in vain, as is likely, does Paul say: "For to which of the angels did he ever say: Sit at my right hand?" Or how does he bestow that as something exceptional upon the Son, if the nature of the angels also claims it for itself, provided they are of the same kind as him? D For all attributes of one nature are common to all things of the same kind. But prerogatives which accrue to anyone by some addition do not pertain to the substance. For example, the nature of humans is one, yet not all are wealthy, nor do all rule; yet they are capable 19.
A of these same things. But no one shall attribute the glory of the Son to the angels; for He is the Master, while they happen to be servants. Therefore, the Son, who reigns together with the Father and sits with Him, is not of the same kind as the angels.
ALIUD. That the Son is not of the same nature as the angels.
Creator and creature will never be of the same nature. For it is one thing that creates, and another that is created. For if it were not so, what would distinguish God according to nature from created things? Since, therefore, God and Father works all things through the Son, and the nature of the angels is one of all things, it follows that it has been made and created through the Son. B Therefore, He is not of the same kind as those things that have come to be through Him and shall be manifested through Him; but He indeed shall wear the dignity of the Creator, while they shall wear the servitude that belongs to having been made. "For all things," says Holy Scripture, "are your servants" [Ps. CXVIII, 91].
ALIUD. That the Son is not of the same kind as the angels because He is said to have been made better than them.
Whatever appears to have come into being according to substance, might at some point cease to be if the Creator so wills; and whatever has a nature capable of suffering, it is possible for it to suffer, even if it has not yet suffered. But that which is not so constituted by nature, it could never suffer, and is something different from that which is always the same; it neither had a beginning of existence, nor does it know an end of its course, as do those things which began to exist. But no one in their right mind C would say that things having such opposition to one another, and so separated by nature, are of the same nature and substance. If, therefore, it is said of creatures, as being subject to corruption: "They shall perish" [Ps. CI, 27], but of the Son: "But You remain" [Ps. CI, 27], and "They shall all grow old" [Ps. CI, 26] as having created nature; but "The years of the Son shall not fail" [Ps. CI, 28]—how shall the Son be of the same nature as the angels, the Creator with the created, the maker with the made, the eternal with those who can pass away? For even if the angel is an immortal thing, and that by the will and grace of the Creator, yet since he has a beginning of existence, he could also come to an end. For the advantages of nature are strong for those who possess them, but not for God who created them. Just as, therefore, D fire is indeed burning, but not toward God; so also the angel is indeed immortal, but not like God. For He alone is strictly immortal, having naturally—not by grace, as created things do—that firmness and perpetuity within Himself.
ALIUD, with demonstration, that angels indeed are servants, but the Son is Master.
If no one is able to forgive sins except God alone, and the Son forgives, therefore He is God, and not to be numbered among created things. For angels pray,
A saying: "O Lord Almighty, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah?" But the Son says with authority: "Man, your sins are forgiven." The servant is therefore not of the same nature as the Master, nor is the one asking the same as the one who grants that he might receive.
ANOTHER thing similar to this, that the Son is not to be numbered among the servants.
God sends the prophets to demand the fruits of the vineyard, who, besides receiving nothing, were even killed. The Savior, as Master, forgives debts and transfers the vineyard to other husbandmen B as Lord and Master; but angels also are found to have served in the administration of the Law, and to have done nothing of what the Son has done. Therefore, the Son is not of the same nature as the angels, but is Master and Lord.
ANOTHER, more explicit, [explaining] that the [phrase] "Having become better than the angels"
on the difference of administrations
does not introduce a comparison of essences, but rather of ministries.Paul says concerning the Son: "Having become so much better than the angels," not wishing to compare the nature of the Word of God to the nature of angels, nor undertaking an examination of unequal substances on equal terms and in the same way (for that which is divine is incomparable and cannot be equaled), but bringing forth the difference in their C administrations, so that from what each was entrusted with and managed, it might be known who each one is. That "better" has its comparison with respect to the ministry of the angels, may be evident from the following: The purpose Paul had was to show that the things preached through Christ are far superior to the legal precepts. From where, then, does he draw his proofs? He turns to those who administer, and by their differences, he defines proportionately the things administered by them. Angels, indeed, administer the Law, and it is spoken through them; but the Son preaches the knowledge through the Gospels. But "better," he says, is the Son than the angels; in that he was established as the administer of things more excellent, in that respect he is better. Great things are administered by the great, D and small things by the small. But the Son is great, in that he is the radiance and the imprint, in that he hears: "Sit at my right hand," in that he is the firstborn and is worshipped by the angels themselves. But the angels have nothing of these, but stand by as ministers, worship as servants, and perform their ministry for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation. The ministry of the Savior is therefore "better" than that of the angels, insofar as one is engaged in these things and others in those. For this reason, therefore, Paul, wishing to compare these ministries, says: "Having become better than the angels." But when he comes to the comparison of substances, he says: "By how much more different [a] name he has obtained than they." No longer "better," but "more different," which indeed signifies a great distinction.
Appendix of sayings concerning the humanity of Christ; furthermore, a solution to that saying: "By how much better he has become than the angels."
That the word "better," when placed here, signifies a comparison of offices, we shall understand from Paul saying: "For if the word spoken through angels was made firm, and every transgression and disobedience received a just retribution of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which, having received its beginning to be spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by those who heard it?" B And again: "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment do you think he shall be deemed worthy who has trampled underfoot the Son of God?" And yet, if because he is said to be better than the angels, he must by all means be also of the same nature as they (for comparisons are accustomed to be made among things similar to one another), why was it necessary that he who trampled the Son underfoot should be deemed worthy of a worse punishment, the person who tramples the angels through the transgression of the law spoken through them not receiving such? For he who insults those who are equal and of the same kind would reasonably share in the same punishment, and the injustice to those who are wronged has no difference, and a similarity of punishments would C reasonably come about. But now, he who sins against the Son shall be deemed worthy of a worse punishment, while he who sins against the law spoken by angels, of a lesser one. He is therefore not of the same genus as the angels, he against whom it is a greater thing to sin; and the measure of punishment is meted out in proportion to the eminence of the one who has been trampled.
ANOTHER. As if by objection to the same point.
He who sins against the Son, they say, is deemed worthy of a worse punishment, as one who is greater than the angels. But this does not make him entirely outside of the kinship towards the angels. For the insult brought upon each one is measured according to the honor owed to each. Since, therefore, the Son has become better than the angels, he who sins against him has the heavier punishment.
To these things, a solution from the same.
It followed, therefore, in the transgression of legal commandments, not that punishments should be fixed in proportion to the offenses, nor that the chastisement should absolutely be measured by the greatness of the sin, but rather that it be defined according to the dignity of the angel who administered it. But if we see that this is not what happens, and there is one law, although there are many D angels, and sins are covered by the same punishments, then the saying is not true, that he who sins against the Son shall be deemed worthy of a worse punishment as towards one better than the angels, but as towards one of a different kind and much changed. For they are generated, but he is true God, not one of the generated, nor having the comparison towards them; but by as much as he himself appears more worthy of regard, by so much the greater and
A more severe punishment does he show that he is liable to, who has transgressed his commands.
ALIUD, from the same, that the comparison of the administrations is good and most useful, namely that of the angels and of the Son, explaining the force of the word "better." For in what way he is better than the angels, and by how much, we shall understand from these things.
The angels proclaimed the law, but the law perfected nothing. But the Son perfected the work of the Father. For he is perfect in piety who has been instructed in his laws. Death reigned even during the time of the law: "For from Adam," he says, "even unto Moses." But death has been abolished through Christ; for we no longer die in Adam, but are made alive in Christ. From Dan even unto Beersheba the legal precepts were announced, and God was known in Judea alone: but now his sound has gone out into all the earth, and all have become taught of God, not of angels, but of God. For the law also is God’s, but delivered through angels; whereas the Son says, "I myself who speak, am here." Therefore, according to the voice of Paul, by as much as he has obtained a more excellent administration, and by as much as he has become the sponsor of a better covenant, by so much will he also excel the angels; not being compared to them by reason of nature, but being so much superior as God surpasses created things by the account of his essence. The expression, therefore, "better," referred to the administration, by as much as it shows it to be more excellent and more worthy than their administration, by so much the more does it exalt the Son above created nature. And to the angels, indeed, as to servants, it assigns C an inferior administration, but to the Son that which befits the Son and Lord. For he is established, he says, upon better promises.
ALIUD, that the administration of the Word of God is better than that of the angels, and in other ways: and by how much this administration is better, by so much the more is he also who administered it.
Paul says, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the significance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." If the law was weak to condemn sin in the flesh, but Christ condemned it—having shown it to be capable of the Holy Spirit, so that we are able to say, "We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit"—he has therefore become even in this respect better than the angels through whom the law was spoken; and again, the world was condemned under the law because of sin. But the Son arrived, not that he might judge the world, but that he might save the world, neither to demand any punishment, but that he might grant grace to all. The one who justifies, therefore, is better than the one who condemns; the one who grants grace is better than the one who demands it; the one who also fulfilled this in the flesh is better than the one who had not the power to condemn sin in the flesh. He is better, therefore
A than the angels, who issued a weak and condemning law.
ANOTHER POINT, That the Son is not of the same nature as created things or angels.
If the Son is a creature, and of the same nature as the angels, then let them also be called sons by the Father, just as He is, or let Him be called an angel, even as they are. But to no angel has He ever said, "You are my Son," as Paul says; nor does He Himself ever appear to be called an angel in truth. Let them sit at the right hand of the Father, as the Son does; but no angel sits with the Father, but rather they stand by, ministering to Him. Let the angels be heard giving commands as the Son does: "But I say to you"; yet one would not find them saying this, but rather: "I was sent to speak to you." And they indeed serve, while He is served; for "Behold," he says, "angels came and ministered to Him." And He is the Creator, while they were created through Him; they worship, and He is worshipped; the angels are commanded to lift up the gates of the heavens, while He enters as the Lord of hosts, as the King of glory; and they are partakers of life from God, while He is the dispenser of life, being Himself life to all things. And the one says, "I and the Father are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and "All that the Father has is mine," and "I am the light of the world," and "I am the resurrection and the life," while the angels would not dare to utter such words. And if we pray in the name of the Son, we shall receive whatever we ask; B yet in the name of the angels, no one would pray. And to the Son, together with the Father and after the Father, glory is due; yet glory is not yielded to the angels, but rather they glorify the Son with the Father. How, therefore, with such a great distinction lying between the angels and the Son, will they be thought to be of the same essence, when no reason supports it? For the difference in the nature corresponds in a certain proportion to the dignity of the persons.
ANOTHER POINT, That the word "became" is also used of the Father.
The Psalmist says: "Become for me a protecting God," and again, "He became for me salvation." But if they argue that these things are said of the Son, even against their will they will testify that He who protects and preserves the saints C is not of the same nature as created things, since He is seen to be a refuge and defense for them. For this is indeed becoming to God alone.
ANOTHER POINT, Regarding the text, "Having become so much better than the angels," that the word "having become" is not to be understood according to the essence.
If "having become" always signifies the transition of something from non-being to being, and always D
of the substance it must be understood; to whom did the Father say: "Be merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful"? A For if they to whom that speech was addressed already existed, how could this word, "become," always signify a translation into existence? For it is not that which already is, but that which is not, that is translated into existence. If, however, "to become," when said of things already existing, signifies not some beginning of existence in them, but rather the change of something into something else, surely no reason will compel us to signify the essence of the Son of God by the term "he was made."
ASSERTION XXI.
On that saying of the Apostle: "Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to him who made him," B from which it is inferred that the Son is not a work or creature.If the Son is a creature, it is necessary to confess that he is also one thing out of many, and that he does not possess the prerogative of the Godhead, namely, that of always existing. But if this is true, and yet all things were made through the Son, and without him not one thing was made; therefore the Word creates himself. But how can that which does not yet exist translate itself into existence? But if this is impossible, the Son is not, therefore, one out of many, lest, if he be numbered with all things, he might appear to be his own work.
ANOTHER.
If the Son is a creature—but he is called and is the wisdom of the Father, who "made all things in wisdom"—then wisdom made itself. C But if this is absurd, the Son, that is, the wisdom of the Father, is not a creature, lest it be said that he created himself.ANOTHER.
If the Son was made—but he is called and is the power and wisdom of God—there was, therefore, a time in which God lacked power and wisdom, namely, while the Son did not exist. For a creature is made from that which is not. But the Father was always wise and powerful. Therefore the Son, who is these things to Him, also was.ANOTHER.
If the Son is a creature, yet he truly says: "He who has seen me, has seen my Father," D then the image of the Father appears in a creature, bearing the likeness of its archetype or exemplar. But if this is so, there is no difference between the creature and God; indeed, he himself would even be a creature. But if he is not a creature, and yet he appears entirely in the Son, the Son who is the image of the Father is not, therefore, a creature.ANOTHER.
If the Son is a creature, while the Father was not made—yet he says of himself: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"—how in that which is created will that which is not created appear in every way? And if, being a creature,he is, as you say, just like us, what is to prevent us from using the same expression? But this is absurd; for the likeness of that which is not created does not consist in that which is created. The Son, therefore, is not a creature, but the exact image of the Father. A
ALIUD. If the Son is a creature, and he speaks the truth when he says: "All things that the Father has are mine," then there is nothing superior in God than in creatures, if all things that belong to the Father are present in them. But if this is absurd (for the Divine is set far apart from created things), then the Son is not a creature, for all things that are proper and excellent to the Father are naturally present in him. B
ALIUD. If the Son is a creature, let God not be called his Father, but rather his creator or maker. For "Son" indicates a father, and "creature" indicates a creator. But if he is called Father and is God, then the Son is not a creature, but an offspring, showing God not as a maker, but as a Father. C
ALIUD. If the Son is a creature, let him not be called Word, nor Wisdom, nor Power, nor Radiance, or else these things will also be common to other creatures, if indeed a creature—as you claim the Son is—is at all capable of bearing them. For even if you say that he possesses something more than other creatures, he will still be none the less a creature. But if these things are not said of any other creature, and are truly appropriate to the Son alone, then the Son is not one of the creatures, but the fruit of the Father’s essence. D
ALIUD. If the divine Scripture affirms that all things were made through the Son, and yet you acknowledge the Word as a creature and not as the Son, then God has no Son. But if this is true, how will he be a creator, not having one through whom he brings all things into being? Yet God works and creates all things; the Son, therefore, through whom all things exist, is likewise the one through whom all things come to be, separate from being a creature, just as God is.
ALIUD. As if from the objection of the heretics. They say: "The Father, by his will, brought the Son into existence, and in this way made him even a creator. We deny, however, that he exists from the essence of the Father, so that we do not posit any section or derivation in that ineffable essence."
Solutio objectionis. These are mere trifles and much foolishness. For section and division, and all such bodily affections—and it is appropriate for bodily things to be subject to them—let them be understood...
A as pertaining to bodies, to which also suffering is an inherent property. But He who has escaped being a body will also escape the affections of bodies. Therefore, He who is incorporeal generates impartibly and impassibly. For what suffering is seen to occur in the sun when it generates light? What division happens to fire when it emits its own illumination? And if these generate without any separation, and produce the things that are in them without any passion, how much more shall the Creator of these things bring forth the radiance from His own nature? Or how can the express image be separated from the icon? For they are always naturally conjoined and co-exist. But if, according to their opinion, the nature of God is dry and barren, what is the efficacious will proceeding from Him—which, as they would have it, brought the Son into existence, being a certain creative power and a producer of things that do not exist? For in avoiding saying that the Creator of the Son is begotten from the essence of the Father, they are driven into this error regarding the truth. For the Son is the living and essential will of the Father, and His Word, through whom He works all things.
An observation from Holy Scripture, that even in the case of those who are sons by nature, the expressions “to be begotten” and “to be made” are used indiscriminately.
Names do no harm when the things themselves are otherwise. Even if, for those who are sons by nature, the name of servitude is adapted, it detracts nothing from the dignity of their natural nobility. And thus, even if he who is begotten is called “made,” as long as he retains his true origin, the name itself cannot be a detriment to him. For it is not names, but the nature, that we investigate in general. C When, therefore, it is said of the begotten Word of God that He is “faithful to Him who made Him,” let no one slander the genuineness of His existence, but let it be understood either according to the rationale of the incarnation, or let a name which is used indiscriminately do no harm to the truth. Bathsheba called Solomon the servant of David, saying: “Thy servant Solomon.” Fathers, too, very often call those who are begotten from themselves “servants,” and their menials “sons.” But names do not change nature; rather, they signify the authority of those who have willed to call them so. That it is found, even in the case of those who are begotten, that they are called “made” is evident from this. For Hezekiah indeed says: “From today I will make children.” And concerning Job it is written: “There were born to him seven sons and three daughters.” If, therefore, in the case of men, we do not look at the precise terms, but rather interpret what is spoken by looking at the nature of the things, how then shall we not necessarily adopt the same manner in the case of the divine generation?
ALIUD.
The name “son” signifies generation from the father, but “creature” signifies that which is constituted externally. If, therefore, He is the Son, let Him not be called a creature; if He is a creature, let Him not be called...
a Son. But He is both called and is the Son: therefore He is not a creature. A
ANOTHER, a plausible argument showing that the Son is not a creature.
The most wise Solomon says somewhere: “God shall bring every creature into judgment.” If, therefore, the Son is one of the creatures, He too shall be brought into judgment. And how shall He speak the truth when He says concerning Himself: “The Father judges no man, but has given all judgment unto the Son”? Or how will Daniel not be lying when he says that judgment was given to Him? But He speaks the truth; for He is the One coming to judge the living and the dead. Therefore He is not a creature, nor one of all things, lest He Himself also be brought into judgment. B
ANOTHER, more explicitly, on the passage: “Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to Him who made Him;” and what follows, the true meaning of the text.
Paul did not say these things to explain the nature of the Word, but His incarnation. For when did He become the high priest of our confession? When did He become an apostle? When did He become faithful to Him who made Him? Was it not when He became man for us and on our behalf, and, according to John’s voice, “The Word became flesh”? Then, as man, He became faithful to Him who made Him, fulfilling His work, just as He Himself said; then He also became an apostle, sent for us and on our behalf; then He became the high priest of our confession, offering the confession of our faith to the Father, and bringing forward His own body as a kind of unblemished sacrifice, so that He might cleanse us all through it. If, therefore, it is said concerning the Son that He became faithful, that He became an apostle, that He became a high priest, the expression should not be referred to His essence, but to the quality of the facts. Since Paul, being already a man, became an apostle; and Moses in like manner became faithful in all His house; and Aaron in like manner became a high priest, bearing in himself even then the type of the Savior. C For just as Aaron was not born a high priest, but became this after many years, putting on the full-length robe, the ephod, and the other garments of priestly attire, which were the work of women's hands, the same is to be understood in the case of Christ. For the Word was in the beginning, but long afterward He became high priest for us, having assumed the man from the woman, or rather the temple, like a full-length robe, so that by His own blood He might cleanse the people, offering Himself as an unblemished lamb to God: “For He committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth.”
That “faithful” signifies nothing else than true and immutable.
Our Savior is justly called faithful, since He offered one sacrifice for all, which is always the same and not
A immutable. “For,” it says, “having died once for us, He shall not see death again.” And again, the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says: “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son.” Peter likewise: “Therefore let those who suffer entrust their souls to a faithful Creator.” The Apostle to the Thessalonians: “Faithful is He who calls you, who will also do it.” And similarly to others: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.” Christ is therefore faithful, because even when He became man, He remained the same, yesterday, and today, and forever; and is faithful in such a way that the Father is also called faithful in the holy Scriptures.
On the passage: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
B It is necessary again that the word “made” should not be referred to the essence of the Word, nor should any insult be offered to the existence of the Son because of this expression. For if you wish to take the word “made” naturally, you may rightly interpret it as concerning the temple made from Mary; but if you take it appropriately and as is fitting, it has nothing to do with the Word. For example: he who was formerly poor has become rich; or he who was not a prophet from the beginning was chosen by God to be a prophet. For in such expressions, “became” does not signify the beginning of existence, but a change into another state than that which he was. How, therefore, God made Jesus Lord, and how He made Him Christ, it is necessary to inquire piously. For since the God-Word, being Lord of all, became man and was in the form of a servant, He is anointed, or is said to have been anointed, for that which is fitting to man. C But He ascends again into the power of lordship as man, although He is Lord as God. For the Word of God came among us, not to overwhelm the free nature of God with the form of a servant, nor that, abandoning His own, He should be caught by the properties of human nature; but that He might lift our servile condition to the glory of the Lord, and might transfer our contemptible nature to His own nobility. In what way, then, are we called brothers of Christ, in what way are we named sons, if the Word of God having become man has helped us in nothing? But when you hear the holy Scripture saying that God made Him Lord and anointed, and you refer this name of God to the person of the Father, you D confess even so that the Father also agrees with the will of the Son. And the Father knows Him to be Lord even when He became in the form of a servant; yet the Son will not be found excluded from doing these things. For whatever the Father works, these are altogether the works of the Son, and whatever the Son performs, these the Father also works. Therefore the Savior says: “I do nothing of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works.” Thus He becomes Lord and anointed, when He has been made man, and for this reason He is called—
A a servant, and is called also Jesus. For the holy disciple did not speak heedlessly: “God hath made Him both Lord and Christ,” but added: “this Jesus whom ye crucified.” Yet we must again look with precision at the things written. For he did not say that He made for Himself a Word or a Son, but Lord and Christ; which indeed signifies not a beginning of existence, but a transition from one state to another. How He became Lord and Christ has been stated above.
*Otherwise on the same subject.*
God made Him Lord and Christ, not by leading Him from non-existence into existence—for the Word of God was always, even before the incarnation, and let no one who thinks rightly interpret that word “made” as referring to His essence, lest he declare himself impious, by saying that the Word of God B began to be only when He became man—but “made” must be understood as “declared” or “shown.” So also Peter himself, when discoursing with the Jews, said: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man declared of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which He did, as ye yourselves know.” Therefore, since by His works He shows the dignity of the Father abiding in Him, He becomes Lord to those who believe in Him; and it is demonstrated that He Himself is also the Christ. For it was for this reason that He said to the disbelieving Jews: “Even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” and again: “If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not.” If, therefore, because He is able to do the works of the Father, and has within Himself the Father, and exists likewise in the Father, He is demonstrated to be true God; by this same reasoning He has been made C the Lord of those who believe in Him, and has been manifested as being Himself the Christ. But if He is said to be made Lord by God, this also is rightly held. For being recognized by His works as the genuine and true offspring of God, He rules over those who formerly did not believe, with His own dignity and the nobility derived from the Father bearing witness to Him as God. For since He was fully recognized as being the Son of God, He has also become Lord; not that He then first began to be Lord (for He was always both God and Lord), but when He was recognized by those who had believed, then He became Lord to them.
Demonstration from the Holy Scripture, that the Word was always Lord and King
Abraham worshipped Him, calling Him Lord. D Moses similarly says: “And the Lord rained from the Lord fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah.” The Psalmist again: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand.” And again: “Thy throne, O God, is for the age of the age. Therefore God hath anointed Thee: the rod of uprightness is the rod of Thy kingdom.” And again: “Thy kingdom—”
kingdom.” And again: “Thy kingdom—” A For if even before the incarnation the Word of God was King and Lord, how would one not be subject to the charges of blasphemy who claims that His essence was made? For He became our Lord when we recognized our own Master, when, having redeemed all of us with His own blood, He was revealed as Christ and Lord.
The same, differently, from an example taken from ourselves.
If it were said of some man, “He has become the owner of this estate,” who would be so delirious as to think that his essence was made at the time he was shown to be the owner of something? For he did not come into existence at that time, but rather brought something into his own power. Think of Christ in the same way. We used to serve gods that were not gods; we were subject to corruption; but the Word of God became man by the good pleasure of the B Father, so that having delivered us from error, He might become Lord of all. The Father anointed Him, so that through Him the power of the Anointed One might reach even unto us. For in the first Christ, the blessings of our nature were restored, and the first-fruits of divine gifts were made available to us in Him and through Him, as in a man and from God; for God was in the flesh.
The same, differently.
The blessed David sings somewhere saying: “Be unto me a God as a protector,” C and again: “And the Lord became a refuge to the poor.” But in these things, surely no one would say that God then began to exist when He became a refuge to the poor. For since He is always this, and saves those who are unjustly treated, He became for David a God as a protector, and for the poor a refuge. Therefore, just as that which He always was becomes such again for him who asks and prays, so also Christ, being always Lord and King as God, became Lord in us as well, when, having grown to hate the tyranny of the devil which was oppressing us, we cried out to the Father: “Send forth Thy light and Thy truth.” And divine Scripture attributes the work to God. For all things that exceed human nature are rightly called the works of God.
D
ASSERTION XXII
On the text, “But of that day and hour no one knoweth, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Objection of the heretics.
How, they say, will the Son be similar in essence to the Father, when He says He does not know the day of the consummation of the age, while the Father knows it, as He Himself admits? For a great dissimilarity is seen in this, and a certain natural discrepancy.
Solution of the objection.
If He Himself is the Creator of the ages and of times, and of—
A how can it be true that, as one of you claims, he is ignorant of the day and hour? And how can he be unable to know what he himself has made? We must, therefore, examine the things said by him to the disciples. From these it will clearly appear that he knows both the day and the hour, as God, even if, demonstrating the human element in himself, he says that he does not know. For if he clearly explains all the events that are to happen before that day and hour, and says: "This will happen, that will occur, and then there will be an end," it is clear that, having known the things before it, he knows it as well. For after the things said by him, he adds: "Then the end is." And what could the "end" be other than the last day, which he said he did not know in an economic sense, again preserving for humanity the order befitting it? For it is proper to humanity not to know future things.
ALIUD, narrative.
In the sayings of the Savior, it is necessary to examine the time of which he spoke; for in this way we shall avoid being led astray. If, therefore, before his incarnation, the Word of God is found to have said something humble about himself, let them challenge his divinity and interpret the saying against it. But if, when he became flesh, he used human words in order to show that he is truly also a man, how is it not consistent to attribute to his humanity the things said in a human manner? For this is to accept the mode of the economy which he undertook. C For if he did not become man, let him speak everything as God; but if he did become man, he must be allowed to speak as a man, since the incarnation, in which he became like us, does not at all harm his divinity. For this is what was said by Paul: "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." It is proper, then, to the Word, insofar as he is the Word, to know the beginnings and the ends of the things created by him; and time is one of the created things, and he who created time certainly knows also how long it has been granted to endure. DALIUD.
Somewhere, while conversing with his own Father, he says: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son." If, therefore, he knows exactly the hour that he says has come, what prevents him from knowing also that one which, as a man, he says he is ignorant of, because it befits humanity, though he knows it absolutely as God? But one must not, on account of such a statement, accuse the Word of God and rashly impute ignorance to him; but rather admire his love for mankind, by which he was moved not to refuse to humble himself to such an extent as to take upon himself all our [conditions], among which is also ignorance.ALIUD.
We must ask those who fight against Christ, for what reason did the Savior, when he named the angels and the Son, nowhere mention the Spirit?B For he did not say: "The Spirit does not know," but, "The angels do not know, nor does the Son know." And he said this simply, for he did not add "of God." It is manifest, therefore, that he said the angels were ignorant as being creatures. But because he did not wish to tell his disciples, for some ineffable reason of divine administration and counsel: "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"—lest he might seem to be hiding it from them and on that account cause them grief—he said that even the Son did not know, speaking of himself in human fashion, as a man, while in the meantime reserving to himself the knowledge of all things as God. For this reason, he did not say that the Spirit was ignorant either. For if the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God, as it is written, he knows indeed all things that are in him. And if the Spirit, who knows all things and is able to search out all things, receives them from the Son—"For he," he says, "will take from what is mine"—how shall the Word be judged to be ignorant, he who supplies knowledge of all things to the Spirit?
ALIUD. If the Father works all things through the Son, as Scripture says, and without him not one thing was made; and one of all things is also the predetermination of the day and the hour in which the world shall reach its end: certainly this too has been predetermined and expressed through the Son. But how can he be ignorant of that which has been predetermined through him? He knows it, therefore, as God, even though he says he is ignorant of it, in so far as he became flesh and expresses things befitting a man.
ALIUD. If all things that the Father has are the Son's, as he himself bears witness, and the Father knows that last day and hour: certainly the Son also knows it. For thus he will truly have said: "All things that the Father has are mine."
ALIUD. If he speaks truly when he says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and the Father knows that last day and hour, the Son also certainly knows it, being in the Father C and knowing all things that are in him, and having in himself the Father who knows all things.
ALIUD. The Son is called and is the perfect image of the Father. If then the Father knows that day and hour, and the Son is ignorant of it, how will that which is ignorant represent the character of him who knows? But he is entirely the image of the Father, even if the enemies of Christ do not wish it. He is therefore similar to the Father also in this respect; and just as that one knows, so also does he himself.
ALIUD. Whoever says that the Son, in so far as he is the Word, is ignorant of that day and hour, cannot avoid the charge of blasphemy. For if he knows the Father, as he himself bears witness, what prevents him from also knowing the end of creation? But if they should say that the end of creatures is greater
than knowing the Father, they will carry off the punishment for their blasphemy. But if knowing the Father is A superior to and more excellent than all knowledge, how will one who knows what is greater be ignorant of what is less?
ANOTHER, explanatorily. The Word does not say "I do not know" because he is ignorant—for he is the Word and Wisdom of the Father—but rather to manifest within himself the human element to which ignorance especially belongs; for this is indeed proper to humanity. For since he put on our flesh, for this reason even ignorance appeared to fall upon him as it does upon us. But that he attributes ignorance to the humanity and not to his own proper nature, it is possible to know from this: for having brought forward the history of those who lived in the times of Noah, and having said, "They ate, they drank, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the flood came and took them all away," he immediately added: "Watch therefore, for you do not know at what hour your Lord comes," and again: "At an hour you do not think, the Son of man comes." Yet it was necessary, if he himself were the one ignorant as far as he is the Word, to say this instead: "I do not know at what day I am coming, and at an hour when I do not think I shall be sent." But since he attributed the not knowing the time or the day of his coming B to those listening, it is manifest that he himself, as Word, knows. He says he is ignorant, however, in as much as he has put on the likeness of those in whom ignorance is natural, namely, humans.
ANOTHER. If by the image concerning Noah he wishes to signify the time of his second coming, when he shall come judging the inhabited world, and it is plain that he was not ignorant of the day of the flood (for thus he said to Noah, "Enter, you and your sons, into the ark; for within seven days I will bring rain upon the earth"), he knows therefore the hour and day of his own coming, so that the similarity of things may be preserved, and the type, or image, which is in those things, may signify this.
ANOTHER, still on the same subject. "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." When the divine Scripture says concerning our Savior Christ that he hungered, and thirsted, and grew weary C from his journey, and slept after he had entered the boat, what then will the enemies of Christ do? Will they dare to say that the Word of God suffered these things, or will they attribute these things as proper to the humanity of the flesh, while confessing that the Word of God, in as much as he is the Word, is outside of them? Just as therefore he permitted himself, having become man, to hunger and thirst with men, and to suffer the other things which have been said concerning him, in the same way likewise it is consistent not to be offended if, as man, he is also said together with men to be ignorant.
A For he knows, as being Wisdom and the Word existing in the Father; but he says that he does not know, for our sake and with us, as a man.
B ANOTHER, by which it is clearly shown that the Saviour knew certain things, but for the sake of dispensation pretended to be ignorant of them.
The Saviour says somewhere to his own disciples: "Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep," although no one had reported this to him, but as God, who knows all things. Then, having traveled quite a long way with the disciples, he comes to the sisters of the one who has been mentioned, and asked: "Where have you laid him?" How would he not know the place where the body lay, when he knew that he had fallen asleep? But he did know. For it is not probable that he knew the one thing and was ignorant of the other. Just as, therefore, for the sake of some dispensation, he said that he did not know where Lazarus was laid, so also concerning the day and the hour, even though he says he does not know, he does it for the sake of some utility and good; for he knows as God.
ANOTHER, pertaining to the same sentiment.
When the Saviour was in the regions of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples: "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" And when Peter had answered and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," he immediately added: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for the Father who is in heaven has revealed it to you." For no one knows the Son except the Father, according to the very voice of the Saviour. But if the Father works all things through the Son, and the revelation is one of his works, then the Word himself is seen revealing to Peter the things of the Father; how, then, does he who reveals ask, as if ignorant, who men say he is? Therefore, frequently he feigns the appearance of ignorance for the sake of the dispensation. For knowing what the disciples were about to answer, he proposes the question so that, having received their answer, he might confirm their faith.
ANOTHER, narratively.
The Son, in as much as he is the Word and wisdom, does not ignore the day and hour of his own coming; but that he might not strike sorrow into the disciples, not wishing to answer their proposed question, he said that he did not know, as man; inasmuch as he could say this because he became flesh, as it is written, and made the weaknesses of the flesh his own. For that he said he did not know for this reason, we shall know from what follows. For after he rose from the dead, when he was already about to ascend into heaven, when the disciples asked him when the end would be, and when he would come again, he answered them more sharply, saying: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power." But if he had been totally ignorant of that, he ought to have said: I told you that I do not know, and I do not know. But in fact, he reproves them as if they were asking improperly, and rejects them as if they were inquiring about things greater than is fitting. It is manifest therefore
that even then, though he knew all things as God, because that knowledge was above the capacity of the disciples, he spoke in a human manner, saying that he did not know that day nor that hour. B
ANOTHER. When God is found in Paradise saying to Adam, "Where are you?", and to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?", what then do you say regarding this? For if you say that he asked this because he was ignorant, you are found to be clearly uttering blasphemy. But if you admit that this was managed in this way by a singular design, let it not seem unusual or strange to you if the Word of God, through whom that interrogation of God to Adam and Cain was made even then, should say for a good and useful purpose that he does not know that day as a man, although he knows all things as the wisdom of the Father.
ANOTHER, by which it is shown clearly that the Savior at times feigned ignorance by way of dispensation (oikonomia). When the Savior in the desert wished to feed the multitudes who had followed him, he asks Philip, "How many loaves do you have?", and the question is indeed as of one who is ignorant. But the evangelist immediately adds, saying: "He said this to test Philip; for he himself knew what he was about to do." If, therefore, knowing what he was about to do, he asks as though ignorant, what prevents him even now, for the sake of some utility, from pretending that he does not know the day and the hour? And he does not say this falsely; for knowing as God the Word, he can be ignorant as a man, that in all things he might be made like to his brothers, according to the word of Paul. C
Still on the same: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
Objection of the heretics. Everything, they say, does the Father know, but not everything does the Son know, according to his own word; for his own testimony is most excellent for demonstrating this. If, therefore, the Father knows that hour, but the Son is ignorant of it, how will he who is ignorant of something be of the same nature as him who knows all things?
Solution of the objection. If, according to your opinion, O Christ-fighters, the Son does not know all things, it is necessary to say that the Holy Scriptures lie, and to contradict the saints who say of him: "Who knows all things before their creation." For in "all things" is also contained the day of the consummation; for "all" permits nothing to be excluded. If, however, the Son is ignorant of this, how does he know all things? But it is necessary that the words of the saints be true. And the Son knows all things. If, however, it is necessary that the end also be included in "all things," your sophistry has certainly been shown to be vain. For Christ manages by dispensation (oikonomia) in saying that he does not know that hour, and he is not truly ignorant. D
A ANOTHER. If Paul speaks truly of the Son, when he says that all things are naked and open before his eyes, and if that hour is one of all things, how can he be ignorant of it, in whose sight all things are naked and open?
ANOTHER. If you believe that it is not blasphemous to say that the Son is ignorant of any of the things that exist, then let the matter stand according to your opinion. But let us see if you are not deceived in holding such views about him; let us examine the matter from the case itself, unless you lean upon very flimsy reasoning, using a reed as a staff for yourselves. The Son said he was ignorant only of that day; therefore, if he was ignorant only of that one, he certainly knows the others; and among these will also be the one that precedes it. But if he knows the one that precedes it, how can he be ignorant of what follows that which he knows—that which, as you say, he does not know? For this is just as if one were to say that someone does not know what definition the number ten has, but knows the number nine. For it is manifest that after nine, ten must certainly follow. If, therefore, he knows the day which precedes the last, B how can he not know the last one itself? Or how, when he has spoken of so many signs preceding the end, does he not know that the end follows after those signs? From every point of view, therefore, you will be shown to be foolish, daring as you do to gainsay the truth. For the Son knows all things, even if he says that he is ignorant of something by an economy.
ASSERTIO XXIII
*In the text: "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." And in the text: "All things have been delivered unto me by my Father." And in the text: "I can of myself do nothing: but as I hear, I judge," and other sayings similar to these.*Objectio hæreticorum (Objection of the heretics). But how, they say, can the Son be similar in essence to the Father, when he says that he has received all things from the Father? For he who has [a thing], does not receive it. But since it appears that he has received it, as he himself testifies, it is manifest that he has nothing of himself.
Solutio objectionis (Solution of the objection). D When, therefore, you hear the Son saying: "All things that the Father has are mine, and all mine are the Father's," what then will you say, O heretic? For if, according to your opinion, the Son has nothing from himself, then the Father will have nothing from himself; and if the Father has all things by nature, the Son will have this also. It is therefore absolutely necessary that those who say the Son can do nothing, must attribute the same to the Father—namely, that he has what the Son has; or, if this is to be detested, it is necessary to confess that the Son possesses all things that the Father has. For he said that all his things are the Father's, and in turn that he himself has all things that are the Father's.
A
ANOTHER, narrative.
The Son is not said to have received from the Father because he did not possess these things beforehand. For, being His proper Word and radiance, he possesses naturally all that the Father has, except only for the fact that he is not, and is not called, the Father. He says that he received from the Father, forestalling and removing, as God, the suppositions of the heretics. For lest anyone, seeing the Son possessing all the things of the Father, should, on account of this very great similarity and unchangeable identity, think the Father and Son are the same person and fall into the error of Sabellius, he says, quite usefully, that he received from the Father, though he possesses this naturally. The reason for this is that he brings in the one who gives and the second who receives, showing in distinct hypostases a duality that is not distinguished by names alone. Since the Word is the Father's own, and proceeds from His essence, he possesses all that is the Father's eternally. He says, however, that he received from Him because he proceeds from Him, while otherwise naturally possessing all things that are in the Father. BANOTHER.
It will not harm the Son's standing as to divinity for him to say, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father;" but rather it clearly demonstrates that he is by nature the Son. For if all things were delivered to him, and by saying "all things" he left nothing outside, then assuredly he is not one of the "all things" which he says he received, but he has a birth distinct from the Father. But being the Son by nature, he possesses in every way the things proper to the One who begat him. And it is proper to the One who begat him to possess all things: therefore the Son is not in need of anything. CANOTHER.
If all things were delivered to him, as he himself says, and are given into his hand, he is not one of the "all," but he alone appears as heir, as the Son. For if he were himself just one of the all, he would be numbered among the all, and he would not be the heir. But since he appears having received all things, both naturally and essentially—the principle and lordship of the One who begat him being manifest as passing over to him—he is by necessity other than all things, and solely the Son proper to the Father. DANOTHER, narrative.
The Savior is found saying somewhere: "As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself;" which is reasonable to understand in this way. For by saying "he gave," he signifies that he possesses it naturally from the Father, and he shows him to be, according to hypostasis, another than the One who gave—another, I say, in number only. But by saying, "As the Father has, so also continues the Son," he clearly signifies this: that just as the Father has life in himself from eternity, so also the Son has life in himself from eternity. If, therefore, anyone dares to say that there was a time when the Father did not have life in himself, then this same thing will have a place in the Son. But if thisis impious, and we confess that the Father has always had life in himself, the same must be confessed regarding the Son; for this is what it means for him to have it just as the Father does. But if, while always having it, he says he has received it, the utterance intends some wise dispensation, and it will in no way prejudice the Son concerning the definition of his nature. A ALIUD. If anyone were to attribute speech to the radiance of light, and then say this: "The light has given me all its own things, for I shine just as it does"; would anyone rightly say that this radiance did not at some time possess the power to shine? And how, then, was it a radiance? But if, while always possessing the power to shine—because it has all things that are in the light—the one who is begotten from it is said B to have received it from it, how would it not be absurd not to understand something more regarding the Word of God than from this example? For since he possesses all things naturally from the Father, he says he has received them from him because he is begotten from him, together with all that he possesses.
ALIUD, on the verse: "All authority has been given to me," and "Glorify your Son,"
or, more generally, about the Son being glorified or receiving something. C The Son of God, insofar as he is the Word, does not beg from the Father, nor is he said to receive, because he is in need of glory or any other thing, but he does this by reason of the incarnation. For he receives with respect to human nature, because he has been made like us. Yet he abounds in all things as God. For since man alone and by himself, even if he receives some good from God, easily loses this very thing (which, indeed, Adam suffered), stripped by disobedience of the grace which had previously been conferred upon him: it was altogether necessary, so that we might not fall into the same things again, that the immutable Word of God, having become man, should ask from the Father the gifts which proceed from him; so that through him, in whom no change or alteration falls, the same gifts might be stabilized and confirmed in our nature as well. For grace, having found a beginning, remains firmly in Christ; and he himself transmits the likeness to us as well: for we are all in him, insofar as he was made man and wore the same flesh that we do. For by this D reason we are called both brothers and one with him. He asks, therefore, and receives from the Father for our sake, the things which he himself possesses naturally as God. But when he assumed flesh, which stood in need of glorification, and this indeed became his own, and not that of any other: he rightly claims for himself and joins to himself the things that happen to it or around it, and as a man not possessing them, he receives from the Father what he possesses naturally as Son and God. ALIUD. If the Word of God was made man, as he has entirely been made, and I believe no one would deny this, what is it that moves some to not allow him to use human words? For he who did not shrink from undergoing the thing itself, but...A in his descent reached such great humility, would not have shrunk from appearing more modest in his own words. If, therefore, he has not become man, let some attribute these humble utterances to the Word, and let them say that he both is ignorant and stands in need of glory, and receives something from the Father. But if he has become man, let these be the voices of humanity, and let no one slander the Word of God as if he did not possess the perfection that the Father has; nor let anyone insult the genuine offspring of God.
ANOTHER
The Word of God, in as much as he is Word, is not glorified or given anything by the Father, nor is he sanctified; rather, it is we who are [sanctified] in him. Both he himself makes use of such words on our account, and the divine Scripture says certain such things about him. For if, as some suppose, it is necessary to refer such things to the Word of God, let them see to it that they do not make the manner of his coming B idle and fruitless, and prove our nature to be devoid of the grace from God. For if it is the Word who is glorified and sanctified according to his divinity, what benefit has accrued to men from his becoming man? For he himself is seen to have risen from the dead, not we. And what convinced him to become also flesh? For if it was to benefit human nature, then according to them that undertaking is idle; for the flesh is not seen to have been benefited, but rather he himself. And if it is when he became man that he is seen to have received glory and sanctification and power, and all such things as are related about him, it is clear that before his coming he was, according to them, destitute of these things, and receives them at the time of his coming. Therefore he is confessed to be thankful for the flesh, having become better when he wore it, C not having made it better. But this is most impious to both think and say. For he came so that he might glorify and sanctify man. The Word, therefore, is not the one who receives anything; for he is perfect, just as also the one who begat him. But we receive in him, because he wore our flesh; for in the same way as, when he rose, we too rose, and when he ascended again, the ascent to heaven was renewed for us, so too when he is said to be glorified and sanctified, we are the ones who are enjoying these things.
ANOTHER, by which it is shown clearly what he had as God, he begged for on our account as man
D Christ says somewhere: "Father, glorify thy Son." And again: "All things have been delivered to me by the Father." And after the resurrection: "There was given to me," he says, "all authority in heaven and on earth." But it is clearly shown that even before all things were delivered to him, he was Lord of all. For all things were created through him, and the Psalmist, knowing all things to be servants of the Creator, says: "All things serve thee." And although he is Lord of glory, he appears as one asking for glory. For so Paul said concerning certain ones, that "if they had known, [they] would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
A That He possessed glory as Son even before asking the Father for it, He Himself clearly teaches, saying: "Father, glorify Your Son with the glory which I had with You before the world was." If, however, He confesses that He possesses the glory even before the world was, yet now asks for it as though He did not have it, He does this for our sake; and the petition in Him has become ours, calling glory down upon the human nature. And when, after the resurrection, He says: "All authority has been given to Me," it is evident that He had this even before the resurrection. For if He did not have it, how was He rebuking the devil, saying: "Get behind Me, Satan"? or how did He bestow on the disciples authority over demons? or how did He Himself, as one possessing authority, loose the daughter of Abraham, who, as it is written, was bound by the devil? or how did He grant health to the paralytic? how did He forgive sins to the sinful woman? how did He raise the dead? how did He open the eyes of the blind? It is clear, therefore, from this that He is using expressions fitting to man, not when the Word was outside the flesh before His visitation, but when He became man, calling down upon us the gifts from the Father. For we are thus said to be partakers of the divine nature, because the Word took on our B humility, so that He might lift us up to His own height, not that He might remain below, as we are. For this reason, although we are human by nature, we are called gods, inasmuch as we are this in Christ; for Christ is God.
ALIUD
If some attempt to attribute certain humble words that befit the flesh to the divinity of the Word when they see Christ performing miracles through the flesh, what, then, will they say? For when He had made clay from spittle and earth, He healed the blind man; and by extending His hand and touching the bier, He raised the only-begotten son of the widow; and by uttering a voice through the body, He called Lazarus forth from the tomb. For these things were accomplished through the flesh, but they were not the works of the flesh. Therefore, just as if we look to the nature of the matter, we estimate the outcome of such works by the power of the divinity, even though they were done through the flesh; thus, when He says something human on account of the flesh, let us not attribute this to God the Word, but when we see it to be foreign to the divinity, let us refer it to the flesh. For thus, by referring each of His C deeds or words to its proper place, we shall obtain a true and in no way erroneous knowledge of our Savior.
ANOTHER, NARRATIVE
Sacred Scripture proclaims one Christ: "For there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." For God is known from the works that befit God alone. Since, however, the Word became flesh, as it is written, He must also appear as man,
be, nor could he be seen as such from any other source A than from sufferings and words that are seen to be appropriate, yet lacking in sin. It is necessary, then, that he both does and says what is fitting for men, so that he may surely declare that he has become man. We may therefore see both in him at the same time. For he inquired where Lazarus was laid, in a human manner; yet he raised him, as God. And to his mother, when she said, "They have no wine," he replied as a man; yet he immediately changed the water into wine. For he was true God in the flesh, and flesh truly in God. By those things through which he was to be known as God, he acts in a divine manner; and those things through which he had necessarily to be seen truly as man, these he does and says, administering the truth through the mystery. Let there be rendered, therefore, to God the things that are owed to God, and to humanity the things appropriate and owed to it; and thus he who believes in him will be B free from all offense and error.
ANOTHER. From an objection of the heretics.
"All things, they say, have been delivered to me by my Father" (Matt. xi, 27). But he who receives all things from another, it is clear possesses nothing from himself; and such a one, how shall he be equal in essence to God and the Father who possesses all things?
Solution of the objection, by reduction to the absurd.
If the Son, having received all things, appears to possess nothing from himself, then the Father, having given all things, has nothing now in himself. But C this is absurd; for how shall the Father be destitute of the things that naturally belong to him? He possesses all things, even though he has given them to the Son; and even if the Son is said to have received, he was never at any time destitute of them. For he receives them according to the human form, but he possesses them naturally, just as the Father does.
ANOTHER.
Christ says somewhere: "The Father loves the Son, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man" (John v, 22). If, then, he receives the authority to judge, not for any other reason, but because he is the Son of man, it is not because he is the Word and God that the Son receives it, but because he has D become man. Therefore, the receiving is to be attributed to the humanity, but to the divinity of the Son, the possessing naturally all that belongs to him that begot him. For thus he would be also the perfect image of the Father.
ASSERTION XXIV
Regarding the things said concerning the Savior in a human manner by the evangelists: concerning the text, "He wept" (John xi, 35); and concerning, "Now is my soul troubled" (John xii, 27); and concerning, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt. xxvi, 39); and concerning, "My soul is sorrowful"; and as many things similar to these as are sought, arguments of proof, even from the Holy Scripture, overturning the false reasoning of the Christ-haters.
If these words were spoken by any ordinary man or even by a man...
A who believes that such words ought to be spoken, he weeps in the manner of a man, and again let him fear and tremble at death, and let him become sorrowful and troubled, and whatever the human nature is naturally prone to endure, let him too endure. But if God was in the flesh—and indeed He was, and not otherwise—whom does God fear? If He was true when He said, "I am the life," in what manner does the Life fear death? If He saved others from death, how did He Himself fear death, He who exhorts His disciples to boldness and to contempt for death, saying: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul"? How could He Himself fear to suffer this, if He encourages Abraham, saying: "Do not fear, for I am with you"? If He strengthened Moses against Pharaoh, and says to Joshua the son of Nun: "Be strong and act manfully," how can He Himself be susceptible to cowardice, or how did He fear men, He who counsels others not to fear, and persuades them to cry: "The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do to me"? And how did He, who came for this very purpose, that He might slay death, B Himself fear that against which He had come? Or how would it not be an extreme form of impiety to say that He feared Hades, whose own guards trembled at the sight of Him, and having opened the gates, let go the spirits that were locked within, so that many of the saints rose again, and entered into the city, as it is written, and were seen by many? How did He fear death, who, while being sought, said to those who had come to seize Him: "I am He"? How did He fear death who says: "I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it again," and "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself"? The Word of God, therefore, in Himself did not fear death; but the humanity which by its own nature recoils from death did.
ANOTHER, narrative.
It is entirely necessary that those who desire rightly to understand what is said in the Holy Scriptures regarding our Saviour Christ, should examine the occasion C and the times in which either He Himself said something about Himself, or the Holy Scriptures said it about Him. If, therefore, before the Word of God became flesh, He is ever found to have wept, or to have feared death, or to have endured any other human thing, then let the things spoken about Him hold true even now. But if it was only when He became man that the Holy Scriptures said such things of Him, why shall we not rather think that those things were said in a human manner, so that we may escape the evil of blasphemy?ANOTHER. From the objection of the heretics.
He who wept, they say, and felt fear and sorrow, how will He be God by nature? For such things are proper to men. DA * He who raised Lazarus from the dead, and turned the water into wine, and granted sight to the man blind from birth, and said, "I and the Father are one," how shall He not be God by nature? For the things which have come to pass appear to be the works of the Godhead. But if you take offense at what has been said or done in a human manner, for what reason are you not benefited by those things which He is found to have done and said in a manner worthy of God? And again, if through those things you descend to thinking something lowly concerning the Son of God, why do you not ascend through these to thinking high and lofty thoughts? For He who said and suffered those things in a lowly manner, also said and did these in a lofty manner, as God. Therefore, the cause of the Incarnation, and the economy of the appearance in the flesh, was a necessary B pretext for some human things to come to pass.
ANOTHER. Let the economy of the appearance in the flesh, and the manner of the Incarnation, be examined, and those who hear them will be far removed from all stumbling and offense regarding whatever the divine Scriptures say about the Savior. The purpose, therefore, for the Word who became incarnate, was to declare clearly that He truly clothed Himself in flesh and became man, not abandoning His being the Word of God (for there was no other way for the human race to be saved); but in order that no one, hearing that He became flesh, might suspect that the immutable Word of God had been changed, and had become something other than what He was from the beginning, He C necessarily utters at times words appropriate to men; and at other times He shows forth deeds that are owed to the Godhead alone, so that the composite whole may be understood. Wherever, therefore, it was necessary to appear clearly that He was truly man, and not a phantasm, from there He strives to demonstrate it. For He justly rejects sin, as He is sinless and does not know how to commit it; but He permits the body and the humanity to suffer the things innate to that nature, as a proof that He truly and in reality clothed Himself in flesh and became man, according to the Scriptures. Since, however, as we have said already, it was necessary for Him also, having become in the flesh, to be seen as God, He D performs at times the things fitting for God, and says to those who see Him: "If you do not believe Me"—evidently because you see a man—"yet believe in My works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." Therefore, the things said and done in a manner worthy of God show the Savior to be God. And again, the things said and done in a human manner show Him to be truly man. For this is the power of the mystery.
ANOTHER. The enemies of Christ show their shamelessness on every side, having this one purpose: to insult the Son of God in vain. For when they hear Him saying, "I and the Father are one," they rashly...
A try to twist what has been said into other meanings, not attributing to the Son the fact of being one with the Father, but attempting to tear down what has been rightly and correctly said. And again, finding in the Gospels whatever things He either said or did as a human—such as that He wept, or was grieved, or other similar things—they do not refer them to His humanity, but at once ascribe these to the Word, making it a proof that the One who suffered these things is not God; so that they even count Him among the creatures, even though He is their Creator. Therefore, either attribute to the Son the fact that He is one with the Father, or else you will not find the Word, who is equal to the Father of Himself in that He is the Word, weeping or being affected by grief or fear. Or if you do not believe Him when He says that He is one with His Father, then do not believe that He is grieved when He says so; and thus you will be with the unbelieving Jews, accepting nothing at all of what has been said concerning the Savior.
ANOTHER.
Paul says somewhere about the Son of God: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man." B The Word of God therefore became man; He did not come into a man, as in the prophets, but He truly became what we are, apart from sin alone. He is therefore God, in that He is the Word of the Father and the property of His essence; but He is man, in that He became flesh, as it is written, and put on our flesh. Since, therefore, the faith concerning our Savior Christ is defined by these limits, let the sayings that pertain to Him be distinguished in accordance with reason. And when you hear, "I and the Father are one," look only to the divinity of the Son and the Father, and think of the Son as God, begotten from the essence of the Father. But when, on the other hand, you hear concerning Him that He wept and was grieved, and was troubled, C and began to be sorrowful, think again that while He is God, He is also man, and attribute to the humanity those things that are owed to it. For since He took on a mortal and corruptible body, and one subject to such passions, He necessarily, together with the flesh, also takes upon Himself its properties and passions; and when the flesh endures these, He Himself is said to endure and bear them. For thus we say that He was also crucified and died, though the flesh suffered this, not the Word Himself in His own nature; for He is impassible and immortal. Therefore, we shall interpret the things said in a pious and orthodox manner, attributing to the divinity D those things that are said in a divine manner, but attributing to the flesh those things that are said because of it and as from it, through the natural movements within us; those of which the mind, having the perception, pours forth through the tongue what is quietly whispered in the depths, in the invisible, without speech.
ANOTHER, narratively.
The Word of God was made man for no other reason than that all things that are His might...
A be mingled and, as it were, tempered with human weaknesses, so that He might strengthen the nature of man and bring it to His own firmness. When, therefore, He appears to fear death and says, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me," consider again that the flesh, which was assumed by the Word, was not well-disposed to endure this. For He said to the Father, "Not as I will, but as Thou [wilt]." For He Himself, insofar as He is the Word and God, did not fear death, but was hastening to bring His dispensation to its end. For this was the will of the Father. And He also has the unwillingness to die, because the flesh naturally recoils from it. Therefore, teaching humanity no longer to think only those things that arise from itself, but to seek the will of God, He speaks as a man: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt." For this reason it is also apparent that He added, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
ANOTHER. B If we find the saints so contemptuous of death that they consider themselves rather to be passing into life, if any necessity of dying is offered to them, and they are truly brave because they have within themselves, in the inner man, as it is written, Christ dwelling, how should He who teaches others to despise death fear death? And how is it not absurd to admire the bravery of those who have the Word dwelling within themselves, while supposing the Word Himself to be so weak and cowardly as to be mastered by fear and the malady of cowardice?
ANOTHER. The Savior abolished death by His own death. As, therefore, death would not have been abolished had He not died, so must we think of each of the affections of the flesh. For if He had not feared, nature would not have been freed from fear; if He had not grieved, our own sorrow would not have been taken away; if He had not been troubled, we would never have been outside these things. And applying the same reasoning to each of the human experiences, you will find that in Christ the affections of the flesh were moved, not so that they might reign as they do in us, C but so that, having been moved, they might be abolished by the power of the Word dwelling in the flesh, with nature being transformed for the better.
ANOTHER, on the passage: "My God, my God." We glory in the cross of our Savior Christ, and we believe that we have been saved through this: that the Word of God became man for our sake and was crucified for us, so that He might destroy the death that is in us, and again raise us up with Himself, having transformed us from corruption to incorruption. It was necessary, therefore, even at the very time of His passion, for Him to appear as having truly become man, and not for a mere phantom notion of a man to be conceived of Him. And for this reason, He spoke things fitting for a man, saying, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" and, "Let D
A this cup pass from me." And He demonstrated in very deed that it was God who was incarnate for our sake, and who was enduring these things on the cross for the salvation of us all. For He withheld the sun’s rays and wrapped the heaven in darkness; He split the rocks, and the earth, and the veil of the temple, and performed many other miracles, that it might be clearly shown that He who was incarnate was God. Hence even those who crucified Him, and had previously mocked Him, seeing the miracles that were divinely performed, said: "Truly this was the Son of God."
OTHER
The Word of God became man, not that He might again, as God before the incarnation, do and say all things, but that He might often, by reason of the necessity of the dispensation in the flesh, speak also as a man. Since this is the power of the mystery, how is it not absurd for some to be scandalized when they hear Him speaking something in a human manner? For He speaks as man, and He speaks also as God, having B the authority in both. For in a human manner He said: "Now is my soul troubled"; but in a divine manner again: "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now, to be troubled is an affection proper to the flesh; but to have the power to lay down and again to take up one's soul is a work of the power of the Word. Just as, therefore, when He says something in a divine manner, although He appears as a man, we are not scandalized, but understand the Word indwelling in the flesh; so also when He speaks something as a man, let us not be scandalized, understanding that for our sake He became man, and speaks the things that are fitting for human nature.
OTHER
On account of His much and indeed immense benevolence, the Word of God C mingled and tempered Himself to us, not that He might be changed into our nature—for He is immutable and knows no alteration—but that, by mingling us with Himself, He might transform us toward what is His own. For just as we, having received Him through His indwelling in the flesh, possess henceforth all things that are His—for we are even called sons and gods, if not naturally as He is, yet at least by grace—so also He, when He was mingled with us by becoming man, bore our infirmities; and He is considered Himself to have suffered, since He had claimed for Himself all the properties of the temple which He inhabited, so that the passions of the flesh might be extinguished in us also, and we might be made like unto Christ, who took unto Himself D our own for our sake.
OTHER
God says somewhere through the holy prophets, rebuking the Israelites for certain sins, that "their sons they led through the fire, which I did not command them, nor did it come into my heart." And again to Jerusalem: "And thou hast grieved me in all these things." And again concerning other sins: "Shall I not"
on these things will I not be angry, saith the Lord, or shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation? (Jerem. 15, 9) A Since, therefore, it is manifest to all that the Word of God spoke such things in the prophets, what will the enemies of Christ do? Will they attribute a soul and a heart to God, and say that He was subject to the passion of grief and anger, so that the Word of God, who transcends every created nature and is as great as the Father Himself, might appear no more than a man? They will not do so, I think; but they will affirm that such things were said by the Word figuratively and condescendingly. If, therefore, we preserve that dignity which is proper to the Son of God, even when He speaks such things before the incarnation, and maintain that He is above grief, anger, and every passion, even though He may be feigned to be subject to them for the sake of utility, how would it not be absurd—when He has become man and descended into the flesh which is subject to these affections—not to grant Him, even while He says such things, that He is nevertheless devoid of passion, since those affections naturally belong to the flesh which He assumed for our sake with all its natural properties? B For it is proper to humanity to weep, to be disturbed, to be sorrowful, to shrink from death, and to suffer things like these.
ASSERTION XXV
In that, "The firstborn of every creature," (Coloss. 1, 15) that the Son is not a creature.
Objectio of the enemies of Christ.
If the Son, they say, is not a creature, He would not have been called the firstborn of every creature: for as He has a great affinity C with the creatures, even though He is first among them and before all, He has on that account obtained this appellation.
Solutio of the objection.
It is not difficult to answer objections of this kind from the heretics. But this must be said first: if the name "firstborn" classes the Son with the creatures, the appellation of "Only-begotten" surely excludes Him from their number. For just as no one would be called a firstborn unless he had many brothers among whom he is the firstborn, so no one would be an only-begotten unless he were alone and not numbered with others. D How then is He both firstborn and only-begotten? For it is necessary that either this or that must prevail. But since Scripture calls Him by both names, it is necessary for all who diligently occupy themselves with the Holy Scriptures to seek in what way He is firstborn and in what way He is only-begotten. He is called Only-begotten, therefore, insofar as He is the Word out of the Father, having no brothers by nature, nor being numbered with any other—for one and alone is the Son of God: but He is firstborn not simply, nor absolutely, but among many brothers, as it is written (Rom. viii, 29). When then did He become our brother, if not when He clothed Himself in our flesh? Therefore, at that time
He is called A firstborn, when He made many to be sons of God by grace.
ALIUD
He is called the firstborn of all creation, not because He is first among creatures in terms of time, nor because He is of the same essence as the creatures, but, as has already been said, because of His condescension to creation and His likeness to us. It is worth noting, however, that He is called both Only-Begotten and firstborn. When He is called Only-Begotten, no cause is added as to why He is the Only-Begotten, but He is simply called the Only-Begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father. But when the divine Scriptures call Him firstborn, they immediately add whose firstborn He is, and the cause for which He holds this title. For they say, "Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. viii, 29), and "Firstborn from the dead" (Coloss. 1, 18). Since it was necessary for the Son of God, who holds the primacy by nature, not to lose it when He became man, rightly, even when He took on our likeness, He is placed before all creation. For precisely in that He became man, nothing that pertains to the dignity of the divine nature is lost to Him; but even so, He will hold the primacy of all creation together, being as He is its Creator and Lord. Thus also the evangelist says: "We beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father" (John 1, 14).ALIUD
If, according to the voice of Paul, all things were created in Him (Coloss. 1, 16), He will certainly be other than all things. For in saying "all things," he left out nothing that was not made through Him. Therefore, the Son will not be a creature, but rather the creator of all things, as it is written. For the divine Scripture did not say that He is the firstborn of "other" creatures, lest He be thought to be one of them in reality; rather, it calls Him firstborn of all creation, so that for this reason, as it were, with the whole of creation gathered together in one place, He might be believed to be C something else apart from it. But He who exists outside all creation cannot be of created substance, but is different from it. Thus, the divine Scripture, understanding this observation exceedingly well, did not call Reuben the firstborn of "all the children" of Jacob, lest he be thought to be something other than them; but with great precision it says he is the firstborn of Jacob and his brothers.ALIUD
If some contend that the Son must be numbered among the creatures because He is called the firstborn of all creation, then He will certainly be one of the number of all things. But if anyone were to grant that this holds true, He will be His own firstborn, in that being the firstborn of all creation, He also is contained in the number of all. He will therefore be both first and second to Himself. For if DHe, by being called the firstborn of all creation, were Himself one of the creatures, and all things were made through Him, He would be His own maker according to you, and the Creator would be created, and that by Himself. For if He is among all things and all things are through Him, the stated conclusion will be true. And if all of creation consists in Him, how can He be one of all things, He who gives consistency to all things? B
ANOTHER, narratively, according to the pious understanding, as to how "Firstborn" is understood.
"Firstborn among many brothers" is said in that He became like us in all things, sin excepted, and in that, bearing our flesh and being called our brother, He is rightly so named. He is also "firstborn from the dead," for He was the first to raise His own flesh to incorruptibility, and the first to lead it into heaven. Therefore He also says: "I am the way," and "I am the door." For through Him human nature is taught to walk the new path of the resurrection, and enters heaven itself as if through a certain door. C
ANOTHER, how it might be piously understood, "Firstborn of all creation."
Because of the Father’s love for His creatures, the Son called Himself the firstborn of all creation, and stooping down to the created things, He does not even refuse to be numbered with them, so that since He is called their firstborn, those things which follow Him may be saved through Him. For if He must indeed be the firstborn, those of whom He is the firstborn shall surely remain. He is, therefore, the Only-begotten according to nature, inasmuch as He alone exists from the Father, God from God, light shone forth from light; but He is the firstborn for our sake, so that all of creation, being grafted like a certain immortal root and sprouting forth from Him who truly is, may remain. For all things were made through Him, and consist forever, and are preserved by Him. D
ANOTHER.
If, because the Son is called the firstborn of all creation, we wish to number the Son with the created things, as if He were a creature by nature, He will certainly be the first among created things according to time, but He will be kindred by nature, and being a creature, He will be similar to all the others. He will therefore be kindred even to unreasoning animals, to birds, indeed, and to fish. For these animals too, however minute, are parts of the whole creation. But this is absurd. Therefore, He will be piously deemed the firstborn, as among many brothers, for the sake of those called to adoption by grace.
A And He will be placed above the whole creation, as one who is before it and who brought it into being, Himself not existing as a creaturely substance.
ANOTHER. Just as He was called the firstborn among many brothers, because those saved through Him have been called to the adoption of God by grace; and again, the firstborn and first-fruits of the dead, because He rose to incorruption before all: so He is said to have been created as the "beginning of ways," because for all thereafter, the way to salvation was opened through Him.
That He is called Only-Begotten for no other reason than that He alone has been truly begotten. Defense by simple syllogisms.
If He is the Only-Begotten because He alone was made immediately, then He was made against the will [of the Father]; but since nothing has been made without the will of God mediating and intervening: He is therefore not the Only-Begotten because He was made immediately, but because He alone is the fruit of the Father.
ANOTHER. If He is the Only-Begotten because He alone was made by Him, according to your opinion, He—the one who made only this, and not all things—would not be the Creator of the whole universe. But if the Father is the Creator of the whole universe (for all things are from Him), then the Son is not, on that account, the Only-Begotten because He alone exists, but because He alone has been naturally begotten. B
ANOTHER. If He is the Only-Begotten because He alone was made by the Only One, and the sun alone makes the day, then the day of the sun will also be called "only-begotten." But if someone is the sole inventor of any single science, or the maker of a single image, the things made by him would also be able to be called "only-begotten." But if no one has ever called a single work "only-begotten," how shall the Son be thought of as the Only-Begotten as one who was made, and not as one who was begotten? C
ANOTHER. If He is called Only-Begotten not as the one who alone was begotten, but as one who was made, and Jephthah's daughter is also called "only-begotten," then she would be only his work, but not his offspring. Or, if it is to be confessed that she is "only-begotten" because she was begotten by her own father alone, then the Son is clearly D also the Only-Begotten, as the only one begotten as heir of the Father's essence.
ANOTHER. If He is the Only-Begotten because He alone was made in such a way, and the sky alone was made as such a work as it is, then the sky would also be "only-begotten." But if, although many—and indeed only—creatures were made, yet they are not called "only-begotten," the Son is therefore the Only-Begotten not as the only one made in such a way, but as the only one begotten.
ANOTHER. If he is called Only-Begotten A because he alone excels all things, and the Father also excels all things, then the Father would also be called Only-Begotten. But if he is not called Only-Begotten, even though he excels all things, then neither is the Son called Only-Begotten because of his excellence over created things, but because of his generation from the Father.
ANOTHER. If he is called Only-Begotten because he alone is the messenger of the Father’s will, and our own word—which is innate in us—is the messenger of our mind’s thoughts, then this word of the mind could also be called "only-begotten." B But if no one from every age has ever called the word that reveals hidden thoughts "only-begotten," how then would the Son be called Only-Begotten as a messenger, and not rather as one who is begotten?
ANOTHER. If he is called Only-Begotten because he alone is the creator of the things after him, he will have no companion in creation, nor anyone who made anything with him, except the Father alone. But if all things were made in him as in Wisdom, and the heavens were established in him, and all their C power by the Spirit of God, it is redundant to call him Only-Begotten as the sole creator of the things after him, rather than as the sole creator naturally begotten from God.
ANOTHER. If that which is solely made, but not solely begotten, is truly "only-begotten," then the son of Sarah is not "only-begotten"—for he was not made by her, but begotten.
ANOTHER. If he is Only-Begotten because the Father established him alone, then he would no longer be "first-born," nor himself begotten, since other brothers are not from the Father. But if he is truly first-born, D holding the primacy in all things (Coloss. 1, 18), then he is not called Only-Begotten as one established alone, but as a good fruit begotten from a good Father.
ANOTHER. If he is first-born from God as being the first begotten among many, and he is also first-born from a Virgin, he would also be from her as the first of others. But if he is the only one, yet not begotten from Mary before others, he is called her "first-born"; therefore, he is also "first-born" from God, not as the first among many, but as being the only one begotten.
ANOTHER. If he is called "first-born" because he was the first of others to be begotten, yet the first thing begotten would not differ from those begotten from the same source after him, then the Son would not be superior to those after him. But if the maker differs in all respects from what is made, and the Son is the Maker while the others are made, he certainly—
A would be the firstborn of his own handiwork, he who first became for them the cause of the title of Son?
ANOTHER. If the first things are acknowledged to be the causes of the second, and God and the Son of God were first, then the Son is the cause of those things that are called second, as being from him. If the Son, therefore, is called firstborn of the second sons, he is not said to be so as the first among them, but because he was the first to become for them the cause of the title of Son.
ANOTHER. If he is called firstborn because he was made first, and it is consistent that he who has made not only some one thing first, but also other things after that first thing, then the Son has made nothing. But since he has made everything, he is not firstborn as a creature, but as one B in whom all things that are in heaven and on earth were created.
ANOTHER. If the Son came into being on account of creatures, he will owe them gratitude, inasmuch as they have been the cause of his own generation.
ANOTHER. If, because creation could not endure the Unbegotten working by himself, the Son therefore acts as creator, he would be a certain intermediate power, and he himself would not be Unbegotten; for neither could creation endure him, nor again would he be among the things that were made; for he could not endure the Unbegotten himself. Since, however, he is neither of these, it remains that we must necessarily confess him to be begotten of the unbegotten nature.
ANOTHER. Objectio Eunomii. If the Son, he says, is true God, how does Holy Scripture also count him among created things, saying, "The firstborn of all creation"? For it is absolutely necessary that he be by nature such as those things C of which he is the first.
Answer to the objection. An impious discourse, and full of absurdity. For if the Son is necessarily similar to those who were made after him because he is called their firstborn, and yet he was made not only man, but also many and diverse animals, it will be timely for you, impious enemies of Christ, to say next, with brazen impudence, that the Son is also similar to irrational animals by nature. He is not, therefore, universally akin and similar to those of whom he is said to be the firstborn; but he is called so, with Holy Scripture showing us that we are all called in the Son and through the Son to an equal stature with him, declared sons of God by grace. And he himself is the D beginning of the grace given to us: and through his immense
into his own goodness makes those who were created through him similar to himself. And this very fact that he is the first, declares him to be the true image of the Father. For just as the Father says that he is first, so also the Son, since he is the perfect image and likeness of the first Father, both is and is called first: for the first Father is in him, and he likewise is in the first Father, and through him all things were made, and rational creatures are called to adoption as children. A
ANOTHER.
If, because the Son is called the first of all creation, it is therefore absolutely necessary that he be akin to those who were created after him and be of such a nature as those things which are later in time; what, then, will you say even when you hear the Father saying concerning himself, “I am the first, and I am after these things”? B Will you also, by assigning to him alone a priority in time over created things, attribute to him a created essence and number him among the things that have been made? But I do not believe anyone would come to such a pitch of madness as to dare even to conceive this in his mind. As, therefore, the fact that the Father is called the first does not force one to think him akin to all those who are after him; so also if the Son is called the first of creation, he will not at all be one of the things that have been made. But just as the Father, showing himself to be the beginning of all things, said, “I am the first,” C so also the Son is called the first of all creation. For through him all things were made, and he himself is the beginning of all created things, as their creator and artificer.
ASSERTION XXVI.
On that which was said to the sons of Zebedee: “To sit at my right hand or at my left, is not mine to give.”
From the objection of Eunomius.
How, he says, if the Son is equal to the Father, did he say to the sons of Zebedee: “It is not mine to give”? For this is clearly the statement of one who has no power, and who could not grant what they desired. Wherefore he is not equal to the Father who has power over all things. D
Solution of the objection.
You show the height of your ignorance in this matter as well, you enemies of God. For you ought surely to have scrutinized the words of our Savior accurately, and not have rashly turned perfectly spoken words into pretexts for calumny. The sons of Zebedee approached him, asking for the highest honors to be conferred upon them. But it was absurd not to await the generosity of him who bestows those honors, but rather to snatch, as it were, a gift that is sometimes owed to others. Therefore, to such an absurd petition, the Savior rightly replies, “It is not mine to give,” not because he could not grant it, but because the rewards are of those who labor in proportion to the labor they undertake. For just as if someone, having set forth the prizes for those called to the contest,
should say to them: “It is not mine, O men, to seize the highest prize, and to confer it upon whomever I wish, for I have not set the boundaries of the course for this reason; but he shall take it who, by conquering all others, has become worthy to be honored most.” Thus also does the Savior decide that it is not reasonable to confer the highest honor readily upon those who ask for it, while pushing aside those to whom it is justly owed. For it is more becoming that it should be bestowed upon those for whom the foreknowledge of the Father B has prepared it, because of the excellence of their virtues and upright deeds; wherefore this saying of the Savior does not demonstrate his own impotence, but refers to his incarnation.
ANOTHER. If, according to your opinion, O enemies of God, he is unable to satisfy the petition of the sons of Zebedee, and for that reason says, "It is not mine to give," how is it that in other places he is found to have bestowed this upon all the disciples together, when he says: "Amen, amen, I say to you, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones"? For this is not the speech of one predicting things to come, but of one bestowing grace upon those who have labored together. If, therefore, he speaks these things truly, how can he who bestows upon all refuse to bestow upon two? But if you dare to say that the promise is empty, this will suffice to confirm all your wickedness. For you declare that the Truth lies. As, therefore, if he had not been able to give to the sons of Zebedee, he would not be equal to the Father, so, since it is evident that he gives to all, he will be equal to the One who begat him C.
ANOTHER. If the Savior speaks truly when he says, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father," and among all things is contained also the ability to confer grace upon whomsoever he wishes: he does not therefore argue his own impotence to give when he says, "It is not mine to give," but the saying has a meaning regarding the economy.
ANOTHER. The prophet Isaiah, speaking somewhere about the Savior, says thus clearly: "Therefore he shall have dominion over many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because his soul was delivered unto death." If, therefore, he himself distributes honors to the saints, how shall we say that he is unable to grant what he wishes to those who ask? And if the Father works all things through the Son, and one of all things D is the distribution and bestowing of gifts to the saints, he himself will certainly be the one who bestows and distributes, having the Father in himself.
A most clear explanation of the saying, "It is not mine to give," and how it ought to be understood.
Our Savior Jesus Christ, exhorting his disciples that they should desire nothing at all of those things which are in this life, but rather that they should despise them, and...
A that they should cling unswervingly to God, and surrender themselves wholly and entirely to His worship, and having promised to give a rich reward for these things to those who keep the commandment, the disciples approached, saying: "Behold, we have left all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" To this question of theirs, Christ replies: "You who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Having heard this promise, the sons of Zebedee were inflamed with a certain desire that did not become them. For they sought to seize for themselves alone that which was set before all the disciples as a reward for their goodwill toward Christ. But through fear of seeming to be overcome by a desire for vain glory, they kept silent, not revealing their mind, but they contrived to have their mother minister to this for them. And indeed, she approached and said: "Command that my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and the one on thy left." B Through these words, the woman clearly seems to want to take for her sons alone that which is owed to all. For if this is not the case, for what reason does she approach again to ask for what had already been given? Since they themselves were also among those who had heard Christ saying: "You who have followed me, shall sit on twelve thrones." But the Savior, as God, perceiving the recesses of the human heart, calls the sons of Zebedee to him, and in His goodness reproves them gently, so that they might not be overwhelmed into despondency by the weight of their grief. And He says plausibly: "It is not mine to give." And He is certainly not accusing His own nature, as if it did not have the power to grant this (for it would be truly absurd and very foolish to think so, since it is already seen that He has granted and promised this), but rather, He says, "Because you seek to receive an unjust petition and a favor such as it is not for me to grant, 'It is not mine to give.' For I am a just judge, and I render to the labors of each one their rewards, as if by debt, according to their worth. Moreover, you have judged sitting on my right and left to be a vain glory; but it is not mine to grant this. For He who teaches not to fall ill, would not Himself give an illness to anyone; just as if the fire were to say to one who wishes to be cooled, and asks this of it, 'It is not mine to give you what you ask; for I am of a contrary nature.' Being, therefore, a just arbiter of the contest, I ought not C to grant this to those who simply ask, nor should I wrongfully injure all the athletes by bestowing the honors upon two alone; but I must award what is owed to each one in proportion to his accomplishments. It belongs, therefore, to those to receive it for whom this has been justly prepared by the Father, who works all things in me and through me. But let no one think, because He says it is not in His power to grant it, that the name of the Father is being introduced, and that the honors prepared for the saints are being said to be prepared by Him. But He says this by way of economy; for it is His custom to attribute to the Father everything that appears to transcend human nature, ascending to the Father as God. For even He Himself, existing as God by His own nature, and being one with the Father, is able.
whatever is attributed to the divine nature. He therefore rebukes the ambitious and vainglorious sons of Zebedee, and modestly leads them away from that vice and deters them, and teaches them to cultivate modesty. This we shall understand from what follows. For the rest of the disciples were indignant that what was proposed and was due to all should be snatched up by one or two, so far as the petition and the approach of the woman were concerned. A But the Savior, having summoned all the disciples to Himself, as it is written, spoke generally to all, lest His speech should seem to pertain only to them: "The kings of the gentiles exercise lordship over them, and the princes have power over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be first among you, shall be your servant." Then He puts forth Himself as an example: "Just as," He says, "the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve." Finally, as if sealing what He has said and explaining its meaning more clearly, He adds a parable, by which He again advises those who were invited to a banquet not to take the first place of their own accord, but to wait until that honor is bestowed upon them by the host. For it is better, He says, to be called from the last place to the first by the voice of the host, than to be impudently relegated from the first place one has occupied to the last, when another arrives to whom the host judges the first place to be due. Therefore, it is sufficiently shown from the explanation of the whole chapter that the Savior did not say, "It is not mine to give," because He lacked the power to grant the favor, but with respect to the incarnation: whence the insanity of the heretics is superfluous. C
ASSERTION XXVII
On the text: "That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Objectio of the heretics.
But the Son Himself, they say, confesses that the Father alone is the true God, and the Father Himself is found saying: "I am the first God, and I am hereafter, and there is no God besides me." How then do you join the Son to the first and only and true God and Father, as if He Himself were God by nature? D
Solution of the objection.
First, it must be considered that these things are not said by the Father in order to subvert the Son. For what would impel or move Him to that? For if He were contending with that which was begotten of Him as a man might, just as David was provoked to war by his own sons, perhaps such a story would have some plausibility. But if no dissension falls into the divine nature, but rather the Son is always seen to defer honor to the Father, what plausibility can there be that these words of the Father pertain to the subversion of the Son? Wherefore, for the abolition of the false—
as we have said, these things are spoken of the false gods. A Then, in addition to this, since the Savior says, "That they may know thee the only true God," he immediately joins himself to him, "and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ," since he, as regards the nature of the divinity, cannot be separated from the essence of the Father, and always exists together with the Father.
ALIUD. If the Son is the Word of the Father, as in truth he is, and this is acknowledged to be so, who is so bereft of his senses as to think that the Father says he is the only true God in order to take away his own Word, through whom he works all things? Since this is absurd, it remains that the power of this statement pertains to the subversion of false gods, however much the Christ-fighters may struggle against it. B
ALIUD, ex hypothesi. Let us suppose now that some who are wandering, being deprived of true wisdom, have erected an image and have depicted upon it some form of a man or of some other animal, and have called this "light," thinking that light is truly generated from it. If someone were to attribute speech to the sun, and then he were to say to them: "O men, you are wandering; I alone am the light; there is no other besides me," does he therefore cast out his own radiance from being light, in order to do away with the falsely-named light by crying that out? But it is not reasonable to think so. Therefore, when the Father says, C "I am God alone, and there is none besides me," he does not cast out from the deity that which is proper to his own essence—that is, the Word who has gone forth from him—but he keeps him held with himself in the identity of nature, and confesses and glorifies him as existing together with him in the one deity.
ALIUD, showing that even if the Father alone is called God, the Son is necessarily brought in along with him. One of the prophets says somewhere to God: "Who alone stretches out the heaven"; and there is also the voice of God: "I alone have stretched out the heaven." And again, another thing is said clearly about the Son: D "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established." If, therefore, when God and Father says that he alone has made the heaven, the Son is found to have created it, it is clear to everyone that even if the Father alone is named as the true God, the Son—through whom he works all things and speaks—is nonetheless included at the same time; and he is truly in the one and only and first and true [God] naturally, just as the radiance is in the light.
ASSERTION XXVIII
In that which is written in Luke: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men."Objectio Eunomii. And how, he says, can he who is not perfect be equal in essence to the Father? For he is found pro-
- gressing in wisdom. But the Father, being in need of nothing, admits of no progression. A
Solution of the objection.
The enemies of Christ must be asked of whom they think it is said, "He increased in wisdom and grace." They will certainly say, of Jesus Christ. But then, O most senseless of all men, whom or of what sort do you suppose Christ to be, of whom the discourse now speaks to Luke? If you believe him to be a common man, and think he has nothing more than others, let him then indeed progress, as a man. But if he is God incarnate, and the Word, as it is written, who became flesh, what progression can he admit of? Or how is he imperfect who is equal to God? For it is necessary that he to whom he is equal should also be imperfect, if it is so according to your opinion. But if this is impious both to think and to say, and it so appears even to yourselves (for you have confessed the Father to be perfect), it is necessary to believe that the Son, who is equal to him, is perfect also. Therefore, it is not in so far as he is the Word that he is said to progress, but in so far as he became man; and he assumed a nature capable of such B progression.
Another.
Paul says somewhere concerning the Word of God, that he is in the form of God, and is equal to God. If then, while he is equal to the Father, he is capable of progression, and truly did progress: then he is something greater than the Father, and the Word, in progressing, has surpassed the Father, if the matter stands as you suppose. But this is of all things the most absurd. Therefore, he did not progress in so far as he is the Word; for he is perfect as is the Father, but this was said on account of the economy of the incarnation. C
Another.
If the Word progressed when he became man and wore our flesh, his incarnation certainly brought no benefit to us, but rather the flesh itself procured perfection for him. For if he truly progressed when he became flesh, then he was imperfect before his coming, and has now been perfected, according to your opinion. How then do we give thanks that he became man for our sake, when he ought rather to offer thanks to the circumstance for his own perfection? But this is absurd. Therefore, he did not progress in so far as he is the Word, but this was said on account of his administration in the flesh. D
Another.
The Word of God is called by many names in the holy Scripture. For he is said to be and is the Son; he is called wisdom, and God, and power, and the form and image of the Father. But if, being all these things, he progresses, what greater thing could they proclaim of him than that he is the Son, and wisdom, and power, and God, and the rest which it would be prolix to recount individually?
A At this is an impious thought. For there is nothing greater than God. Therefore, insofar as he is the Word, he did not progress.
ANOTHER. Principalities, and Thrones, and Dominations, Angels and Archangels, and every rational power, and in addition to these, men also, by participation in the Word, both are and become perfect in all piety. How then can he who bestows perfection upon others be imperfect, so as to seek to progress, and to receive some increase? Or how, if he truly is wisdom, can he progress in wisdom? Or how does he who confers grace upon others progress in grace himself, as if he lacked it? Unless, perhaps, they will say that Paul is a liar, who calls the Son Wisdom and the Giver of grace? But the minister of truth does not lie. Therefore he did not progress, insofar as he is the Word, but it is said as of a man, who for our sake assumed all that is ours.
ANOTHER. That which is imperfect always strives toward perfection, despising its former place and state, and reaching toward something greater and better. For example, we humans progress in wisdom, and as we make gradual progress in other virtues, so we are carried toward the perfection of life. But the Word of God, since he is wholly in the Father, to where would he advance? Or what increase will he receive, who is so perfect that he has the Father wholly in himself, and is in turn wholly in the Father? For if, while filling the Father (let it be spoken even more crudely, for the sake of example, as in the manner of bodies), C he made some progress or received an increase, he would have been outside the Father, as being greater than that in which he was made. But he has not exited the Father, but is always in him, remaining perfect in the perfect, and having the perfect in himself. Therefore he did not progress, insofar as he is the Word, but he is perfect, remaining the same, and receiving no change.
ANOTHER. B Paul says somewhere concerning the Son, that he humbled himself, having taken the form of a servant. If, therefore, no one is scandalized by this statement, nor, upon hearing that "he humbled himself," thinks anything low concerning the Word of God, but rather admires his philanthropy, how is it not absurd to be scandalized when we hear that he progressed? For if the divinity suffered nothing from having been humbled, certainly it will not suffer from this either. And just as for our sake he humbled himself, so also for our sake he deigned to progress, in order that we, in turn, might progress in him in wisdom, who were formerly overwhelmed by sin; and that we might progress in grace, who were once hated because of the transgression in Adam. For Christ assumed all our things into himself for our sake, so that he might transform all things for the better, and become for created men the principle of every good.
Another explanation of the same saying, which is plausible.
A certain natural law prevents a human being from possessing wisdom greater than what his bodily age allows; rather, our intelligence runs along with it in a certain way, and advances in parallel with the progress of the body. The Word, therefore, having become man in flesh, as it is written, was perfect, for He was the Wisdom and Power of the Father. But since He had to follow the custom of our nature—lest He be thought to be something alien or different from it—as a man, with the steady growth of His body, He showed Himself day by day to those who heard and saw Him to be wiser, being perfect indeed in all things, as has been said before, but following the common custom of nature. When, therefore, you hear that "He increased in wisdom and grace," do not think that any addition of wisdom came to Him, for the Word of God is in need of nothing; but because His wisdom and grace were becoming more conspicuous to those who saw Him, He is said to "increase," so that that increase is to be referred rather to the disposition of those who admired Him, than to Him. B
Another.
That which increases in something is distinct from that in which it is said to increase. If, therefore, He is said to have increased in wisdom, it was not wisdom itself that increased, but the human nature in it. For as the divinity was being revealed and made manifest more and more every day in Him, He became ever more admirable to those who saw Him. And this is what is meant by, "He increased in wisdom." C
Another.
Human nature increased in wisdom in this way: The Wisdom which clothed itself in human nature, that is, the Word of God, as it was gradually perceived through His works and marvelous accomplishments to be deifying the temple which He had assumed, caused it to increase in this respect. Thus, humanity increased in wisdom, being deified through It. Therefore, we too, in the likeness of the Word who was incarnate for our sake, are called both sons of God and gods. Our nature, then, increased in wisdom, advancing from corruption to incorruption, and from humanity to the dignity of divinity in Christ. D
Objection of the heretics.
"But we have heard," he says, "the divine Scripture saying that the Word of God, having become man, was called Jesus. He, therefore, is the one who increases. For do not divide Him for me, since Paul preaches one Christ. And if He is seen to be capable of increase, then He is imperfect. And how will one who is such be equal to the perfect Father?"
Solution of the objection.
You will derogate nothing from the divinity of the Son, nor will you be able to truncate His natural dignity, even if you keep saying this; but rather, you will be defeated by the very things through which you hope to win. For if
altogether, you know that the Word became flesh, and was born man, as holy Scripture says, why do you not also grant Him that which is fitting for a man to suffer, sin excepted? For since to advance is proper to the flesh, let it be said that He advanced, as having become in it, and having made its own blameless passions His own. For the flesh was not of some other, but of the Word Himself. And just as we say that He has suffered in the flesh, even though the flesh alone suffered, B and although He did not suffer as God, yet the body that suffered was His own; so even if it is said that He advanced, while as God He can by no means advance, it is said because the flesh which He assumed advanced in Him.
ANOTHER.
You yourselves also confess, O Christ-fighters, that the Word of God has become flesh, which is nothing other than to say that He was clothed with flesh and truly became man. Just as, therefore, when you hear something great about the Word, and which is fitting for Him naked and not yet clothed with flesh—such as when He is called Light and Splendor and Wisdom of the Father—you do not think of the flesh, but of the Word dwelling in the flesh; so, whenever in the holy Scriptures something is said which is fitting only to the flesh or to the human form, do not attribute it to the Word, but ascribe to the nature of the flesh what is owed to it. Therefore, when it is said that He advanced, Wisdom C did not advance in Itself, in that It is Wisdom, but the human element advanced in Wisdom, gradually shining through and appearing by means of It. For it was as it were an instrument of the divinity inhabiting It, gradually serving to make It manifest through works. Observe, however, that He did not say, "The Word advanced," but "Jesus," lest you should think of the Word naked; but when He became flesh. And if it is said that He advanced, because He assumed that which is capable of advancement—that is, the human element—it would pertain to the humanity; and to it, the advancement would reasonably be attributed. For thus each of the things said will be placed in its proper order, so that things which are fitting for the naked Word will not be cast down into the human, nor again will human things be raised up to the order of the divinity.
ASSERTION XXIX
On that text, "But when all things shall have been subjected to Him, then D the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Him."
Objection of the heretics.
And how, they say, will the Son be equal to the Father according to nature, if Paul speaks the truth that the Son Himself also shall be subjected to the Father? For it is necessary to confess that the subject is less than that which subjects; just as, surely, the conquered is less than the conqueror.
A
Solution of the objection.
The heretics do not understand that by these things they are fighting against their own impiety. For if you grant that the Son is less than the Father, and you are eager to maintain this, why is He not already subjected? For when Paul says, "Then shall He be subjected," by defining the time of that event as future, he does not show that He is already subjected. Furthermore, how is it not more grave than any blasphemy to say that the Son is not now subjected to the Father, but rather that He fights and dissents from the Father? For that which is not subject, as in the case of rational beings, possesses its own will. What then shall we say, when Christ says: "I have not come to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me?" B Let these distinguished interpreters of Holy Scripture tell us whether He does not declare Himself subject when He said that He performs the will of the Father. How, then, is He who is now subject said to be about to be subjected then? Let them hear, therefore, with good reason: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures."
ANOTHER.
If you posit that the Son is a work and a creature, and if you number Him among created things, how, I ask you, does it happen, according to your opinion, that being of a servile essence, He is not now subjected to the Father of all, when the Psalmist says of created things that, "All things serve you?" For it is necessary either to say that the Father is unable to subject the Son against His will and resistance—and by this the one whom you call lesser becomes greater—or, if it is honorable for the Son to be subjected to the Father, but He is not subjected C now, inasmuch as He is said to be subjected at the end, then you will say that He has sinned. And where will that which is said of Him be preserved: "Who did no sin?" Away, therefore, with the absurdity of this statement.
ANOTHER.
From the objection of the heretics.
And in what way, they say, is it not manifest to all that the Son is less than the Father, since He is subject to Him?
Solution of the objection.
And in what way is it not manifest to all (for I must now use your own words), that one equal is often subjected to an equal by a certain divine counsel and dispensation? For shall we not confess that it is one and the same Spirit in the prophets? D Yet how does Paul say that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets? Or how does the name of subjection exclude the Son from equality with the Father? Do not even among us sons obey and submit to their parents, while nevertheless they are of the same substance as them, and participants of the same nature? For neither in those who are subject is the principle of nature less, nor in those who subject is it found to be greater or superior. For since there is one and the same principle of substance in all men, infinite benefits are arranged through the subjection of some...
But if this is considered good even in our case, and in no way removes us from the bounds of our common nature, why, when holding the same view regarding the Word of God, do you avoid this absurd blasphemy? A
ANOTHER.
What moves you, O men, to say that the Son is less than the Father on account of this so-called subjection? For we do not define the nature of the Son by his being subjected; nor does the being of the Son consist in his being subjected, but he is said to be subjected because he exists and subsists in his own hypostasis. Therefore, if the name of subjection is not the definition of his essence, he certainly will not be less than the Father on account of it. If, however, you think that subjection is the definition of the Son's essence, see, I beseech you, into what a chasm of impiety you are being cast headlong. For it would be necessary to say then that the Son is called into existence only when the time of that subjection arrives. For Paul introduces him as one about to be subjected, and not yet subjected. B
ANOTHER, having a persuasive explanation of the passage.
The Father works all things through the Son, and this is the form of subjection, that he should appear to be subject to the Father's will. Just as, for example, when the Father says, "Let us make man," the Word takes dust from the earth in a manner befitting God, and does what is pleasing. "For all things were made through him." Therefore, Paul, teaching that in the age to come the Father will again be all things in us through the Son, says most wisely: "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all." For it is just as if he were saying: Let no one think that in the age to come we shall be partakers of the Father in any other way, except again through the Son. C But the phrase "through the Son" signifies that subjection which indeed denies nothing to the Son with regard to the definition of his essence, but introduces the Unity of the holy Trinity and its accustomed, unchangeable state. For it will not then revolt against itself, nor will that which is always the same be disturbed by disorderly changes, but there will be again, even at that time, the Father through the Son as all in all: life, and incorruption, and joy, and holiness, and power, and whatever might exist for the saints that is laid up in promise. For see what admirable counsel the Word carries. Since he said that all things were to be subjected to the Son through the Father, in order that the Father might not be suspected of being excluded from the lordship of all things—as though the Son had obtained power over them—he necessarily introduces the One who has lordship over all as obedient and subjected to the Father, so that the Father may have the total power of the lordship of all things, with the Son naturally participating in it, D inasmuch as one divinity reigns: the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
ANOTHER.
If the name of subjection [separates] the Son from equality with
it is time for you, who dare to say everything that you wish, to say that the Father is lesser than the Son in the present time, serving in the manner of subjection, and saying to the Son: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” But if the Father serves by subjection to the Son for the sake of all, he is not on that account lesser, nor will the Son be lesser than the Father on account of subjection. For what the Father has already done, this is, in a certain sense, returned to him by the Son.
ALIUD. How is it said that he who is B even now subject to the Father will be subject in the last times, or rather in the age to come? For how is he not subject even now, he who fulfills the will of the Father, and who humbled himself, as it is written, and took upon himself the servant's habit and form, that he might fulfill his work, as he himself says? But I think this is manifest to all, and it is found to be true from the very investigation of the facts. How, then, does the divine Paul present to us him who is already subject as being about to be subject in the future? Therefore, let them examine the saying accurately. “When,” he says, “all things are subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.” What, then, is the meaning of this saying? C Christ is subject to the Father even now, not for all, but for those solely who have believed in him; and on behalf of them he offered himself to the Father as a spotless lamb, not refusing to undergo the cross and ignominy, in order that, having freed us from all sin, he might present us spotless to the Creator. When, therefore, all error having been taken away, the entire world shall have known the true God, and shall have confessed Christ as King and Lord, obeying his saving precepts, then at last, then as all things are subject, he will be subjected on behalf of all, being declared God and Lord and high priest of all, and granting through himself to all the ability to be participants in the Father who is in him. For thus will God be all in all, surely D dwelling in all through the Son as mediator, and infusing himself into each of those who have been called to salvation.
ALIUD. Let every pious person observe the force of these words, and accurately investigate the most precise meaning of the saying: for in this way the evil of ignorance will easily be overcome. Paul therefore says: “When all things shall have been subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.” First, it is worthy to observe to what meaning the saying of Paul leads. For he did not say that the Son would be subject to the Father so that he might become lesser than him according to essence, but that God may be all in all. Do you see how he introduces the mediation of the Son between us and the Father? At the same
[Beginning of page]
A and again He will be present to the saints, and will proportionally bestow Himself upon them according to the grace of each, that through Him they may become partakers of the Father. And this is the mode of subjection: for He administers, in a certain manner, the blessing from the Father, naturally communicating it through Himself to those who are called to eternal life. But this shall in no way remove the Son from His own natural dignity; but being and remaining what He is, by his condescension toward us, He will then also administer to the Father, supplying to us the knowledge of the Divinity in such a way as we are able to learn it. Furthermore, it is also fitting to understand this: just as when the Father subjects us to the Son, He works nothing else in our essence, nor are we found to be different from our former selves by nature through this subjection, except for the change of will and manner and knowledge B which He effects in the subjection, so too the Son, not stepping beyond the boundaries of His own nature (for God cannot be changed), is subjected to the Father, but there shall be a certain mode of the affair and, at that time, one showing Him to be subjected, and the matter of subjection will be found to exist in will alone, not by any means in a change of essence.
ANOTHER.
If the Son is to be lesser than the Father and different by nature, when He shall have been subjected to Him at the appointed time according to the voice of Paul, yet for now is not subjected, He is therefore at present equal to Him. And how is that which is now equal by nature to Him who begat Him, to be lesser at that time? For either some corruption and diminution will befall Him, and the Divinity will be subjected to affections of this kind: or, if this is absurd and contrary to reason, let them themselves explain the mode of the diminution. For since the essence of the Son is not injured, the mode of subjection will certainly not injure Him.
ASSERTIO XXX.
On that, "Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."
Objection of the heretics.
And how, they say, is it not absurd to say that the Son is like the Father in essence, when He Himself is found asking for glory from Him? For He says, C "Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." For if He asks while having it, He appears to do this pointlessly and superfluously; but if He does not have it, it is clear from this that He is not as great as the Giver from whom He asks to receive.
Solution of the objection.
And how could the Lord of glory be in need of glory? Or what, I pray, could be found lacking in that which is perfect? For you would not allow anyone to say that the Son of God is in any respect imperfect. But also it is most absurd to think that, just as some human being, desiring glory and doing this out of D passion, is so [also] the
asking for glory from the Father. But there is in this arcane statement a certain reason and manner of divine counsel.
ANOTHER.
We will also agree with the statement brought forward by you, O enemies of Christ. For the Savior said, by common consent: "Father, glorify Thy Son." But to this voice of His, the Father also responded, saying: "And I have glorified, and will glorify again." If, therefore, the Son asked for such glory as you imagine, as though lacking glory, and the Father promised that He would bestow glory upon Him, why did contumelies follow after the petition, namely, to be struck with scourges by the Jews, to be crowned with thorns, and to be spat upon? For in this the Father is not seen to be glorifying Him, but rather to be providing the very opposite of that which, according to your opinion, He desired and sought. Therefore, the Son does not seek for glory to be given to Himself B by the Father (for He is not in need of glory, inasmuch as He is God by nature), but He draws through Himself the glory from the Father into the human race. For we have been enriched with all good things in Him and through Him.ANOTHER, containing an interpretation of this statement.
Those who accurately inquire into the force of names, and diligently examine the meaning of each, accept the name "glory" in a twofold sense. For sometimes they judge that it ought to be taken for honor, and at other times they apply it to knowledge or information. Just as if someone were to ask what one might think regarding the sun, perhaps, or some other element, whether these are created or uncreated; he who correctly forms an opinion and perceives will surely say that they are created. Therefore, also the knowledge of some matter is called "glory" by those who know the properties and meanings of names. When, therefore, C the Son is found saying: "Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world existed," it is logical to understand the statement in this way: Since, He says, O Father, having become man by the economy, I am thought to be only that which is seen, and by many I am not recognized as the Son existing from eternity, do Thou glorify Me—that is, manifest Me, instilling in men such an opinion and knowledge concerning Me as they would have of Me, hearing that I exist even before the foundation of the world, namely, God by nature, light from light, truth proceeding from the true Father. We shall discern this most especially through induction. For He says "glorify Me" instead of "make Me manifest," inasmuch as "I have manifested Thy name to men." If, therefore, D He wishes that to happen which He Himself has done, and He glorified the Father by manifesting Him to men, He also wishes to be glorified, by being made manifest to men by the Father. And thus the cavil of the enemies of Christ is empty and vain, who suppose the Son to have been in need of honor or glory.ANOTHER.
If you think that the Son was in need of honor and glory, and therefore asks that He be glorified by the Father, and thencefrom there the charge of dissimilarity is woven for you; say then in turn, how is the Father seen in the Son? For if the Son is in need of glory, while the Father is not, how will that which does not need glory be seen in that which, according to your opinion, is in need?
ANOTHER. If the Savior speaks the truth, saying: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father," he also possesses perfect glory, just as the Father, so that he may be seen in Him. For he would not show the Father in himself without variation, were he not also that thing in respect of glory which He Himself is.
ANOTHER. If the Son is in need of glory, he will be seen as something other than the Father. For that which is in need of something cannot be identical with that which is most perfect. But if the Savior speaks the truth, saying: "I and the Father are one," he will be perfect just as the Father is, with whom he is one. If this is so, he has perfect glory, just as He who begat him.
ASSERTION XXXI.
Against those who say that God knows nothing more about his own essence than we do; but that whatever He Himself knows about Himself, we also know without any difference.Objection of the heretics.
The Wisdom of God, they say, is unbegotten, and this is His very being. Wherefore, he who knows that this is God, knows Him perfectly. But He Himself also knows that He is unbegotten. There is therefore no difference, since He Himself thinks this about Himself, and we in turn believe that the matter is so.Solution of the objection.
AThese things are certainly ridiculous and full of folly, or rather, since they are so disposed, they are completely insane. For being men, and as far inferior to the divine essence as He is superior to them, they imagine that they have the same mind as Him, if one ought to say this of God; for they have not heard, as is likely, Isaiah saying: "Who has measured the waters with his hand, and the heaven with his span? Who has known the mind of the Lord?" B Let them tell us, therefore, they who attempt to measure the immense and incomprehensible nature of God with human reasonings, just as those who want to measure the heaven with a span, what they will say if they are asked in return by us, whether, according to their own reasoning, God is in the unbegotten, and whether this signifies His ineffable essence or not? For if they deny it, their whole construct collapses, and their clever objection will be found to be vain and empty, as they themselves refuse to affirm what they had laid down. C But if they continue to assert it, even so their delusions will betray them: for it does not follow that because God must be unbegotten, that therefore his being consists in the unbegotten. For this would be similar to if one were to say, becauseevery number is either even or odd, that it has its being in these. And again: since every number is necessarily composed of unity, it has its being in unity. And again: since every man has his being as a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge, man does not exist by himself, but has his being in these. And again: since every man is featherless, he has his being in the fact that he is featherless. But such notions are ridiculous, even to imagine. For since man is, for that reason he is a rational, mortal animal; and since he is man, for that reason he is featherless; and since he is a number, for that reason he exists as an odd or even number. Therefore, given the existence of the substance, all things which are predicated of it are spoken of, provided the substance is not removed; just as definitions are taken from the properties that accrue to them. If, therefore, the term "unbegotten" is also predicated of the essence of God, as one of those things pertaining to him, but is not the essence itself (for it signifies that he is not begotten), certainly the essence of God does not consist in the unbegotten; but being and subsisting, he is unbegotten. A
ALIUD. If whatever is said of God alone must also be his substance, then he will consist of many substances. For there are many things which by nature belong to him alone and to none other of created things, such as king, and lord, and incorruptible, and invisible, and countless other things which the holy Scriptures attribute to him. If, therefore, each of the things which belong to him possesses the force of a substance, how will he who is simple not be composite? To think such a thing is most absurd. Therefore, the term "unbegotten," which signifies something that belongs to him, is not his substance, and it is absurd to say that the essence of God consists in the unbegotten. B
ALIUD. If every substance is defined by what it is, and not by what it is not (for no one of sound mind, when defining man, would say he is featherless, and not a quadruped, but rather from those things from which he is more properly signified and from which he consists, that is, a rational, mortal animal), and if the term "unbegotten" does not signify what God is by nature, but what he is not (for it signifies nothing else than that he is not created), certainly it is not a substance, nor does God have his being in the unbegotten. C
ALIUD. Whatever is predicated of another, in order to signify well what it is, is spoken of either as a genus, or as a species, or as a difference, or as a definition. For it is absolutely necessary that it be one of these. How, then, will the term "unbegotten" signify the divine nature to us? Let those who propose such absurd objections answer; for it will not be a genus or a species, according to the doctrine of Aristotle: for genera and species are predicated of many, which differ either in species or in number. But the name "unbegotten" would not be borne by any other, but belongs to God alone; wherefore it is predicated of him alone. D
A Therefore, that which cannot be cut into species, differences, and number cannot be a genus. But perhaps someone will argue that "unbegotten" is a definition; but this also will be shown to be false. For every definition is a statement, explaining what it is that is being defined; but "unbegotten," as it appears, is not a statement, but a single word. Therefore "unbegotten" must be a difference, and indeed an essential difference; for this alone remains. But let us see if any reasoning permits us to think this way without error. We see, therefore, that whatever admits of a difference is composite, and not simple. But since God would be acknowledged by every man as being simple and incomposite, "unbegotten" cannot be a difference. And if it is none of the things mentioned, the being of God does not consist in the "unbegotten." For this does not signify his essence, but shows that his being is such as it is. B
ALIUD. If the name "unbegotten," signifying that which has not been brought into being, is indicative of the essence of God, what would prevent "laughable," which belongs to the nature of man, from being his substance? And why not call all things that belong uniquely to existing things their substances? But if that which is peculiar to each thing is not substance itself, but exists *in* the substance—as "laughable" does for man, and "neighing" for a horse—then "unbegotten" cannot be a substance, as it does not signify what God is according to his nature, but that he is in such a way, and just as with others, it is something peculiar to him. C
ALIUD. "Unbegotten" will be predicated of the essence of God as something inseparable, just as color is predicated of any body. But essences are not to be understood from those things which happen to them inseparably, but from those things of which they are constituted. Just as no one would know what a swan or snow is according to their nature if he only knew that they were white. For whiteness is not understood as substance, but as something that happens to the substance. If, therefore, the word "unbegotten" signifies something from among those things which inseparably happen to the essence of God, it will not, according to your opinion, be a substance. And if this is so, he who knows that God is unbegotten does not yet know what he is according to his nature, but only that it is an attribute—that he was not brought into being—which belongs to his essence. D
Objectio, of those who say they know God even as he knows himself. The name "unbegotten," they say, will either be understood as something indicative of the essence of God, or it signifies something of the things that happen to it. But nothing happens to the divine essence, for it is perfect from itself. Therefore, "unbegotten" must be indicative of the essence. And if this is so, God knows himself as unbegotten. And if any other person knew this, he would know God entirely, just as He knows himself.
Solutio objectionis. It is said wisely that nothing happens to the essence of God, since it is perfect in itself. We see, however,
A that a strong argument compels us to think that such things happen to God, even if they do not happen in absolute reality. For what shall we say, when we understand that before the arrangement of this universe, He was Creator according to essence, but not yet in actual operation, for the reason that none of the things that are had yet been brought into generation? Since, however, He made everything, He has become, in a certain way, a creator, and in a certain manner, this has happened to Him, because He is also seen as such from His operation. If, therefore, some things are understood as having happened to God, why do you vainly contend that we must not say that being "unbegotten" has happened to God, when in such a form there are things that appear as though they were according to His essence?
OTHER
B Let those answer us who attempt to measure the heaven with a span, and who boast that they understand the nature of the divine essence: what will they say when the name "Father" is attributed to God? Will they judge it to signify His substance, or some accident belonging to it? Yet, since they deem that nothing happens to the essence of God, they will by no means concede that it is an accident. It remains, therefore, that the essence of God is signified by that name. The "Father" is therefore the same as "Ingenitus" (unbegotten), lest God should be said to be composite and to consist of two essences. But if this is so, since in your opinion "unbegotten" and "Father" are the same, just as He did not begin to be, so He did not begin to be Father; but He was always this, the offspring itself being brought in along with Him: for thus He would be Father. C Furthermore, if "unbegotten" and "Father" signify the essence in God, what will prevent us from saying that these names are completely reciprocal with one another, so that whoever is the Father, he is also unbegotten; and whoever is unbegotten, the same is also the Father? And so it will come to pass that the title of "unbegotten," which belongs properly and peculiarly to God alone, will become common to all. See, therefore, into what an absurdity you are devolving.
OTHER
If you conceive in your mind that nothing happens to God, nor allow others to think so, great difficulties will press upon you from every side, and an innumerable crowd of impious thoughts will beset you. D For if someone were to ask you whether "Father," "unbegotten," "incorporeal," "immortal," "invisible," and other things of that kind which are naturally inherent in God and are predicated only of His essence, are essences, or rather if each signifies an essence, or not? What will you declare? For if each signifies an essence, your simple God will be composed of as many essences as there are things that are seen to be naturally inherent in Him. Moreover, it is necessarily true that even the opposites to those things we mentioned—that is to say, "created," "corruptible," "visible"—will all be of the same substance, or rather, will signify the same substance. If this is so, nothing will prevent us from saying that wood and Son are the same, or stone and "offspring." For these are created, corruptible, and visible things; and so the order of all things will be perturbed. If, therefore, not everything...
said to be in God by nature is also his essence, it remains to say that these things are accidental to the essence, and are understood to be so merely by a word. For human nature has nothing greater than itself to say concerning God. Therefore, we use our own customs in his regard, making the things that are "in ourselves" a sort of example of greater things—that is, regarding the divine—just as those who describe the celestial circles on a small tablet. A
*Objection of the heretics by reduction to absurdity.* 265
God, they say, knows his own nature exactly and truly, and he knows clearly what he is in essence. But if we do not know it as he himself knows it, we are caught thinking falsely and perversely about him. For he who does not know in the same way as one who truly knows, will not know it truly, but such a one is altogether to be judged as erring. B
*Solution of the objection.*
Do these men, reckless in their audacity, not see into what an abyss of impiety they are falling? For they fear, as it seems, that they might appear inferior to God in understanding; and they recoil as from something base if they do not have a knowledge so subtle C as that which is attributed to the divine essence—not knowing that God surpasses creatures in this respect by as great an interval as his nature is more excellent than theirs. Furthermore, how is it not utterly absurd to say that one who does not know exactly as a person who has perfect knowledge of a given thing knows it, does not know it truly? For it is possible to know less and to be surpassed in this respect by one who knows perfectly, and yet not wander from the truth. For example, let us say someone knows that an eclipse of the moon happens, but does not know when or by what means; another person, perhaps, knows even this. Will we say, then, that because the one, being more learned, knows both, while the other, being inferior in knowledge, knows only one, the latter will be thought to think falsely about the moon in saying that eclipses happen to it? By no means. If, therefore, it is possible for one and the same thing to be understood more fully and perfectly by one person, and less perfectly by another, and yet the opinion of both be true, what would prevent us, being human, from knowing less than God, or [less than] what he himself knows of what he is by essence, without yet being in error? D
*Another point.*
We arrive at the meaning, or apprehension, of things through many and various concepts. And one will not necessarily think falsely and perversely in regard to another just because he proceeds toward the subject of inquiry not through the same concepts, but through different ones. For example, let two people be questioned as to whether man and horse are the same; and let one answer that they are not the same, since every man is risible and a horse is not; and let the other say, "Man is not the same as a horse, since the quality of neighing is not predicated of his essence." Will they not both speak the truth, and [give] a correct difference…
even if they have not used the same concepts? Since therefore it is possible to hold different opinions about a thing that exists, without being false or perverse, what will prevent God from knowing Himself perfectly as He is according to essence, while we, being men and understanding less than He, do not have notions that are altogether false? A
ALIUD. If we see that the knowledge which is in every rational creature is measured according to the difference of its genus, so that we must believe it to be one thing in angels, greater in archangels, and even more exceeding in the higher powers; then human knowledge is also measured and is less than that of those we have mentioned. How, then, will one who does not reach such an intellect, as one might allow the angel possesses, have a knowledge equal to God? This is especially so when it is indubitable that the knowledge of God surpasses every intellect and will ascend above all comprehension. B
ALIUD. We see that many names are predicated of God, but each of these does not appear to signify what God is essentially, but rather declares what He is not, or signifies a certain relation to something else that is distinguished from Him. For instance, to mention [an example], "incorruptible" and "immortal" declare what He is not. "Father" or "unbegotten," on the other hand, [signify] that He is a begetter in relation to a son distinguished from Him, and that He is not created. But none of these, as we have already said, declares the essence itself, but rather something of those things which exist around the essence. If, therefore, we are led by the hand, as it were, through these names or meanings to the knowledge of God, how will we know His essence if we only learn what exists around it, and are not instructed as to what He is by nature? For it is the same as if someone were to say that he clearly knows what the human soul is according to its essence, if he knew that it was devoid of quality, quantity, and form; or if one were to say he knows what a human body is by its nature, if he were to say that it is white or black. Therefore, substances are not to be known from the things that surround them, but from the things by which they exist in themselves. C
ALIUD. God will be acknowledged by all to be simple and non-composite. It is therefore absurd to say that He has such knowledge of Himself as we do. For if He were something else, and the knowledge which is in Him were something other than Himself, He would be composite and not simple. Since, however, He is acknowledged to be simple, the knowledge in Him is not something other than Himself. But the case is otherwise with us. For we are what we are according to our own substance, and we have our knowledge placed in our substance, just as color is in a body. Therefore, we will not know [things] in a similar and identical way as God, for we do not exist as He does. For He, being as it were this very thing, the highest intellect of all, will contemplate both the things that exist and Himself in a manner befitting God. We, however, not being able to exceed the measure given to us, as in
and we, unable to exceed the measure that has been given to us, perceive the incomprehensible God, as it were, in a mirror and in an enigma. A
ASSERTION XXXII
Expositions of statements, with syllogisms from the New Testament, that the Son is naturally God, from which it is inferred that He is not a work or creature.From the Epistle to the Romans
Paul, writing to the Romans, says: "A servant, he says, of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God." And again in the same Epistle, he says concerning the Savior: "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith in all nations, for his name." He who says he was separated unto the Gospel of God, immediately adds that he was sent to preach in all nations for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that from this it is manifest that he declares Christ to be God. How, then, can He be a creature or a work, since it cannot by any reason happen that the essence of Him who is God by nature is created?ANOTHER
"Grace to you and peace," he says, "from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." If Christ is counted together with God and Father in the bestowal of divine gifts, and He Himself confers these gifts upon the saints, how is He not God, given that He is constituted in the place of God and can easily perform all things that He who begat Him can also do? For we would surely not grant that the operation of God and of a creature is one and the same; lest we B exalt that which is created to the divine essence, or, on the contrary, lower the excellence of the divine nature to a level appropriate to creatures. For those whose operation and power are altogether one, these also agree in the unity of their species. But since Isaiah also exclaims, "O Lord our God, give us peace," the Son is seen to bestow this together with the Father. He, therefore, is God and true God who, in God the Father and with the Father, performs and bestows all things.ANOTHER, on the same subject
Christ, while giving precepts to His own disciples, and being about to approach His saving passion, says, "Peace, I give to you; my peace I leave with you." If, therefore, He says that it is His own peace, as a good that is His own and naturally in-existing in Him, how will it not be clear to everyone that the exceptional properties of the Father are not derived into Him by some participation, as occurs generally in rational creatures, but that an essential reason draws into the Son the things that belong to the Father? C And so He is received as a co-giver and co-bestower, naturally and inseparably, and distributes the gifts to the saints together with the Father. He who is thus constituted in His essence, how would He not be God by nature? And if He is God by nature, He is not a creature. DA "For the wrath of God is revealed," he says, "from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth; for what can be known about God is plain to them." For "his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made since the creation of the world." If, therefore, the deity of the Creator is seen by analogy from the magnificent work found in the things created, then the Son will be placed outside all generated things. But since, again, He Himself is the Creator of all, clearly His deity also is seen through the things that have been made. How, then, can that which is the nature of generated things through the very fact of being created show Him to be God by nature, if He were a product or a creature?
B The blessed Paul says that those who are able to see the deity of the Creator by analogy from the things created will be without excuse, because "although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him." If, therefore, those who gaze upon the maker of creation acknowledge Him to be God, and "by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made," then the Son, who called all things into being, is God and not a creature; and those who refuse to glorify Him remain without excuse, concern for whom is the subject of our discourse. Moreover, glorification is owed and is fitting to God alone, and is alien to a created nature. The Savior Himself taught us this, saying to His own disciples: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." For He did not judge that the glory for the good things they do ought to be ascribed to the disciples, but rather to God, to whom, as is evident, it is owed. But if the witness of the truth Himself, as has been shown, says that Christ ought to be glorified, how is He not God, to whom He ascribes the glory befitting God?
C The blessed Paul testifies that those who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" were "given up to a debased mind and to shameful passions; who worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." If, therefore, he who worships the creature rather than the Creator exchanges the truth for a lie, surely he who does not do this—but rather, contrary to those who are in error, worships the Creator and Maker—preserves the truth intact. The Son is Creator and Maker, and we worship Him as God of all. For we are no longer in error, having not exchanged the truth. Therefore, He who is regarded, conversely to the creatures, as Creator along with the Father, and who exists blessed for ever, is not a creature. Amen.
D Regarding those who do not know how to repent for their own faults, but have, as it were, bound themselves with an unbreakable chain of wickedness, Paul says: "According..."
to your hardness and impenitent heart, you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works." Then again to others: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." If, then, we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (for "the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son"), and He Himself will render to each according to his works, how will He not be God by nature, since Paul says that there will be a revelation of the righteous judgment of God—meaning, clearly, the sentence which He Himself is to pass regarding the deeds of each one, so that to the wicked He will say: "Depart from me, you cursed, into eternal fire," and to the workers of piety towards Him: "Come, you blessed of my Father," and so forth. B
ALSO. It is written again: "Since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified before Him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin, but now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. And the righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ, for all who believe." Since, therefore, believing in Christ we are justified, as acknowledging Him to be God truly and by nature (for this Paul himself confirms, writing to those from the Gentiles: "But now having known God, or rather being known by God"), how shall the Son be a product or a creature, and not rather God, according to the voices of the saints? C
ALSO. Defending those who are justified through faith in Christ, Paul says: "For we calculate that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only, and not also of Gentiles? Yes, also of Gentiles. Since there is one God who will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith." We find that Christ performs this. For promising that He will justify those who believe in Him, He says: "Amen, I say to you, he who believes in Me is not judged, but has eternal life." If it is fitting for God alone to justify, and Christ justifies, how is He not God by nature? And if this is so, how is He a creature? D
ALSO. Paul says somewhere again about our forefather Abraham: "Who is the father of us all, as it is written: 'I have made you a father of many nations' before God who vivifies the dead." Since, therefore, God is said to vivify the dead, and the Son says: "I am the life," and again, "He who believes in Me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last..."
day," and again: "I am the resurrection and the life," who, if he be of sound mind, would not confess that He exists from the essence of the Father, being His own true and most genuine Offspring, bearing in Himself naturally all the properties of Him who begat Him? But if this is true, then He is God from God, and not a work or creature. A
ANOTHER. Writing to the nations, Paul says, "Remember that you, the nations called uncircumcision, were at one time alienated from the covenants of the promise, separated from the blessing of Israel, having no hope, and were godless in this world; but now you have known God." Then, explaining to them the mode of this knowledge, he says, "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach. For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." If, therefore, he who believes in Christ Jesus and confesses that He is Lord, knowing Him as true God, is justified, how shall the Son not be God by nature? And if He is this, how can He be a creature? B
ANOTHER. Declaring himself to be a steward and minister of the divine mysteries, Paul says, "I have written to you more boldly in part, as putting you in remembrance, because of the grace given to me by God, that I should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the nations, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit." Behold, here too he clearly asserts that he received from God, through grace, the status of being a minister of Jesus Christ. Then, declaring the nature of his sacred ministry, he says, "unto the Gospel of God." Yet, while preaching Christ Jesus and evangelizing, he knows the Son to be God by nature in such a way that he would not have named Him God, were He not that by nature; nor would he have gloried so greatly regarding this, saying, "It pleased God to reveal His Son through me," if He were a creature and a work. C
From the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Speaking of the princes of this age and of their foolishness, Paul says, "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." If, therefore, the Son who endured the cross for us is the Lord of glory, how is He not God by nature? And how is He a work or creature, who is also celebrated by the Seraphim? For they proclaim the heavens and the earth to be full of His glory, and they call Him Lord Sabaoth. It is manifest that they say such things concerning Him, if indeed He is the Lord of glory, according to the declaration of Paul. D
A "Thus," he says, "let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [1 Cor. IV, 1.] If, therefore, Paul calls the mystery concerning the Son the mystery of God, how shall He not be God by nature, or how shall He who is served by the apostles be numbered among created beings? And how should he not speak the truth, calling the Gospel of Christ the mystery of God, who said with great boldness: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of God." [Gal. I, 12.] Since, therefore, being taught by God, he recognizes the Son to be God, who would listen to those who teach otherwise?
B ANOTHER. "Therefore," he says, "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." [1 Cor. IV, 5.] But in the Gospels it is proclaimed that at the time of His second coming, Christ will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on His left; and that He will send the workers of iniquity into eternal fire, but will bestow praises together with rewards upon those who hold the right hand place, saying, "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." [Matth. XXV, 31 seqq.] If, therefore, when God is about to bestow praises upon the worker and expert of virtue, it is Christ who gives the praise, how is He a creature, and not rather God of God, having in Himself the entire property of the Father’s essence, and existing therefore as God by nature, just as He who begat Him?
C ANOTHER. "For I think," he says, "that God has set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death." [1 Cor. IV, 9.] Behold again, when God is said to have declared the holy apostles, it is Christ who has declared them. How, then, can He not be God by nature, who is this and is called this? But he who is such, how can he be a creature?
D ANOTHER. "I became," he says, "to them that are without law, as without law, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law." [1 Cor. IX, 21.] Christ, therefore, is God, by having whose law, we are not without the law of God. That, moreover, it is proper to God alone to give laws, is beyond doubt.
From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
"For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead."A Behold, again here he clearly says that it is God who raises the dead. And this Christ performs, saying at one time, "I am the resurrection and the life," and at another time again, "He who believes in me has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day." Therefore, the Son is God by nature, as he has the power to perform those things which befit God alone. He is not, then, a creature, nor a created being.
ALIUD. "But God is faithful, that our word which was toward you is not yes and no." For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you through us—through me and Silvanus and Timothy—was not yes and no, but in him it is yes. Since, therefore, he is preached as Son, with the Father saying concerning him, "This is my Son," and again, "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you," yet by some he is called an "opus" (a work) and a "creature," how should he not be "yes and no"? For that which is begotten by nature would not be a creature, nor would that which has been made be a son by nature. But since Christ is truth, and "it is yes" in him, as Paul says, being the Son, and being thus preached, he would certainly not be a creature or a work. B
ALIUD. "Thanks be to God," he says, "who always triumphs us in Christ Jesus, and manifests the odor of his knowledge through us in every place: for we are the odor of Christ unto God in those who are being saved and in those who are perishing." If, therefore, through the holy apostles, God and the Father makes manifest to the world the odor of the knowledge of Christ—that is, the word concerning the knowledge of him—then those who have received this no longer wander, nor will they be numbered among the godless and those without hope. Rather, they have known God, as Paul says, or rather have been known by God. Christ, therefore, is God by his own nature, who has led the nations away from the worship of false gods, and by this means has been known by them; and in turn he has known them through faith in him. He who is truly God, how could he be a work or a creature? C
ALIUD. "For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God." If, therefore, the word of the apostles is a preaching concerning the Savior, then the Son is God, whose word those who preach thus do not adulterate, and they refuse to call him a work or a creature. The word concerning the truth is therefore unalloyed and pure, having none of the watered-down false doctrines of the heretics. D
ALIUD, on the text, "Thanks be to God, who always triumphs us in Christ, and manifests the odor of his knowledge through us." He who is manifested through both the apostolic and evangelical preachings, who else could he be but Christ?
A He himself, therefore, is the odor of the knowledge of God and Father, according to that which was said by him: "No one comes to the Father except through me"; and again: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father." B Being, therefore, the odor of God and Father, he cannot be of a different essence than him; but just as the fragrance which naturally and substantially exhales from flowers declares the species from which it is born, so the Son, being as it were a certain odor of the paternal essence from which he himself is, signifies the Father himself. He is not, therefore, a creature, because the Father is not this.
ALIUD. "For we do not preach ourselves," he says, "but Christ Jesus the Lord; but ourselves your servants through Christ. For it is the God who said, 'Out of darkness light will shine,' who shone in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of his glory." Behold, he calls the Son the glory of the Father. For when God and Father has shone in our hearts, we are illuminated for the knowledge of Christ, just as he himself also says somewhere: "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him." C He draws, however, to the knowledge of the Son, enlightening the heart of each one. If, therefore, he is the glory of the Father, how could he be a creature, and not rather Son, and God from God, causing through the natural magnificence that is in him the Father who begot him to be glorified, as he is seen in the Son as in an image, according to what was said by him: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"?
ALIUD, on the same. If the Son, being the glory of the Father, is a work and a creature, let each one of the things that have been made be called the glory of God and Father. For if a created and made essence can at all ascend to this, nothing would prevent this dignity from being shared by all creatures as well. For that which is naturally capable of coming into being could at some time exist in act, D even if it has not yet been done. But if this is not said of others, and belongs only to the Son, he is therefore not one of all things. If this is so, he is not a creature; for that which exists outside all things will not be among all things, but is something different from all things, which is God.
ALIUD. "For we must all," he says, "be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive according to what he has done, whether good or evil." A If, therefore, we are to be presented before Christ, and he himself is the one who judges the earth and renders to each according to his works, as the Psalmist says—then the Son also is God, and not a creature. Since even the all-wise Solomon in Ecclesiastes says something of this sort: "For God shall bring every created thing into judgment for every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
A ANOTHER. "For we do not commend ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause." Behold, once again he calls Christ God, to whom he says he has even yielded his mind. And he teaches how he yielded, saying: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world"; and elsewhere: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I." "An Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ." Do you see how he departed from all legal glorying, that he might win Christ? This is what the Savior himself sets before us in the form of a parable, saying: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it." Therefore, if he departed from his mind B for Christ, and says that he has done this for God, how is not the Son God by nature? And if this be so, then he is no creature.
ANOTHER. "Old things, he says, are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." We must inquire in these words as to the manner of our reconciliation to God. But it is clear that those who believe in Christ, as being the Son of God, and receiving him as true God, we approach the Father through him, just as he himself says: "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Furthermore, the Savior himself, out of his loving-kindness, C calls those who are estranged from him by reason of sin unto himself, and reconciling them to himself, he said: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." If, therefore, by approaching and being reconciled to Christ, we are reconciled to God, and obtain the remission of sins, how shall he not be God from God, who exists in the Father and with the Father, justifying him who approaches, and reconciling the world to himself? And if this is true, he shall not be a created being. D
ANOTHER. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made"
A the righteousness of God in him. Therefore, just as the only-begotten Son of God, having become in the likeness of sinful flesh, is himself called sin, so we, being refashioned into him through faith, are said to have become the righteousness of God, which is properly the Son. For we were considered worthy to receive the goods that are naturally in him, having become partakers of him through the Spirit; and he, in turn, takes human things upon himself, restoring the human nature into himself towards the divine beauty. Since, therefore, Christ is the righteousness of the Father, how could he be created, and not rather co-eternal with him who begat him, since God and Father is ever just, and his righteousness—that is, the Son—has clearly always been with him?
From the Epistle to the Galatians.
«If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.» If Paul, persuading God—that is, seeking to prove his life by his own good actions—does not desire to please men, but rather to serve Christ, then certainly the Son B is by nature God, to whom, as to God and Lord, we all offer our service through good works and render an account; for this is what it means to persuade him. But he who is God by nature cannot be a created being.
Another.
«Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.» But if, by putting on Christ through faith, we were refashioned into him, and for this reason are named sons of God—by adoption, of course—and since adoption always imitates that which exists by nature, then Christ is Son by nature, and not by adoption. But as for that which is naturally begotten of God, how can it be a created being or a work, when reason itself compels us to confess that that which is begotten is of the same substance as that which C begat it?
Another.
«Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.» If, in serving the elements of the world as works, we were children and senseless, and yet D the Son of God, according to the opinion of the heretics, is a work and a creature, then we are still subject to that old fault, inasmuch as we are again serving a creature instead of the Creator.
But if, having recognized the true God and Master A who for our sake was born of a woman and born under the law, we have departed from the worship of created things to worship the Creator, then Christ is God and the true Son; and having become participants in Him, we obtain the adoption of sons, and we are already called free, insofar as we have put on the free Son Himself, so that the form of our servitude may be abolished.
ANOTHER
"I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ." B Let us see, therefore, what he who learned the mystery of Christ from Christ Himself says regarding the Son: "Jesus Christ," he says, "the same yesterday, today, and forever." Behold how clearly he professes that Christ is of an immutable and unchangeable nature, which is indeed proper to God the Father alone, and does not belong to any created thing. Accordingly, if God the Father alone is immutable, and the Son is of the same nature—inasmuch as He is always the very thing that the Father is—how could He be a creature? For He alone, by the ineffable reasoning of substance, is comparable to the Father, and is by nature that which the Father is, with the single exception of being the Father.ANOTHER
"For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God; I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." C If, having received the new law of the Savior, we live to God but have died to the Mosaic law (for we no longer live or conduct our lives according to it), then Christ is God, and true God indeed. But if this is so, then He is not a creature. That we live to Christ Himself, the herald of the truth shall bear witness, saying: "For if one died for all, then all died, that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." If, therefore, in living to Christ we are said to live to God, how is He not God? And how can He be a creature, a work?ANOTHER
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed.'" D If God is said to justify the nations, and Christ is the one who does this and who takes away the sin of the world, according to the word of John, then the Son is God, and true God. For the Jews, being perverse, spoke that one thing truly: that no one can forgive sins except God alone, as He is the Master of the law.ANOTHER
"But then," he says, "not knowing God, you servedA those that by nature are no gods; but now that you have known God, or rather have been known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, to which you desire again from the beginning to be in bondage?" If Christ is contrasted with the elements of the world, which have a created nature, as not being the same thing as they are, then he is not found to be one of the things created, since he is so far removed that they are not by nature gods, while he truly exists as such. For Paul introduces this difference through the aforementioned chapter. That the nations have known Christ as God is, I think, manifest to all. For by believing in Him, one is delivered from the polytheistic deception. That the nations have again known Him, and have been known by Him, hear Him saying: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know my own, and my own know me."
ANOTHER
"Brethren, I beseech you, you did me no wrong: but you know that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached the gospel to you the first time, and the temptation of me which was in my flesh you did not despise, nor did you reject, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." B Having received and greatly admired the piety towards God and the love towards himself of those in Galatia, and having said, "You received me as an angel of God," he rises to something far greater by adding, "as Christ Jesus." Who then is Christ's superiority over the angels? Let Him teach it Himself, saying: "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.' And again: 'For to which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee? And, Sit at my right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?'" And it is written again concerning them: "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire." C Since there is, therefore, so much difference between them, that the Son is worshipped, while the angels minister to Him; and the one sits in the order of King and Son and Master, while the others are sent forth for service; how shall He not be God, who is known by the angels themselves as being such by nature? For if He is a creature, according to the folly of those who hold heterodox opinions, it is time to say that not only have we, but also the heavenly powers themselves in heaven, been led astray, as if they were worshipping the created thing instead of the Creator. But if this is absurd (for no one would say that the holy angels have been led astray, but rather that they are possessed of a true knowledge of God, and they worship the Son as being God by nature), D then He is not a creature, nor a work. For that which has been made at all cannot be God by nature.
ANOTHER
"So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the freewoman, by the freedom with which Christ has liberated us."
A If it belongs to the Lord to liberate, and Christ liberates us, and removes the yoke of servitude, calling us into sonship; He is therefore not a servant, but Son and Lord, bestowing upon those worthy by grace that which He Himself is by nature.
From the Epistle to the Ephesians.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to all the saints who are in Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus." He who was chosen for the apostolate by the will of God and the Father, as he himself asserts here, calls the Son the radiance of the Father and the character of His subsistence. How then will the Son be the character of the uncreated and unbegotten essence and subsistence of the Father, if, according to the opinion of some, He came into being from non-existence? For it is absolutely necessary that the image of anything should have an exact likeness to that of which it is an image. But if the Son is the character of the unbegotten Father, He will certainly—like Him—be unbegotten and uncreated, and finally, altogether true God. But if this is so, He is not a creature. B
ANOTHER.
"Wherefore remember that you, being previously Gentiles in the flesh, who were called uncircumcision by what is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." If, at the time when the nations were wandering, they were separated from Christ, and therefore empty of good hope and without God in the world, then Christ is the hope of all and God. If the nations should come to know Him, they will henceforth escape being without God, as they have learned to know the true Lord. How then could He be a work or a creature, who is recognized as God by those who were wandering, and who saves those who find Him, and fills them with every good hope, according to that saying: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many; enter into the joy of your Lord." C
ANOTHER.
"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances." It is written somewhere concerning the laws of God that one must not add to them nor subtract from them. Since, therefore, God forbids this in every way, and says that it is permitted to no one to add anything to His commands, nor even to subtract, Christ alone is found to have done this. For He subtracted, by abolishing the law of commandments, but He added the doctrines concerning faith in Himself and piety. And how D can you count Him among creatures, who claims for Himself power proper to God?
A
ANOTHER. “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.” If so, how shall the Son not be God, if those who are joined to Him through faith are for that reason called members of the household of God? And He Himself also, somewhere, explaining the manner of this kinship according to the Spirit, says concerning His own disciples: “For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
ANOTHER. B “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” Those things which come to be by adoption are always likened to those which are such by nature. In the same way, things fashioned after the imitation of something fall short of the truth of the prototypes. If, therefore, from the fatherhood of God the name of "family" passes even to us, how are those not exceedingly impious who say that we must be by nature fathers of our own children—we who have become and are called such only by imitation of the true Father—while God, the archetype and first Father, is to be deprived of the truth in begetting, and they deny that the Son proceeds from Him and substantially, but imagine Him to be some alien and adventitious thing brought in from outside the paternal essence?
And how could He who has begotten nothing be a Father at all, if the name "father" is an indication of the aptitude and power to beget, and binds the begetter and the begotten into the unity of substance through generation, as if by a birth-throe? Since, therefore, the Father speaks truly to His own Son: “From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee,” and has truly begotten Him from Himself (for this is what “from the womb” signifies), He cannot be a creature, but rather God from God, and Son, begotten naturally from the Father.
ANOTHER. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.” Since the Lord God and Father is one, how will the Son be Lord if He is a creature? C For it is manifest that all created things have a servile nature. And how, since there is one faith, does he who believes in the Son believe in the Father, if, according to the madness of some, He is cut off from the natural union with the Father? But since the Lord God is Father, the Son is also Lord, and he who believes in Him believes in the Father. For the Son, manifestly existing from the Father and naturally in the Father, and having in turn the Father in Himself, is co-theologized and co-glorified with Him. And thus the faith of those who draw near ascends to one Godhead. How then D
will he be numbered among creatures, who has all things in common with the Father, as the true fruit of His essence, and not as we, who are adopted children and grafted-in shoots? A
ANOTHER. "Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave Himself up for us" (Eph. v, 1, 2). Behold again how he knows and names Christ to be God. For having said that we ought to become imitators of God, he immediately puts Him forward, and teaches how it is fitting to imitate Him, saying: "As also Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us." Since, therefore, Christ is in truth and is called God by Him to whom the Gospel has been entrusted by God and the Father, who could endure those who think otherwise? But He who is God by nature, how could He be a work or creature? B
ANOTHER. "For know this, knowing that every fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Eph. v, 5). Behold again, when he has named Christ, he immediately introduces Him also as God, inasmuch as God and the Father reigns in Him, and He in turn in the Father, according to that which was said by Him to the Father: "All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine" (John xvii, 10). But the kingdom of all is one: common indeed to the Son with the Father, and common to the Son with the Father, with the Holy Spirit also reigning together; for thus the holy and adorable Trinity is gathered into the one nature of the Godhead. How then is God the Word, reigning in the Father and with the Father, a creature? C
ANOTHER. "Let no one deceive you with empty words. For because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph. v, 6). And who would the sons of disobedience be, if not those who have entirely fallen away from the laws of our Savior through sinning? But if He who inflicts wrath upon them is Christ Himself, saying: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire" (Matt. xxv, 41), and blessed Paul knows Him to be God Himself, and introduces Him as such, who could endure those who say that He is a creature? D
ANOTHER. "Wherefore he says: Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine upon you" (Eph. v, 14). If the power of enlightening belongs to the Lord, it is the work of light: but Christ enlightens; therefore Christ is light, and true light. "And the darkness did not overcome Him" (John i, 5). But the Father is also true light; the Son, therefore, is light from light, and God from God. And if this is so, He is not a creature.
ANOTHER, on the same. That the capacity to enlighten, which comes from the participation of another...
light from light, and God from God. And if this is so, He is not a creature. A For it would now be time to call the Father Himself by this name, which is most absurd and carries with it an immeasurable blasphemy.
ANOTHER.
Excerpts from the Epistle to the Ephesians
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." If nothing of the perfections belonging to the divine nature is found naturally and properly in any of the created things, but rather is implanted and set within them by the One who made them—just as indeed Paul, setting B down a most truthful standard for all things, says, "For what have you that you did not receive?"—it is evident that holiness also resides in God alone, and not in others. For they are rather sanctified by the holy God, receiving sanctification as if from a fountain. But they themselves are unable to sanctify. If, therefore, while no created thing has the power to sanctify, Christ is found to perform this, He will be of a different nature from them. But He who has escaped being a creature, and possesses the perfections of the divine nature, how would He not be God by nature?From the Epistle to the Philippians
"Do all things," he says, "without grumbling and questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish." If, as that blessed Paul himself says somewhere, it is Christ who says concerning us, "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me," C then clearly we are His children, made blameless through care. Therefore Christ is God. But if this is so, how can He be a creature?ANOTHER. "For our commonwealth is in heaven, from which we also expect a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our lowliness to be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things to Himself." "Sit at my right hand," the Father says somewhere to the Son, "until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." But behold, Paul also testifies that the ability to subject all things to Himself belongs to the Son, and that He will perform this easily—even that which resides in the power of the Father alone. Since God is simple, the power which is in Him is not something distinct from Him; but it is Christ Himself, D who has one essence with Him, and through the identity of nature, as it were, subsists in the Father, even though He is God from God, and Light shone forth from Light, being understood as Son and not Father. If, therefore, all the power and virtue of the Father, through which He performs all things, is...
not of a created nature, then the Son is not a creature, contrary to the folly of some. A ANOTHER, of the same, syllogistically. If everything that is created has been brought from non-existence into existence, B but Christ, being the wisdom and power of God and the Father, is of a created nature according to some, it must necessarily be admitted that God at some time lacked wisdom and power, and that this came to pass in the succession of time, when the Son was produced into existence. For such is the nature of created things. But it is at once blasphemous and ignorant to have such an opinion concerning God. It is blasphemous, for the Father was never deprived of wisdom and power; and it is ignorant, for the following reason: if, as some maintain, the Son was created, he was clearly created by the Father. But if the Father had been deprived of power and wisdom, He could not have produced such a Son, who is called the image and character of His subsistence. For how could the Son, who surpasses every creature, have been created without wisdom and power, since holy Scripture affirms that the creature, which is so much less than Him, was made in the wisdom and power of God? And if the Creator required wisdom for the lesser, so that it might be well fashioned, how much more so for the greater? Such is the absurdity in the opinion of these people. But since the Father has always been wise and powerful, the Son is not, therefore, a creature, inasmuch as He is co-eternal with the Father, being indeed His C own power and wisdom. ANOTHER. "The Lord," he says, "is near; do not be anxious." See again how, by this also, the Son is shown to us to be true God. For while Paul tells us that Christ as Lord is near, He Himself says through one of the prophets: "I am a God drawing near, says the Lord, and not a God from afar." Since, therefore, the Son Himself knows and calls Himself God, as we have heard, how would anyone not sin who believes those who say He is a creature, and will be seen to hold such a view, and shall not be blameless? ANOTHER. "But in everything," he says, "by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." When the Savior was discoursing with His own disciples, He says somewhere: "My peace I give to you, My peace I leave with you." D Since, therefore, He says the peace is His own, while Paul says it is God's, he manifestly declares the Son to be God, who bestows peace upon the saints—to whom also the blessed Isaiah, moved by a prophetic spirit, spoke as if from the person of those who believe in Him: "Lord our God, give us
to us: For You have rendered all things to us. A Since, therefore, Paul knows and confesses the Son to be the true God, let the babbling of the heretics be cast far away.
ANOTHER
"For the rest, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise of discipline, think on these things, which you have both learned and received, and the God of peace shall be with you." Behold, here again he calls Christ God, who says: "My peace I give to you." You shall therefore apply to these also the argument previously set forth regarding the preceding passages.
FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
"In every," he says, "good work bearing fruit and increasing in the knowledge of God." B If those who come to know our Lord Jesus Christ through the apostolic and evangelical preachings do not come to know a creature, but the very God of all, how is the Son not truly God, since He brings with Himself the knowledge concerning the Father, and in turn is brought into view through the naming of the Father as Son? For it is necessary that one be known in the other; since this is the form of those names which have a relation to one another. And the Savior Himself also says somewhere to His own Father: "I have manifested Your name to men," C making Himself known, clearly, to them. For as soon as someone knows what the Son is, he knows also the definition of Him who begat Him, that is, what the Father is. Since, therefore, He is Son and God, how could He have been made by Him, and not rather be begotten, as from a Father? Which is also the truth.
ANOTHER
"Giving thanks to God and the Father who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and the remission of sins." Holy Scripture subjects the whole nature of created things to the rule of service to God, saying: "For all things serve You." D Yet it reserves the royal dignity to God alone, as being exceptional, saying at the same time: "You are the very King and my God," as though it follows necessarily for the one who is by nature King also to be God. If, therefore, no other among created beings is admitted to the share of the kingdom, and the Son truly reigns with the Father according to His nature, how can He be a creature, He who naturally has within Himself the properties and prerogatives of the divine and paternal essence?
ANOTHER
"For in Him," he says, "were created all things in heaven"
and on earth, whether visible or invisible.” If all things were created in Him, then He certainly could not justly be numbered among all things; nay, rather, He will be placed outside the order of all. For when he said “all things,” he omitted nothing of those which, having been brought from non-being into existence, are seen. But if all things are through Him, and He is distinct from all things, how could He be a creature—He who escapes being numbered among all things by the distinction of His nature?
ANOTHER B “For I would have you know what a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts may be comforted, being knit together in love, to all riches of the fullness of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ Jesus, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” If the mystery concerning God exceeds every measure of wisdom and knowledge, and the summit of all wisdom and understanding is seen in the words concerning Him, and in the mystery concerning Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, how shall He not be God, He who exceeds the measure of every tongue, and surpasses all intellect and wisdom, whom no creature is able to comprehend? “For who shall declare His generation?” says the prophet.
ANOTHER C “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” If among all creatures there is none that sits on the same throne and seat of authority with the King of all (“For to which of the angels has He ever said: Sit at my right hand?”), but all are rather ministering spirits, yet the Son alone appears to be endowed with that dignity, and sits and reigns together with the Father: how could He be one of the creatures, He who bears a dignity above every creature, as God, and is a sharer of the royal throne with Him who begat Him?
ANOTHER D “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on the earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, then you also will appear with Him in glory.” If in God we all live and move and have our being, how shall the Son, who is the life of all, not be God? For if the power to give life belongs by nature only to God, nothing of those things which are created can be called life properly and truly, but rather, it is a participant in the life of Him who bestows it. But if in Christ there is nothing false (for He is truth itself), He is therefore life by His own nature; and if this be so, He is also God.
ANOTHER “Do not lie,” he says, “to one another; stripping off
A the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of him who created him.” (Col. 3:9, 10) We are being refashioned into Christ through faith. For Paul teaches us this, saying: “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19) And again: “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Cor. 15:49) Since, therefore, we have received His likeness, and are being shown to be according to the image of the Creator—but God creates man, according to that which is written, “And God created man” (Gen. 1:27)—Christ is therefore God, and Creator rather than creature, maker and not made.
From the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. “For not only from you,” he says, “has sounded forth the word of the Lord, but in every place your faith in God has gone forth.” (1 Thess. 1:8) If those who believe in Christ do not believe in any other of the created things, but in God himself, how shall Christ not be God? And if He is God, He shall not be a creature.
ANOTHER. As if conversing, he says, “They themselves report concerning us what kind of entry we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God.” (1 Thess. 1:9) If the Gentiles, having escaped the ancient error, are turned to God through belief in Christ, and if those serving Christ through the observance of the evangelical preaching are said to serve the true God, how is the Son not God by nature? For this is what it means to be the true God. But He who is God by nature, how shall He be a creature?
ANOTHER. “For you yourselves know, brethren, that B our entry among you was not in vain; but though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated, as you know, at Philippi, we had courage in our God to declare to you the Gospel of God in much struggle.” (1 Thess. 2:1, 2) Behold again, he manifestly calls Christ God; for the Gospel is His.
ANOTHER, similar to this one. “But we became infants in your midst; as if a nurse should cherish her own children, so, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the Gospel of God, but also our own souls.” (1 Thess. 2:7, 8) And again immediately thereafter: “For you remember, brethren, our labor and toil; working night and day, that we might not burden any of you, we preached to you the Gospel of God.” (1 Thess. 2:9)
ANOTHER. “For this reason also we thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of hearing from us of God, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also is at work in you C
A If the entire discourse of the apostles was about faith in Christ, according to that saying of Paul: "For I decided to know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified," and if they further call the preaching about Him the word of God, who, then, is so reckless as to dare to call a creature Him who is preached by the apostles as God? Or who would not fear to cry out against those who speak through the Spirit?
From the Epistle to the Thessalonians.
"But the Lord is faithful, who will strengthen you and will keep you from evil." If the Savior is faithful because He makes those who come to Him faithful, strengthening them through faith, then He is clearly God by nature, because He makes those who hope in Him gods. For it is the work of the faithful to produce faithful ones, but it is the work of God to deify, just as, indeed, the work of light is to illuminate.
From the Epistle to the Hebrews.
"God, having spoken in many ways and in many manners in ancient times to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by the Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Wishing to declare that the evangelical doctrine is more excellent than the Law of Moses and the prophetic preachings, Paul establishes a distinction based on the diversity of the persons. And he asserts that, while in ancient times the word was preached to the fathers through the prophets, in these last days it is preached through the Son, who exceeds the prophets in excellence, such that while they performed a servile office, crying out, "Thus says the Lord," He, B bearing servile dignity, speaks as a Son: "It was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say to you, etc." How, then, shall He be numbered among creatures, He who is God by nature? Or how shall the Lord of all be ranked among slaves? And if He is the heir of all, He is distinct from all of whom He is heir. And if by Him He made the worlds, He cannot be one of the created things, He who exists before the worlds, since no creature has an existence prior to the world, but was created in time. To the Son alone belongs the attribute of existing eternally with the Father.
ANOTHER.
"For if the word spoken by angels became steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which, having begun to be spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?" Here he openly attempts to demonstrate, from the difference of the persons, how much more excellent the evangelical preachings are than the shadows of the Law. For if, he says, there was such authority in those things which were ordained in the Law, that for the transgressors C a most grievous penalty was proposed, how much more... D
deservedly will he who transgresses through the Son bring upon himself a penalty, by as much as the Son is more worthy of honor than the angels? But if we must also discern the measure of each, those who stand by celebrate [Him] with praises, and are ministering spirits sent forth for service; but the Son is glorified with the Father, sitting on the same throne with Him and reigning with Him, A and being ministered to by the angels, according to what is written in the Gospels: “And behold, angels came and ministered to Him.” How, then, shall He who surpasses by so great an interval be found among those so far inferior, as though He were the Only-Begotten? Or how will He who sits with the Father be numbered among the bystanders, and He to whom ministry is rendered among those who minister, or He who possesses royal dignity among those who are subject?
ANOTHER.
The blessed Paul, referring to Christ that which is written in the eighth Psalm, says: “What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou has made him a little lower than the angels, with glory and honor hast Thou crowned him, and hast set him over the works of Thy hands. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.” Then he immediately attaches to these: “For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.” Shall we not, therefore, confess Him to be King and Lord, and clothed in divine glory, to whom all things have been subjected? How, then, is He not God? Or how is He among all things, who is above all things, and who so far surpasses the nature of created things that, while these are subjected and bound to the yoke of servitude, He, on the contrary, is clothed with the free dignity of lordship, and has all things under His feet? As he himself says somewhere through one of the holy prophets: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet.” B
ANOTHER.
“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him, as also Moses was in all His house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God.” In teaching that the thing made ought not to be honored in an equivalent measure to the Maker, he would clearly be shown as not permitting the Son to be ranked among things made. “For,” he says, “he that built the house hath more honor than the house.” And who is it who then fashioned the whole? Let Paul himself speak again concerning the Son, that “By Him were all things created, visible and invisible, whether thrones or principalities or dominions; all things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things.” How, then, is the Creator among things made? And if time is also included in the number of all things, as being one of all things, while He is before all things, it is clear that the Son is also older than time. “For by Him,” he says,
A “He made the ages.” How then will He who is before the ages be numbered among those that came to be in time? Since everything that might be created, as being in the order of generation, will certainly be of the number of all things, and will have begun to be in time, if indeed eternity is preserved as peculiar to the divine and uncorrupted nature.
ANOTHER. “And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken; but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are.” B By names and operations He makes a comparison of excellence, and establishes the difference of substantial, if I may so speak, quality, which Christ has toward Moses, and through Him toward all created things. For the discourse tends toward this conclusion: If the one is as a servant, and the other as a Son; and the one is faithful as a minister in the house, but the other as heir, not in the house, but over His own house; how then will he be of the same genus as Him, who differs from Him so greatly? He who is not of the same genus as Moses (for the nature of Moses is created), nor is he a fellow-servant to Him, would by no means be joined to any other as being of the same species according to the account of nature. C For the comparison is made toward the things created, and not entirely toward Moses, even if the person of Moses is examined in the present instance.
ANOTHER, in the same form. If everything that has received a beginning of its origin is a slave to God the Creator, according to that which is sung in the Psalms: “All things serve You;” but the sons are free, as the Savior says in truth, how could it be possible that the Son, who is free because of His ineffable generation from the Father, should be of the same nature as those who are slaves because they have been created?
ANOTHER, on that which says, “Whose house we are.” If it is God who says in the prophets, D “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people,” how are we now the house of the Son, if He is not by nature God? “But we pray,” as Paul says, “that Christ may dwell in the inner man, and we are, and are called, the house of the Son.” Christ, therefore, is God. But if this is so, He is not a creature.
ANOTHER. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” Faith is in Christ, and on it the rewards are conferred upon the saints, and eternal life is owed. For teaching us this, He Himself says somewhere: “Amen, amen, I say to you, he who believes in Me has eternal life.” If, therefore, he who falls away from faith in Him, and assumes an evil heart, departs from the living God, how is the Son not God by nature?
A seeing that He is that very thing which the Father is, and whose Son He is, bearing all the proper and peculiar attributes of the One who begat Him? The Father is a living God; the Son is likewise a living God.
ANOTHER
“For the Word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword, and reaching unto the division of soul and spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature invisible in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him.” B Here again it is possible to see the Son bearing the properties of the Father, and being adorned with such good things, as indeed the One who begat Him would appear to be. Since, therefore, God the Father readily bears all things and looks upon all things without hindrance, knowing even the hearts and the reins, and because of this says at one time, “Who is this that hides counsel from me?” and at another, “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can anything be hidden from me?”—these things belong also to the Son, by which Paul, as he said, bears witness. Furthermore, since the Father is living because He is Life, He calls the Word living, because He too is by nature Life. Since, therefore, all things that righteously belong to the Father by nature are also present in the Son naturally and essentially, who would not be guilty of the inescapable charges of blasphemy for calling Him a creature? For how should those things fall short of being connatural which are of the same nature and essential operation? C
ANOTHER
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that from things which were not seen, the things which are seen were made.” If no creature has its existence before the ages, but we believe that the ages themselves were framed by the divine Word, that is, by God the Word and Son, it is necessary to confess that He existed even before the ages. For being and existing before them, He brings into being the ages which sometime were not. How then is the Creator among the creatures? Or how again is He who created the times counted among those who are subject to time, and does He possess in Himself the eternity that is uniquely becoming to God the Father?
ANOTHER
“But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Observe again how here Paul calls the Son God. D For if He is the One who judges every creature and renders to each according to their works, and for that reason receives the beneficent unto Himself, and says, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me to drink”: how shall He not be God, being truly called so by the holy ones, receiving the sacrifices of the beneficent, and rendering to each their reward?
and sending into the kingdom of heaven the chorus of the saints? A
*From the First Epistle to Timothy.*
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the commandment of God our Savior, and Christ Jesus our hope, unto Timothy, my own son in the faith.” Behold, Paul asserts that he received the ministry of the apostolate by the commandment of God our Savior. Let us see, therefore, by examining the holy Scripture, whether it is not Christ who appointed him in the apostolate. When, therefore, as it is written, he was journeying from Jerusalem to Damascus to persecute the disciples, Christ appeared to him in the middle of the journey, saying: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And as Paul answered and said: “Who art thou, Lord? I am, He says, Jesus, whom thou persecutest. But arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” But what was said to him is found again in the same Acts: “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said: Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” Then again it is written concerning them that, “being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, they departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And being at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.” B Dost thou see how, by the commandment of our Savior, he is sent to preach through the Holy Spirit? Since, therefore, he calls Him both God, and Savior, and our hope, how is it not vehemently impious to call the Son a creature? For if it were so, we would be found to be worshipping a creature, and to be saved through a creature, and to have placed our hope in a creature, and to be nothing better than those who adore creatures.
OTHER.
“The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient.” Then, after enumerating many evils with these, he finally brings in: “And if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” Whose Gospel, therefore, was committed to Paul? Whose herald and preacher was he, if not our Savior Christ, whom, calling Him the blessed God, he declares cannot be said to be a creature? C For how can that which is made and recent be God? For if everything that is created and has a generated essence is called from non-existence into being, how is it not recent? But whatever is of such a kind is not God; “Neither shall there be a recent God in thee,” says the holy Scripture. But since the Son is God, He is therefore not recent. And if this is so, then He is not a creature. But that the Gospel of our Savior was committed to him by Him, he himself again [shows]
A adds, saying: "I thank Him who hath enabled me, Christ, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."
ANOTHER.
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting." If we are saved through faith in Christ, and have become partakers of eternal life, having cast off the yoke of death, how is the Son not God by nature, He who is the bestower of life, as He is Himself life by nature, and who saves as God, B being the only One able to do this, and for this reason saying: "I am the God who saves thee, and there is none beside Me?" For in truth and in reality, it was not an envoy, nor an angel, but the Lord Himself who saved us, who of old had promised to save through the holy prophets, but at the time of His advent showed Himself already present, and for this reason crying: "I am He who speaks, I am present. How beautiful upon the mountains, as the feet of those who bring good tidings of peace!" For when He came, He preached peace to us who were afar off, and peace to them who were near, according to the word of Paul.
ANOTHER.
"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." If the Son is the King of ages, inasmuch as He reigns always and without end, and has Himself created the ages, He therefore also calls Him the immortal and invisible God. But he who naturally and essentially possesses in Himself the properties and prerogatives of the paternal essence, how could he be of a different essence from Him, and not rather of the same nature and from Him, since no reasoning allows that those things which are proper to the Godhead should naturally belong C to created beings? That the Son is indeed the King of ages, the archangel Gabriel himself will also bear witness for us, saying of Him to the holy Virgin: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end."
ANOTHER.
Paul, having commanded that prayers be made for all men, and for kings who are in high position, usefully adds to his own disciple: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." D Since, therefore, God is the Savior of all, and we are saved by recognizing the truth—
and the truth is Christ, He Himself is therefore God and Savior. But if this is so, how is the Son not God by nature? And how could He who is Son by nature be numbered among creatures? For that is both absurd and blasphemous. Therefore, the Son is not a creature, but rather God and Savior, from the Savior A God and Father.
OTHER
"For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all." If Jesus Christ is the mediator of God and men, not joined to God and men naturally and essentially, but only reconciling, and leading into friendship those who had fallen away from mutual fellowship with one another, that is, man and God, how does Paul say that He is one? Since many others of the saints have been deemed worthy of such a ministry, and he himself first of all, crying out: "We beseech you for Christ, be reconciled to God." The blessed Moses B also acted as mediator, ministering the law of God to the sons of Israel. The all-wise Jeremiah was also a mediator, saying to God concerning those of the race of Israel: "Remember me standing before thee to speak for them." Indeed, each of the holy prophets is found to have done this. How then is Christ the one mediator, if there is nothing unique in His case? But He is one, as Paul truly says. He is therefore a mediator in a unique way, and not like the others, and it is necessary to say how. Since, therefore, that which lies in the middle of two things touches both with its own ends, binding together into unity those things which were divided, and Christ is the mediator of God and men, it is manifest that He touches God as God, and men naturally as man. For He Himself is our C peace, who through the likeness to us binds together human nature with the divine essence. For how otherwise would we be found partakers of the divine nature? Therefore, if He is God by nature, co-substantial and of the same essence with God and Father by nature, how could He be a creature or a work, since such a statement contains much absurdity?
OTHER
"A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation: for therefore we labor, and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful." The blessed Psalmist, seeing through the Holy Spirit the things that were to be, and declaring the benefit of our Savior's incarnation, thus exclaims, crying out as if to Him: "The hope of all the ends of the earth, and in the sea afar off." Since, therefore, Christ is the hope D of all, and we who believe have all hoped in Him, and Paul calls Him the living God, knowing Him to be this by His own nature, how shall He be one of the created things, and not rather [the] living Son
of the living Father, the property of the Begetter passing over to Him naturally? A
ANOTHER. “I charge thee, in the sight of God who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that thou keep the commandment without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in His own times He shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable.” B Therefore, will Christ Himself show His own coming in His own times, or rather [will] the Father of Him [show it]? If, then, we say that it is He [the Father] who shows Christ, how will He, who is attested to be at the pinnacle of glory by such natural dignities, be considered to be a created being? For so [these attributes] would pass over even to individual created things—[attributes] which befit the divine nature alone. And there would be nothing left in this that is marvelous, if indeed these things, which are essentially the properties of God alone, could naturally belong to created things as well. C But there is nothing in common, as far as the account of divinity is concerned, between created things and the Creator; rather, all things that are properties of the Father are in the Son, and the nature of deity is depicted in Him: He will not, therefore, be one of the things that were made. But if the Father will show the coming of the Son, and the herald of truth even ascribes to Him the list of divine dignities, how, when the Father alone has immortality, does the Son possess this? “For I,” He says, “am the life.” But it is clear that He is not alien or a stranger to the essence of the Father, nor has He been brought forth into some degenerate and strange property, as things that were made are. But He remains and is preserved, and is an exact image of the One who begat Him, and for this reason, He escapes being a created being, but is rather God of God, and light of light, and again life of life. He is not, therefore, a work or a creature, according to the loose tongues of some.
From the Second Epistle to Timothy. “Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner; but suffer hardship with the Gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling.” D Behold again, openly, He calls the Son both God and Savior. For He Himself is the One who calls us, by saying: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” How then shall He be a created being, if He is truly both God and Savior? For we have not been saved through a creature, but through God alone.
From the Epistle to Titus. “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world, awaiting the blessed
A hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. If Christ is the hope of all, and is also the great God and Savior, how are they not exceedingly impious and mindless who call the Son a creature, and who do not fear to number among servants Him in whom are all things which befit the divine nature alone, and by which He is truly known to be God?
ANOTHER.
If, according to the voice of the Prophet, blessed is the man who has trusted in the Lord, and the Lord is his hope, then surely the contrary will also be true; for he who has not placed his hope in God will be devoid of all blessing. If therefore the Son is a work or a creature, He is then a servant, and not Lord by nature. How then, in accordance with the holy Psalmist, are we "Blessed by the Lord, who hope in Him"? Or how will Paul himself also speak the truth, saying: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing"? The Son, then, is Lord by nature. But if this is so, He is not a creature; for it is said of creatures: "For all things serve Thee."
FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
C "They passed through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, having been restrained by the holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia. And coming to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." Behold, the holy Spirit is again clearly called the Spirit of Jesus here. Since therefore the Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, how shall He who possesses substantially the properties and prerogatives of the naturally existing God and Father not be God by nature? Otherwise, this too must be considered: if the holy Spirit, who is in God by nature, has ever been called the spirit of an angel or of any other rational power, then let the Son also be placed among the creatures, since He would differ in no way from them in this regard, even if the holy Spirit be called His Spirit. But if this is said only of Him who is God by nature, how could He be of the same kind as other creatures, He who so far excels them that He alone is endowed with the divine dignity of the paternal essence, and possesses a common D essence with the Father?
ANOTHER.
"And at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and praising God; and the prisoners were listening to them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were loosed." Then, having passed over the commotion of the jailor at this, and Paul's words, he adds: "And the jailor, becoming trembling, fell down before Paul and Silas; and bringing them out, he said: Sirs, what must I do, that I may be saved? But they..."
said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spoke to him the word of the Lord, with all that were in his house. And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed their wounds; and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately. And when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced with all his house, believing in God. A He who believed in the Lord Jesus, according to the exhortation of the apostles, as believing in God, rejoiced having believed with all his house. But if the Son were a work and a creature, according to the impious doctrine of the heretics, why is the jailor not instructed by the apostles toward the true knowledge of God, and why is it not said to him by them: "Thou didst not believe in God, good man, but in some creature"? But they by no means said this; rather, that man was very acceptable to them as being perfectly well-disposed, and having a true perception regarding the faith. And how is it not already clear to everyone that the Son is God by nature? And if He is this, how could He be a creature and a work?
From the Epistle of James
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." Here the herald of the truth calls Jesus Christ God and Lord, knowing that He is this by nature. And how does the mind of those who hold heterodox views become so emboldened as to assume that He, who is a Son in such a nature, is something made or created? For they will not be able to exclude the Father also from blame, who is God and Lord by nature, just as the Son also is, if it is at all possible for that which is true God to be of a created nature. But this is absurd, and appears to strip away piety. B Therefore, the Son is not a creature, but rather God by essence and Lord, just like the Father from whom He was begotten.
OTHER
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with respect of persons." God says somewhere in the prophets: "My glory I will not give to another." How then will the Son be the Lord of glory, if He is truly of another nature, and alien from the essence of the Father? For nothing created could bear the glory which is uniquely fitting to God, if it were entirely something made. But the Son is the Lord of glory; for the Spirit who speaks such things in the saints does not lie against the truth. Therefore He is not created, but is rather the image and character of the Father, who is the Lord of glory. C And to Him to whom all the properties of the Father belong by nature, it follows reasonably that, along with the other properties, He also possesses that of being the Lord of glory.
From the Epistle of Peter
"The ancients that are among you I beseech, who am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come, D
A feed the flock of God which is among you. Wise indeed is it that Peter here calls the Son God, knowing full well that He is God by nature; for he does not lie. For having himself heard from our Savior Christ: “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? Feed my lambs,” and again, “Feed my sheep,” He delivers the same commandment to His own, calling the flock of Christ the flock of God; inasmuch as he had received the knowledge of the divine mystery from above from the Father, and not through flesh and blood. But if the Son is God by nature, how shall He be a work or a creature? B
ALIUD.
When the Psalmist wished to declare the immense and incomparable difference between the work and the Maker, he exclaims thus: “It is He who hath made us, and not we ourselves: but we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture.” The divine and sovereign nature, therefore, is known by the faculty of creating; but the servile and created nature, by the fact that it was made and obtained an origin. Yet, since the Son is the Creator of all, neither will He be one of all things, nor will He be numbered among created things, seeing that He differs from the nature of creatures by the faculty of creating, and far exceeds the servile condition, so that the power of the sovereign nature is attributed to Him. C
Ex Epistola Joannis.
“I write unto you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.” If no creature existed from the beginning or in the beginning (for all things have obtained their origin in time), but the Son was from the beginning, whom even they to whom the word is addressed have known, how shall He be a creature, who does not exist in the same manner as those things?
ALIUD.
“He that denieth the Father, the same hath not the Son: and he that denieth the Son, hath not the Father.” No one will deny the Son otherwise than by saying that He is a creature, and by excluding Him from consubstantiality with the Father. But those who acknowledge and defend the true dignity of the Son in Him, confess that they do not deprive Him of His natural likeness to the Father. Whatever, therefore, is said of the Father, the same is altogether said also of the Son, with this one exception: that He is Father. And whatever is predicated of the Son, the same also of the Father, with the sole exception again that He is Son. For example, the Father is God by nature, omnipotent, D creator, Lord, King, incorruptible, immortal, life, having no beginning of His existence, and not brought from non-being to being: the Son has these same things without any difference. But if you confess that these things indeed belong to the Father, yet exclude the Son by calling Him a creature, and by reducing the Creator to the order of creatures, you will also deprive the Father of them, ignorantly condemning the Son, and despoiling the character of the Father of divine dignity: although, by looking into this character, we contemplate the nature of the Father.
Since therefore the Father is unbegotten, it is necessary that the Son should also be unbegotten; and by unbegotten I mean that which is not made. B
OTHER. « And we have seen, and bear witness, and announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to you. » The name of eternity is often applied to God in the holy Scriptures, as it removes any temporal origin from the divine and incorruptible nature, to which alone it belongs essentially not to be made. If, therefore, the life was eternal with God and the Father—that is, the Son—how could he be created, according to the folly of some? For that which is altogether created is not eternal.
OTHER. « And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. » What again will the calumnious heretics say to these most true and most explicit words of the holy John? If the Son is true God, he is this essentially and not by grace, as are created things. But if he who is God by nature is created, as they wish, there will be absolutely nothing excellent or singular in the Father himself, even if he is called God by nature. For whatever is altogether made or created, even if it does not yet appear to be made, will by no means escape the cause of its origin, since by its own nature it is capable of being made: it follows, therefore, that they are impious even toward the Father himself. But the fact of being made does not fall upon the divine and immortal nature, which is the Son. He is not, therefore, created, but rather unbegotten, as being God by nature and true, and eternal life. C
From the Epistle of Jude. « But I wish to remind you, knowing all things once for all, that Jesus, having saved the people from the land of Egypt, destroyed them that did not believe. » If, according to the standing word of the holy one, Jesus saved the people from Egypt, he, therefore, is the one who says to the hierophant Moses: « I am who I am; I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, and I have come down to deliver them. » If, then, he is truly the one who is, how could he be created? For he would no longer be "the One who Is," but something made. But Christ does not lie! For he is the Being, and always existing. He will not, therefore, be found to be created, nor to have received the beginning of his existence in time, as creatures do. D
From the Gospel according to Matthew. « Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus. For he himself shall save his people from their sins. »
A If the Son saves his own people and forgives sins, as the Lord and God of the law, who is it that will ascribe him to created things, he who undergoes the whole reason of divinity and is by nature God? But I believe that no one will deny that it is owed to God alone to possess a people as Lord and king.
ANOTHER
«Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us.» If the Son were not God by nature, he would not have been called God with us, which indeed happened when he was born through a woman, having assumed the likeness toward us. For the name Emmanuel is not the invention of an angel at all, nor of any other of created things, but the Father thus named the Son, and the holy prophet will testify, saying concerning the divine birth: «And they shall call his name new, which the Lord shall name it.» For Emmanuel is truly a new name for the Son, that is, God with us. For before his presence in the world in the flesh, he was simply and nakedly just God and was so called; but after his birth from the Virgin, he was not only God, but also with us, that is, God having become man. Since the Father calls his own Son God, let those blush who impiously and ignorantly say that he is created. For he who is God by nature cannot be a creature.
ANOTHER
«You have heard that it was said to them of old, You shall not kill: and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.» C Accept from me here again such reasoning as this, and observe clearly whether I seem to you to speak rightly. Since it is most proper for the king alone to enact laws, God permits no one among existing things to add anything to those things which he himself prescribed through Moses. For he says, It is not permitted to add to them, nor is it permitted to take anything away. But if the Savior took away the lesser, and added the greater and more perfect, therefore, as God and Lord of the law, he does this; or, if this is not at all the case, certainly he will not be immune from sin, inasmuch as he broke the commandment of God. But it is most true what is written of him, «Since he did no sin.» D Therefore, as God, he first abrogated the commandment, and by his own right commanded the second according to his own judgment. For this is what that saying seems to signify, «But I say to you.» How then, can he who enacts laws as God by nature, and therefore cannot be recent, be made or created?
ANOTHER
«For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if...»
heavenly. "If you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." A Since God and the Father forgives sins and has the power to release the one held by transgressions, the Son also has the power to grant this and to act. Thus, the Savior says to a certain person: "Son, your sins are forgiven you." Since, therefore, we see the Son possesses such great power—the same power that the Father has—how can we bear with the impious heretics who call Him of a different nature and alien, when they are unable to show that the power which belongs to God alone resides in any creature whatsoever?
ANOTHER
"A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a corrupt tree bear good fruit." B This definition of our Savior is most true of all. Let us therefore examine accurately the force of what has been said, and let the matter itself be referred to the divine essence. That which is surpassed by any class of good, when compared with that which surpasses it, is not good: for it is neither similar nor equal to it in every respect. But when that which is increate is exceedingly good, that which is created will certainly be less and inferior, and compared with the increate, it is not good. How then can a created fruit come from an increate plant, if indeed the Father is believed to be increate? For if a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, and God the Father is a good tree—even because He is increate—how and from where will the fruit from Him be created, so that for this reason it could be called evil, because it lies about the nobility of its progenitor? But the fruit is indeed good, C just as the plant itself is. The Son, therefore, does not belie the Father's nobility, being revealed as increate from the Increate. Moreover, He Himself will be increate just as the Father. But if He is increate, how will He be a work or creature, as the heretics think?
ANOTHER
"And behold, a leper coming worshipped Him, saying: 'Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.' And extending His hand, He touched him, saying: 'I am willing; be cleaned.' And immediately his leprosy was cleansed." The grace comes from authority; the command is lordly. How then is the Son reckoned among servants as a created being, He who is able to do all things by will alone, and who bears the divine dignity and that which is proper to the One who begot Him, and in this respect? For it is written concerning God and the Father, that "He has done all things D that He willed," as in the divine view the works are immediately established and summoned into being by His nod alone. But He who has the power and authority of His own Father, how could He be of a different nature from Him because He is created, when His nature is not such? For those things that have the same energy are accustomed to be of the same substance, and it is not probable that they are of a different nature. Therefore, the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and from the Increate is the Increate, inasmuch as He has the same power and authority.
A
ANOTHER
"Then rising, He rebuked the wind and the sea, and there was a great calm. But the men marveled, saying: Who is this, for the sea and the winds obey Him?" Since God, in order to demonstrate His own majesty, says somewhere through one of the prophets to those who sin shamelessly: "Will you not fear me? says the Lord. Or will you not tremble at my face, who have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, an everlasting decree, and it shall not pass over it?" And again, signifying this very thing in Job regarding the sea, He says: "I placed boundaries for it, and imposed B bars and gates; and I said to it: Hitherto you shall come, and shall not pass over; but in yourself your waves shall be broken." And the blessed Psalmist, playing the spiritual lyre and glorifying God, says thus: "You rule the power of the sea, and the surging of its waves You calm." Since, therefore, it characterizes the divine nature to be able to control the sea, to impose laws upon the waters, and to bring under the yoke of dominion the most sovereign elements in the world, and the Son performs this with a certain great power, C in what manner shall He not be God by nature? Or how can He be a created being, who is able with such great ease to accomplish those things which befit only God and the Father? For if we say that there is nothing at all that can be commanded to the sea and that can confine it with bars and gates, why does God and the Father boast of these things as if they were marvelous? Furthermore, if the power over these things depends solely on divine power and glory, no reason would certainly permit us to attribute to created substance those things which befit the divine nature. The Son, therefore, is not D a creature, who enters into the inner meaning of divinity by naturally performing those things which appear to be proper and exclusive to that nature.ANOTHER
"And the demons begged Him, saying: If you cast us out from here, send us into the herd of swine. And Jesus said to them: Go. And coming out, they went into the swine, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the cliff into the sea, and died in the waters." This, too, is a property peculiar to the divine nature: to be able to contain all things and to extend the rationale of His providence to the most trivial things in each individual case. And the Savior Himself will testify to this, saying: "Are not two sparrows sold for an assarion, and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father who is in heaven?" If, therefore, this authority is also great and befits God in the Father, and the Son possesses the same—seeing that He did not even permit the demons to have power over the swine (for they desired to receive it,as it were, not having it), how is it not absurd to think that God the Word, begotten of God, is of a nature different from Him and created, when He possesses naturally all those things that are proper to the Father?
OTHER
«And having called his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, so as to cast them out, and to heal every sickness and every ailment.» A Observe once more here the divine power of the Son, and not one befitting a created nature. For the ability to perform some of the things that are justly admired belonged to the saints also, not naturally, but by participation in the Holy Spirit and from God. But to dispense this grace to others is altogether foreign to their power and authority. For how could a created nature distribute the gifts of the Spirit? But our Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as He is God and Son by nature, heals with authority, not displaying the act of prayer, as they do, but the effects of His own essential energy. And He bestows the grace of this in the same way to whomever He pleases, not calling upon an external power for it, but infusing it from Himself; just as if fire should infuse the energy of its own nature to those who approach it. How, then, could He who makes those in whom the power of the Spirit resides partakers of the divine essence be created and made, and not rather God by nature?OTHER
«All things have been delivered unto me by my Father, and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any one know the Father, save the Son.» B The intellect of created beings cannot grasp the divine essence in any way, because that which is beyond nature and its untainted beauty surpasses all mind and every intellect, and is known only by itself for what it is by nature. Therefore, from what the Father is, He knows His own Son, and again, from what the Son is, He knows His own Father. And in this way he would also well say, «I am in the Father, and the Father in me,» and, «He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.» Since, therefore, there is no difference lying between them, so far as the nature of the Godhead is concerned, how could the Son be created, when the Father is not, and the Son is the image and unvarying character of the Father? COTHER
«Come unto me, he says, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you.» D If the entire nature of created beings is under the divine yoke, and serves the Creator alone, bowing the neck, according to him who says to God, «For all things serve thee,» and the Savior leads us and subjects us to His own yoke; therefore, He is Lord andA creator as God. How then, if He is such, will He be in things created? Or how will He be under a yoke and in servitude, He who as Lord steers and directs all things? For if this were the case, we would be caught adoring a created thing, and serving a creature rather than the Creator. But the reality of our condition is not so; for the Son is true God. He is therefore not a creature nor a work.
OTHER. «Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are without blame? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.» B And God, who dwells in it and sanctifies it, and for whose glory the temple’s construction came to be, is greater and more worthy of veneration than a temple built of stones. How then does Christ have greater glory than the temple, if He who is worshipped in that very temple is not God? But He does have the greater glory, and this is the truth; for how could it be otherwise? He is therefore God, as the Son having appeared from God the Father. And if this is so, He is no work nor creature. For Israel was not in error when they worshipped and adored Him in the temple, C concerning whom it is written: «You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.»
OTHER. «Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten; for the tree is known by its fruit.» And the fruit of the Father is the Son; He must therefore, in every respect, be of such a nature as is that which is begotten of Him. Therefore, if the Son is a creature and a work, so also will the Father be. But if the Father is unbegotten, the Son will also be unbegotten, D since the tree is recognized in some way by its fruit.
OTHER. A storm having arisen on the lake, the boat in which the apostles were sailing was tossed violently, and in the fourth watch of the night, the Savior was seen by the disciples walking upon the waves as if upon dry land. When they thought they saw a phantom, they cried out for terror. But when the Savior encouraged them saying, «It is I, do not fear,» they scarcely put away their fear, and having admitted Him into the boat, the wind, he says, immediately ceased. And those who were in the boat adored Him saying: «Truly, you are the Son of God.» What, then, will the enemies of the truth say, following only their own dreams, when they see the entire company of the apostles simultaneously adoring the Son as God, and with an oath saying that He is truly the Son of God? It is manifest that He is also God. For if He is one of the creatures, according to their ignorance, how is He truly the Son of God? For it is impossible that he who has not naturally proceeded from someone, and is not of the same substance as his begetter, should truly be a son. But if the disciples erred when they stated this, how did the Savior remain silent, and their er-
- A rors notwithstanding, not rebuke them? In fact, to Peter, when he answered incorrectly, He says: "Get behind me, Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not perceive the things of God, but the things of men." Since He remained silent when He was truly called the Son of God, not rebuking those who stated it as if they had erred, it is manifest that He approves of them as speaking rightly. Since, therefore, the holy apostles assert that He is truly the Son, and Christ Himself gives His consent to this, who among the heretics who cry out against the divinity of Christ will be endured?
ANOTHER, from the same.
How can those who dare to call the Son of God a creature B be anything but utterly devoid of sound mind? For if He is truly the Son, how, having proceeded from the paternal essence, could He be created? This is what the name of sonship signifies, when naturally assigned to someone. The form of those who are sons by adoption is different. Since Christ is not in this category, He is therefore truly the Son, as He is distinguished by this from us who are sons by adoption; for "by adoption and likeness" there would be no sonship if the True One were not presupposed first, to whom we are conformed, who are fashioned to His likeness by a certain art and grace.
ANOTHER.
"When Jesus had come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying: 'Who do men say that the Son of man is?' They said, 'Some, John the Baptist; others, Elias; others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.' He says to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Peter answering said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answering said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven.'" C From what is set forth, and especially from the very voice of the Lord, it is possible to see that the Father Himself revealed this to Peter, and that he did not derive this confession—that the Word is the Son of God—from human doctrine. And although he saw Him clothed in flesh, living among men upon earth, and—more paradoxical still—confessing Him to be the Son, he does not define Him as belonging to those who have been appointed to this status by grace. For He did not say, "You are one of the sons of God," but simply, He declares that Christ is the One who is precisely and naturally the Son, who has shone forth from the essence of the Father. He is pronounced blessed as one who speaks the truth, and who has been taught by God things that surpass human understanding. How then do they dare to call a creature or a work Him whom the Father knows to be His Son, and whom He reveals as such to those who are worthy? D
ANOTHER.
"For the Son of man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will render to every man according to his works." If God and Father truly
A says, "My glory I will not give to another," how then does He give it to the Son, if indeed, because He is begotten, He is of a different nature from Him and alienated from natural communion with Him? But it is also necessary to confess that the Father speaks the truth. And He has given His own glory to the Son, by no means depriving Himself of it, since the Godhead is one. For thus He will speak the truth: He knows that the Son is a partaker of His nature and of the same essence. For thus He sees the whole fulfilled in one Godhead through the holy and consubstantial Trinity. How then is the Son a product or a creature, He who is the same as the Father in essence, as the true Son from the Father?
ANOTHER. B "And behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice from the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." If there is no great difference between a creature and the Son, but by some it is judged to be the same, everything that is a creature will also be a Son. And whatever is a son will also be a creature. But if we beget offspring from ourselves, yet we *make* things that are outside of us, taking matter foreign to our own nature, how is there not a great difference between the Son and a creature? Therefore, what is true in us, let this also hold good for God. How then is it possible to suppose Him who is truly Son to be made or created, when God and Father Himself cries out C from heaven: "This is My Son"? Not one of the sons, but the Son properly and by nature, in whose image we are adopted sons, because we can cry out in the Spirit of the Son: "Abba, Father."
ANOTHER. "What, he says, must I do to inherit eternal life?" To whom Christ answered: "Why do you ask Me about the good? No one is good except one, God." That which is properly good is not so by the participation of another, but has goodness placed in its own nature, and in a way flowing from itself; nay, it is naturally that which we say is good. Since, therefore, the Father exists in His own Person, and the Son, in turn, in His own Person, to whom alone shall we attribute the good? D Or what will truly be the good? But perhaps someone might say that it belongs to the Father. Rightly indeed, and let it be so: for we concede this, as we are opening up the question. Otherwise, who would dare to deny that the Son is good by nature, when he hears Him saying: "I and the Father are one"; and: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"? For if the Son is not good by nature, how does He show us in Himself the Father, who is naturally good? And yet He is the image of the Father in this respect as well. Therefore He is also good, just as the Father is. How then, according to His own word, is one alone good? Certainly because, when the holy Trinity is joined into one Godhead through the identity of essence, the divine
essence is properly the good. But the Word of God, who is naturally joined to the Father in such unity, how could He be called created or made?
ANOTHER.
AChrist, being asked by the chief priests and Pontius Pilate whether He was the Son of God, answered, "You have said it," not denying it. Then He added: "Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." What then can be gathered from this, when it is said of God that He sits, and a throne, and His principality and dominion, and a royal dignity ruling over all things are signified? For surely no one of sound mind would say that one ought to think about God as He is depicted in paintings or images; nor shall we imagine some throne placed in heaven, and the Lord of the universe sitting upon it; nor shall we posit a right or left side at all in the divine and incomprehensible nature. For form and place, standing and sitting, are proper to bodies. Since, therefore, names and words which have such significations have this force in regard to God, in what manner is the Son said to be about to be seen sitting at the right hand of power, if not in that He lacks nothing of the glory that belongs to the Father? For this, "to sit at the right hand," seems to signify this, through our custom expressing things that are above us. B How then will the Son be found to have the same honor and to be on the same throne with the Father, if He is not by nature the Son, naturally having the Father's property in Himself, but is rather a creature, as those senseless ones say? For it is either necessary to confess that not only the God who truly exists has dominion over the creature, but also that some other created and adventitious god is a sharer in rule with Him—and thus there will not be one God, according to the Scriptures—or, if there is one God, and the Son, being God, reigns with Him, He will certainly be of the same nature as the Father. For thus there will be one God, by the identity of nature, the holy Trinity concurring into one Godhead, even if peculiar names and distinct persons make up a ternary number. Since, therefore, the Son is of the same essence as the uncreated Father, how can He be deemed a creature, according to the absurd opinion of the heretics, and not rather, as He truly is, the genuine Son? CFrom the Gospel according to John.
"In the beginning was the Word." If He was in the beginning, which is conceived by temporal thought (for thus let the argument be shaped for us for the present by way of economy), how could He have been created after it? For that which has been brought into being entirely through creation cannot be understood to have existed in the beginning at all, nor would it be called a beginning in any universal sense, since time precedes it, and something appears before it. DLet them, therefore, say that nothing at all exists before it, and by this the question is solved. Or, if they claim there is some other principle of the principle, let them know that in saying this they are ignorant, but let them also hear from us that we declare the most supreme principle which they posit to be that in which the Word was. And how shall the word "was" not suffice for us to overthrow the opinion of those who claim that He was created? For if He was, He was not made; if He was made, He was not. But since He was, He was not made; for that which already is and subsists, and that in the beginning, could never be said to have been made.
B ALIUD.
And the Word was with God.
The blessed evangelist now explains for us more clearly the term "beginning." For he says that the beginning is nothing other, as is likely, than the Father himself, from whom the living Word shone forth, just as light from the sun. It is understood as something other than Him, yet not positioned outside the essence of Him from whom He is sent forth. Therefore, the Father is the beginning for the Son. But we do not say this beginning is to be measured by temporal intervals, but rather that it is such as is that in which and from which it is; just as heat has fire as its beginning, but is simultaneously understood to be from it and in it inseparably; likewise, cold in water has water as its beginning, but at the same time is known to be from it and in it inseparably. For it is impossible for any of the things mentioned to either exist or appear without the things naturally present in them, unless by some other artifice and by a certain force the faculty and operation common and familiar to it should be disturbed: just as, for instance, water being made to boil by the force of fire. But the divine and incorruptible nature, far surpassing the power of the examples already brought forward, will certainly remain firm and stable in itself, and will always be in the same state, since it is free from all passion. Therefore, the Word was in the Father as in a beginning, so that you may understand that the Father co-exists C with the Word who is from Him and in Him, with no time intervening in His existence. For this word, "was," compels us to understand it in this way.D ALIUD.
And the Word was God.
Here the occasion for suspecting that the Son is a recently made God is clearly removed. For, says the holy evangelist, He was God, being what He was. But if He who is this in the beginning was, how could He have been made? Furthermore, it is good to know this in addition: that which is deified by way of grace, and is not God by its own nature, must necessarily be something in itself and specifically exist and subsist, and then, as if by an increase, acquire that addition of dignity; just as we, since we are humans by nature, attain by grace the right to be called gods. Either, then, let them say what the Word who came forth from the Father was before, howthat He was later called God; or, if they are aware of their own measureless impiety, despoiling the Son of His natural divinity, let them cease to say ignorantly that He who is God by nature is a created being, since no reason whatever permits them to think this. A
ANOTHER.
"This one was in the beginning with God." He does not show the Son to be outside the essence of the Father, but existing in Him and from Him by nature. And again, he says that He did not receive this dignity in time, but that He was such in the beginning. But the true fruit of the begetter's essence, in what way will it be found to be of a different nature? For just as one would not gather grapes from thorns, so it is impossible for a thorn to be produced from a vine. B Since, therefore, the Father is God by nature, so also will the Son be to us, so that the God and Father may not appear inferior to His own works; for if these do not bring forth a fruit alien to themselves, but the Father appeared to have suffered this by begetting one who is not God by nature—for this is what "being made" gives one to understand, C in accordance with which it might be understood—for that which has been made would not be God by nature.ANOTHER.
"All things were made through Him, and without Him was made not one thing." If, when he says "all things," he is found to have left nothing at all that is not calculated in the number of things that have been made, then He who called all things into being, the God Word, is other than all the rest. How, therefore, would He be "other," if He is of the same genus as them and has been made along with them? But since He is "other," He is not therefore of the same genus. Therefore, He is not a creature, but rather the maker and creator, as God. DANOTHER.
It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." How then, if the Son is a creature, as they say, is He worshipped by us and by the holy angels? And Paul the witness shall be present, saying, "But when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says: And let all the angels of God worship Him." Tell me, how is the crime of those who serve the creature rather than the Creator considered grave, if—as they claim—the very purest powers of the heavens serve the Son as God, even though He possesses a nature that is a creature? To these, indeed, one would justly grant that they are in no way deceived, since they are even more wise and prudent than those among us. But there is no reproach for those who worship Christ; on the contrary, the reward for them is great. Therefore, He is not a creature, but rather God, being worshipped blamelessly and without reproach by the whole of creation together.ANOTHER, from the same.
If the Son, according to them, is a work and a creature,A it is evident that all things were made through him. Does the creature create itself? It boasts in vain as a creator, saying: "My hand has made all these things." But nothing that has been made appears as a creator, but rather the creature proclaims the Maker as God. The Son, therefore, is not a creature, nor is he one of the things made, according to the foolishness and at the same time the impiety of those who are led astray.
ANOTHER
"He was the true light." If, while the Father is the true light, the Son is also the true light, what difference will there be, according to the definition of nature, regarding him who is placed in the same order and in this respect with him? But if, being of a different nature B according to the wicked folly of the heretics, he can be the true light, what is the observation of the holy evangelists? And why do they attribute it as something great and excellent to God the Father, that he is the true light, since the Son also, according to their opinion, though he be a created thing, is a true light? For if the divine excellences are inaccessible to created things, and nothing of those things which have been made can ever possess this essentially or properly—that which God is naturally in his own property—it should be said only to the creature: "For what do you have that you did not receive?" But the properties of the Father are found to exist naturally in the Son. He is therefore consubstantial with Him, and is as far removed from the kinship with created things C as one might see the One who begat him to be. For this reason, he has the God-befitting dignity inaccessible, and this not in part, but in its entirety.ANOTHER
"He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world." If the light sent into the world by God the Father is the Word proceeding from him, according to that which was said by him: "I came out from the Father, and I have come," and again: "I have come as a light into the world," then the blessed Psalmist addresses him, striking the spiritual lyre: "For you will enlighten my lamp, O Lord my God, you are the light into my darkness." When, therefore, according to the voice of the Savior himself, the blessed David in the Spirit confesses him D to be Lord and God, how will he be a creation, or in what manner will he who is by nature God be altogether a created thing?ANOTHER
"But as many as received him, he gave them the power to become children of God." Let this also be considered again by me, and let the contentious heretic now hear. There is, as it were, a proper place for each of the beings, its own definition of nature, or the condition of the dignity that resides in it. For example, regarding the definition of nature, I am a man, but an angel is something else. Regarding dignity or condition, one position is servile, another is not so, but free. But when any of these things is joined to one who knows how to improve [them], it becomes another...thing, it seems, than what it was from the beginning, having been drawn in a certain manner from its own place and having moved to the position of the one that improves it. This same thing also happens to us: for we have been transferred from slaves into sons of God, having departed from our own measure and having leapt into that of the One who grants this to us, if not by nature, at least by the naming of children of God. Shall we not therefore say that human nature is benefited in this respect? Without a doubt. But what will be the account of the utility, if there is no difference at all between a creature and the Son? Or what change for the better appears in us, if there is nothing more situated in adoption as sons than in creation? Or how B could we be called sons, as having received in ourselves the Word of God, if He is not by nature the Son of the Father? But if He is Son by nature, how could He also be a creature, it not being possible that what is begotten from someone should not bear the nature of the begetter?
ANOTHER. “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” If the Son is not God by nature, then He is adoptive and mendacious. But if He is truth and the worker of truth, how could He also be mendacious? Therefore, He is God by nature. But if He is this, how could He be created?
ANOTHER. “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” The blessed prophet Isaiah says somewhere to the Lord of all: “Who is God like unto thee, taking away sins and passing over injustice?” Since, therefore, these things are said to be done by God, and Christ is the one removing the sin of the world, how is He not God? And if this is so, He is not a creature.
ANOTHER. “On the morrow,” he says, “He wished to go out into Galilee, and He finds Philip, and says to him, ‘Follow me.’” In these things the Savior declares Philip to be his disciple. Consider, then, if there is not also in this testimony a brilliant argument, persuading us that the Son is God by nature. For as many were daily resorting to the Savior, and an innumerable crowd was running to the disciples, the Savior, lifting up his eyes, said to the disciples: “The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He may send forth laborers into His harvest.” By “harvest” he meant nothing other than those who, through faith in Him, germinate like stalks unto piety. And who could be the Lord of these, if not the God of all? To whom also the Apostle exhorts those who are still heirs to be joined through repentance, crying out: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Since, therefore, God alone is the Lord of the harvest, as being the Lord and creator of all, the appointment of the laborers also belongs to Him.
The Savior says this, and then He Himself is seen doing this by His own authority: for He commands Philip to follow Him. He is, therefore, the true God, as being established as the Lord of the harvest by the very fact itself.
ANOTHER
A “Take these things away, and do not make the house of my Father a house of merchandise.” If the Son is a creature, then it follows that He has attained being called God by grace, and the name of Sonship has been bestowed upon Him by adoption, just as it is with other rational creatures, in whom nature herself does not produce that dignity, but the grace of Him who says: “I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High.” If, therefore, He is not Son by essence, He is then a brother to those who have been called to the sonship of God. How then (someone might rightly say), since He has nothing more than we do as far as the dignity of Sonship is concerned, does He claim for Himself alone the Father who is common to all, saying: “Do not make the house of my Father [a house of merchandise]”? For He ought, since He is just and good, rather to have said to the merchants: “Do not make the house of your Father a house of merchandise.” But He did not say this; rather, with great authority, He claims the name of Father for Himself alone. He knew, therefore, that He was Son B properly and by nature, in imitation of whom we have been so called by God. But he who is the Son by his own nature in this way, how could he be a creature?
ANOTHER
“What sign do you show us that you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” That Christ calls His own body a temple, the evangelist himself makes clear to us immediately, adding: “But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” When, therefore, He rose from the dead, the disciples remembered that this was what He had said to them. A temple, therefore, could not be called such properly and truly unless God were dwelling within it. Just as, therefore, no one would call the body a temple of the soul that dwells within it in our own case—for we are called temples only when, through faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit dwells within us—so the body of Christ C is indeed a temple, rightfully and truly; for in Him it pleased all the fullness of the Godhead to dwell bodily, as Paul says; but it is clear that God the Word is He who dwelt within. How, therefore, could He be a created being, He who proved the body in which He was to be a temple, as God by nature, the holy body?
ANOTHER
“Now when He was at Jerusalem, at the Pasch, in the feast, many believed in His name, seeing His signs which He did. But Jesus himself did not trust himself unto them, for that He knew all, and because He had no need that any should testify of man: for He himself D
A knew what was in man. The Psalmist, admiring the divine nature beyond measure, as something great and most worthy of mention, and a prerogative belonging strictly to it alone, proceeds to cry out to the Lord of the whole universe: B "Who fashioned their hearts one by one, who understands all their works." It is, I think, manifest that he says such things concerning men. Since, therefore, it belongs to none but the God who truly exists to know the heart and to understand all the hidden things that are in man, and the Son understands and knows these things, how can He not be by nature and in truth God? And if this be so, how can He be a created being?
ANOTHER
When our Savior Christ said to Nathanael, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you," he himself, in turn, admiring Him as God from this one singular sign, said: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." If, therefore, according to the testimony of our Savior Himself concerning him, Nathanael was truly an Israelite in whom there was no guile, how is it possible to admit that he lied concerning Christ when he said, "You are the Son of God and the King of Israel"? For if he knew at all how to lie, there would be guile upon his tongue. But if the word of the Savior is true, there was no guile in him, he being free from falsehood and deceit. He is therefore true in calling the Word of God incarnate the Son, and in ascribing to Him the dignity which befits the natural Son; for he names Him King C of Israel. But He who is the Son and King for this reason, how could He be both a servant and a created being?
ANOTHER
Christ is found somewhere addressing the Pharisees, who were undertaking to inquire ignorantly, saying: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures." For it was truly a pursuit most becoming to a wise teacher to correct those who were inquiring wrongly and to instruct those who did not know the truth. Therefore, if Nathanael was in reality straying from the truth by calling Christ the Son of God and King of Israel, why did He not immediately imbue him with the true knowledge of Himself, or why did He not say to him, "You err, my friend"? For the matter is not as you suppose. For I am not the Son of God, but rather a creature; and I am by no means a King, but a servant, as one created. This would have been truly to instruct and help him who had just been called to discipleship and was approaching Him for this purpose. Moreover, the teacher would have preserved the knowledge proper to Him from being subject to reproach, proposing to him at the outset, as a salutary lesson, the abandonment of that which was not a true perception. But since he was accustomed to doing this with others, and yet in the case of Nathanael's confessions he is all but astonished—a fact which makes it manifest that he wisely and fittingly honors the one who has just spoken—if He is the Son of God and King of Israel, how D could He be created or made, insofar as He is the Word? For he does not
A call what is created to the dignity of a Son, nor truly to kingship by nature. For all things are the servant of their Maker, and what is created could not, in any sense, be begotten.
ANOTHER.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life." If the great and supernatural love of God the Father toward the world is known by this, that He willed His Son to be incarnate for it and on its behalf, surely this event is not to be highly esteemed if that which was given by the Father for the salvation of the world was not the Son, but a creature. Moreover, the name of "Only-begotten" would be feigned, not true. For if the Son is from among created things, how can He be considered the only-begotten? But since the love of God and the Father is great and exceptional, it is indeed the Son who was given for the salvation of the world. For in this consists the true value of the matter. He is also the Only-begotten; therefore, He is not one of the creatures, but the only one begotten of the Father. For the name and the reality of the "Only-begotten" signify exactly this.
ANOTHER.
"For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved." B The prophet Isaiah introduces that great Person of the Lord of all speaking, saying: "I am God, and there is no Savior, a righteous one, besides Me." But if the Son is all these things and saves the world, and is for this reason said to have been sent by the Father, then He Himself is the one who says through the prophet: "I am God, and there is no one besides Me." How, then, when this is the case, can He be considered as created?
ANOTHER.
The blessed John the Baptist says concerning our Savior Christ, "He must increase, but I must decrease." C But let someone who is studious of understanding the truth say that increase and decrease are to be understood regarding the stature of bodies; yet how would one who conceives such a thing not be considered delirious? For the nature of human bodies indeed admits of increase; but that which leans downward and, having once been fashioned, falls beyond the measure of nature, it is impossible for such a thing to subside of its own accord and without cost; for many are the sufferings that befall our bodies. It is therefore highly absurd to say regarding bodies, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Therefore, one must seek a sense not foreign to the mind of John. Christ, then, increases, D showing John to be continually lesser: not that He excels as man over man, or creature over creature (for the...
A distance is small and of no great moment), but because through His works He manifested Himself more and more as God and was always ascending to that height, while John as man was subsiding, at as great an interval as the human race is inferior to the Divine essence. How then could one who dares to depress the Son, endowed with such dignity, to the point of contending that He is a creature, be anything but vehemently impious?
ANOTHER.
«He who comes from above, is above all.» By «from above» in this context, I think it signifies nothing else than [that He comes] from the highest essence of all. For it is not, I suppose, to be affirmed by us, nor shall we allow the holy Baptist to be held to assert, that the Son is honored by bodily and local elevations, if I may so express it. B Since, therefore, «from above» is not understood as from a bodily place, nor does it have any real movement from one place to another, what else could it be but what we have already said—the essence itself from above, which, in its very being, possesses the height of dignity in a manner befitting God? How then could the Word of God, who has come from thence, belie the nature that begot Him, appear as heterogenous and foreign, a creature rather than Son, a servant and not Lord? And how, furthermore, could He be considered «above all,» if, by virtue of being of the same nature as all, He is forced by them to be subject along with all, if indeed He is truly a creature? For the Psalmist rightly says, speaking to God and the Father: «For all things serve Thee.» This is indeed the fitting measure for creation; but the Son is above all things. He is not, therefore, one of those who are subject in C slavish fashion; rather, the opposite is true both in form and in reality.
ANOTHER, from the same.
If the Son is above all, He will certainly not be placed among all things, but will be distinct from all, as being above all: that is, in a more sublime and ineffable nature that transcends every likeness to generated things. For this is what «above» once again signifies to us, excluding a bodily placement of God as if in a place. But if the Son has such a nature and such defining characteristics of His own, how could He be thought of as a creature?
ANOTHER.
The blessed Baptist says concerning our Savior: «He that received His testimony hath set his seal to this, that God is true.» If he who trusts in what Christ says and affirms has set his seal that God is true, then Christ is He who is believed by those hearing Him to be the true God. But since there is no new God among us, how could He be a creature?
ANOTHER.
The Savior says again somewhere: «I am the life.» And we must believe that it is so concerning Him, if God does not lie. But He does not lie; for He is true. And the Son is life by nature; He is not, therefore, a creature.
but rather life from life, essentially having His existence from eternity. This is indeed clearly contrary to that which is created or made. For that which is entirely made cannot exist from eternity, but is rather brought forth into existence in time.
ANOTHER
A «My Father, He says, works until now, and I work.» For this reason especially the Jews sought to kill Jesus, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal to God. The Jews were very indignant and were gravely hostile to Christ B because, when He was a man, He did not call God a common Father, but His own, saying: «My Father works until now.» But because He calls God His own Father, He invites them to a natural and true contemplation, and they said He was snatching for Himself equality with God, since that which naturally proceeds from something is equal in the reasoning of its essence to that from which it is. Since, therefore, the Jews held this opinion about Christ, who indeed reproves them, or who argues that those who are disposed in this way—as if, because He called God His own Father, they believed He was making Himself equal to the Father—are in error and think incorrectly? Moreover, not even the Savior Himself, the perpetual champion of truth, who instructs those who err in the true knowledge, reproves the opinion of the Jews. But on the contrary, He confirms what they had conceived in their minds, when He adds: «For whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does likewise.» Therefore, He knows God as His own C Father; and He is equal to Him, having a natural equality with Him in all things. But if the Son is such as this, how can He be a creature?ANOTHER
«For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will.» Whither, I beseech you, will the speech of the enemies of Christ flee now? Or what will the heretics judge concerning this saying of Christ? How does the Father raise the dead? Is it by being made a partaker of life from another, or is He Himself life existing by nature? But I suppose they will entirely concede that He is life, and so is able to give life to those who become partakers of Him. Since, therefore, the Son in the same way gives life to the dead, surely He too is life by nature, proceeding from life. But He who resembles the Father in D every way, how could He be created, if the Father is not that same thing—as He is not? For He always was and is, as life. The Son, therefore, is not a creature, who always lives and exists as the Father.ANOTHER
«For the Father, He says, judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father.» The Father is God by nature, admittedly. But the Son, according to theA absurd insight of the heretics, since he is a creature, he cannot be God by nature. How then, one might say, shall we worship both God and the created thing with equal and balanced honor without sinning? Or how can the Father himself command us to do this, and order us to worship the creature rather than the Creator, when he said through Moses: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve"? Yet it would indeed be most absurd for God and Father to desire that we worship a creature. But he commands us to worship the Son just as himself. He knows, therefore, that he is God by nature, and the true and genuine fruit of his own essence. How then could the Son, who holds himself in this way by nature, be called created, when the Father from whom he was begotten is uncreated? B
ALIUD. "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself." If the Son has life in himself in this way, as the Father has it, then it is essentially, not by participation. For life is essential in the Father; or rather, the Father is himself life by nature. Let not the Son saying that life was given to him by the Father disturb those who hear it, for it is similar as if the heat proceeding from fire were to say: "Just as fire has heat in itself, so it has given me to have it in myself." And certainly, such an acceptance is not understood to occur by way of participation on the part of the receiver, or by any division or separation from the one giving, but as a movement C of the one sent that is carried forth essentially from the unity which exists with the one who emits it. Since, therefore, the Son so has life in himself, just as the Father also has it, and exists as exactly the same thing that he is, how could he be created, when the one who begat him is not so?
ALIUD. "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true; there is another who bears witness of me, and I know that the witness which he bears of me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. I do not receive testimony from man." The blessed Baptist did indeed bear witness to the truth concerning the Savior, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." D Since, however, the Savior says at once that he does not wish to receive testimony from man, but that there is another who truly bears witness concerning him, who then is this, who is even more authoritative than the voice of John? It is clearly evident that he means the Father, saying to John: "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit"; at which time also the voice of the Father was carried from on high, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Since, therefore, God and Father calls him Son, and makes true
testimony concerning him—who then would call him a creature, without clearly fighting against the knowledge that the Father has concerning his own offspring? And how would such a one appear at all to be in his right mind? B
ANOTHER
"I have testimony greater than John's. For the works which the Father gave me to accomplish, the very works I do, bear witness of me, that the Father has sent me." Christ says that the testimony of John is small for testifying of him; not that John was truly unworthy to bear witness of him (for he came entirely into the testimony, that he might bear witness of the Light, and specifically sent by God for this cause), but because the impious Jews held him as nothing, although he was so great in virtue. Therefore he says that the proof from the works will most properly establish the faith, that he is God the Son proceeded from God the Father. For he asks to be known from the majesty that shines in his works, as he himself says, that he went forth from his Father and has come; for he would not have been able to perform any of the things that befit God alone, if he were truly of a different nature than the one who begat him. Since, then, he appears able to perform the same things as the Father, how is it not necessary to believe that he is God from God by nature, and that those who say he is a creature are impious and blasphemous, both wickedly and ignorantly? CANOTHER
"I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me. If another should come in his own name, him you will receive." How has the Son come in the name of the Father? Manifestly as God, as Lord, as Life, as Almighty, as Light, as one able to give life to the dead. For these things are the Father. But if the Son is truth by nature, as he surely is, nothing of those things which were spoken will be found to be falsified in him. And he who is by nature the same as the Father, except for this alone—that he is not the Father—how would he be created, since the Father is uncreated? DANOTHER
"As," he says, "the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, and he who eats of me, even he shall live because of me." The Son says he was sent by the Father according to the manner of obedience and incarnation. For he emptied himself, having taken the form of a servant, and became obedient even unto death; or, just as light which is generated and sent forth from the sun, or heat from fire, passes over without division and without separation to the one who partakes of it. And he says that he lives because of the Father, not as one becoming a partaker of life, as we are, but as the Father's property naturally passing into him, inasmuch as he is the Son and has substantially proceeded from him. For it is among the properties of the Father to live. This, therefore, exists also in the Son because of the Father.A For it is impossible that he who has proceeded from the living Father should not live, since the Son is the perfect image of the One who begat him. As, therefore, he is from the living Father, he also himself lives; thus, retaining the character of natural likeness in every respect, if the Father is uncreated, the Son likewise is uncreated. And since he is true God from true God, he cannot be a creature, or made, or recent in time.
ANOTHER.
A "Jesus answered, 'You know neither me, nor my Father: if you knew me, you would have known my Father also.'" (John viii, 19). See for me again from this that the Son is the most accurate image of the Father. For if anyone knows him, he knows the Father entirely; how is it not manifest that it is necessary to believe him to be such, as he who exists by nature is? Since, therefore, no difference intervenes, but rather an all-encompassing likeness exists between them, how could the Son be a creature, when the Father is uncreated?
ANOTHER.
B Relative names are not understood by themselves and in isolation, as are other names, but they entirely signify also those things with respect to which they are spoken. For example, when one names the day, he also implies the night; when he names the right, the left is simultaneously understood: likewise also with son as it relates to father. Therefore, whoever calls the Son a creature does not rightly distinguish him from the Father. But he who confesses him to be Son knows also that he has a Father. For the maker of some work cannot be called a father, but rather an artisan. If, therefore, we wish to know God as Father, let us confess the Son to be naturally from him, or else we shall hear together with the unlearned Jews from him: C "If you knew me, you would have known my Father also."
ANOTHER.
"The Jews answered, he says: 'We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, God.' Jesus therefore said to them: 'If God were your father, you would love me. For I proceeded from God and have come; for I have not come of my own accord, but he sent me.'" (ibid. 41, 42). Those who have not loved the Son who has blossomed forth from God the Father, how could they truly say they loved the One from whom he is? And those who have dishonored the fruit, what honor will they offer to the tree? But if the Son is the fruit of God and Father—for this is what "I have proceeded from God and have come" signifies—how could he be a creature? And how, in general, would the ineffable nature of the Godhead generate something foreign and alien to itself, when even created nature itself shrinks from this? D For man is born of man, and cow of cow. It is necessary, therefore, to confess the Son to be God from God, lest the condition of the Father seem worse than that of created things. But the Son says he was sent by the Father, not
A moving from place to place (for this is characteristic of bodies), but as heat is from fire, or as illumination is from light.
ANOTHER.
« My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one. » If the Father is greater than all, clearly possessing a preeminence in a manner consistent with God relative to created things, and is outside of all and over all, then he who possesses such a nature and dignity is one with the Son. Furthermore, how shall he be a created being, he who is the same in essence as the unbegotten Father? Or how shall he be reckoned among all things as a creature, he who is greater than all with the Father, and greater as God compared to created beings?ANOTHER.
« Many good works I have shown you from my Father. For which of them do you stone me? » The Jews answered him: « For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. » When our Savior said: « I and the Father are one, » the Jews were indignant, not understanding who it was that said these things; looking only at the flesh, they wished and attempted to overwhelm him with stones, already encompassing him with the charge of blasphemy. For by saying, they claimed, « I and the Father are one, » you make yourself God by nature—and they understood this one point rightly. Therefore, the Jews are better than the godless Arians, in that they maintained that he who dared to say, « I and the Father are one, » was of necessity ascending to the dignity of divinity. For how could he who is not himself God be one with him who is God by nature? But since he himself does not lie, he is therefore God by nature and is one with the Father. And such a one as this, how could he be created or made? B CANOTHER.
« Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said, You are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, that you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? » Do you see how he clearly differentiates himself from those who are gods by adoption, inasmuch as he is naturally that which is granted to them by grace? How, therefore, can it be that he who is essentially God should be a creature, since it is alien to the divine and incomprehensible nature to be created?ANOTHER.
« If, » he says, « I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works DA that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. » That those things which by nature are separate from each other’s consubstantiality have also a different power and operation, the Savior most clearly shows by the things He said. For if, looking to the lowliness of the flesh, you do not believe in me, He says, the magnitude and excellence of the works ought indeed to provide you with grounds for belief that I am God, having come forth from God. For He who in works is the same as the Father, how could He be secondary to Him according to nature? And he who is clad with the same power and energy as He, how could He be of a different nature B from Him? Or rather, how is He not similar in all respects, and thus well-defined regarding essential resemblance, having wholly within Himself the property of Him who begat Him naturally, so as to be in the Father, and to have the Father likewise in Himself? Who then would dare to call the image of the Father a creature, and not in all respects act impiously toward the Father Himself?
ANOTHER. « I am the resurrection and the life. » If the Son, being an object of creation and a creature, as some would have it, is also resurrection and life, let Him not be wondered at as the Father is, by whom these things are. For what more is there in Him than in the creatures? But if, as far as we know, He differs from creatures by the definition of nature, and because He is life, how could the Son be a creature, being himself life by nature, just as truly as He who begat Him? C But the life of creatures is nothing at all, but rather they are participants in life from the living God; since we also move and are in God, as Paul says.
ANOTHER. « He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me. » If the Son has such great likeness to His own Father, as to be, in a certain manner, mingled with Him according to essence, and to show His nature just as in an image, how is he not exceedingly impious who dares to call Him a creature, unless he grants that the Father is also made? For it is necessary that the Son be such as the Father is by nature. Since the Father is not a creature, therefore the Son will not be a creature, but rather uncreated, just as He who begat Him. For thus will the Son truly have [that status], and we will behold the Father in Him.
ANOTHER. « All things that the Father has are mine. » If all things that the Father has are also the Son’s (it is obvious that He is boasting of the natural properties of the One who begat Him), D and if to be uncreated is present to the Father along with other divine goods, this will also belong to the Son. For He is not made, but was in the beginning with the Father and in the Father, being God the Word, having the manner of His generation ineffable and beyond telling.
A
ANOTHER.
"I came forth from the Father, and I have come into the world; and again I leave the world, and go to the Father." His disciples say unto Him: "Behold, now Thou speakest plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and hast no need that any man should ask Thee. By this we believe that Thou art come forth from God." B The testimony of the holy apostles is highly esteemed, as it were a kind of seal of the faith, for they avowed that they had firmly believed that the Son shone forth from the essence of God and the Father. For this, I think, is what is meant, and nothing else, by coming forth from the Father. One must, however, seek to know whence this faith came to them, or upon what grounds or occasions the vote of their understanding was given. "Now," they say, "we know that Thou knowest all things, and hast no need that any man should ask Thee. By this we believe that Thou art come forth from God." C In the fact that the Son knows all things, the disciples were persuaded that He was truly revealed from God and the Father. For it is truly proper to the Godhead to know nothing of ignorance, which was in the Son. For this reason they believe Him to be God, and that He has been manifested as begotten of the Father, having what is the Father’s naturally in Himself. How then shall He be a creature, He who shines forth with the characteristics of the Godhead, and not only has the knowledge of all things, but also cries with a loud voice: "All things that the Father hath are Mine"?
ANOTHER.
"This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." If, when set in contrast to the false gods of the nations, the Father alone is the true God, being—as is clear—conjoined with the Son by the identity of nature, then let those who claim Him to be a creature see whether they are not being extremely impious, since they contend that He is created to whom this truly belongs, that He is D God simultaneously with the Father who begat Him.
ANOTHER.
"I have manifested Thy name to men." What name, then, does the Savior declare that He has manifested to men? Or is it perhaps the same as if He said: "I have preached Thee to men as God"? But what of the prophets? Did they not also for such a long time before the incarnation call Him the Lord God of the whole universe? What more, then, did Christ do? Perhaps he says that he has continued to announce Him as the Creator and Maker of the whole world and its Artificer. Nevertheless, the blessed Moses, the first to write the book concerning the creation of the world, introduces Him as both God and Creator, saying: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." What name, then, does He say has been manifested? Is it not clearly that of the Father? For after they had believed in the Son, they openly confessed that He was the Father, and recognized who and what manner of person the Father is, being led from the natural beauty of the Son to the excellent form of the Father, and from the perfect and absolute image to the archetype itself or the...
A archetype, beholding. What then is that which is established by these things? If the Son is a creature, surely the Father would not be understood as God through Him: for a creature is known in relation to a creator, but a son in relation to a father; for such is always the condition of things that are relative. But if it is necessary in truth that God be understood as Father in effect and in reality, one must confess the Son who is from Him—and the same argument shall prevail regarding the Son. For, being believed to be a begotten one and not a creature, He will necessarily bring along with Himself the knowledge of Him who begat Him; and thus He speaks truly, saying, "I have manifested your name to men."
ANOTHER.
The Savior says somewhere to Mary, after He had risen from the dead: B "Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and say to them, that I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, and my God and your God." Observe again, having fixed your mind a little on what is being said, that the Son—the Word who has shone forth from God and the Father—is in truth present, and is not a creature, according to the foolishness and ignorance of the heretics. Let the power of this argument be set forth again in this way: The Word of God, having descended to the form and reality of humanity, that He might save man, since He had now become that which we are by nature, takes to Himself the things that are proper to humanity; while He, on the other hand, bestows His own properties upon us, and thus raises man to the honor befitting His own nature, which had slipped from its ancient glory on account of the transgression in Adam. By mingling and tempering us, therefore, in a certain way in Himself, and Himself in us, He Himself descends to our things, and snatches us up to His own; for we are men by nature, but He, through philanthropy, having descended to what is beyond His nature, has become man. We are servants of God by nature as C creatures; He, too, was termed a servant when He was brought to what is beyond His nature, when He became man. But also the opposite: He is God by essence; we too, being gods, ascending to what is beyond our nature through grace, for we are men; He is Son by nature; we are sons by adoption, as having been called into brotherhood with Him. If, therefore, we are sons and gods by adoption, this same thing He will be by nature in truth, as being contrasted with those who are such by adoption. But as for He who is the true Son and God, how could He be a created one, since the being created in no way falls into the divine essence?
ANOTHER.
The Savior says somewhere again to His own disciples: "Peace to you; as the Father has sent me, so I also send you." And having said this, He breathed upon them, and says to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit." Since the Psalmist also knew the D Spirit to be Creator by His own nature, he says somewhere to the Lord and Father and God of all:
A "You shall send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth." Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit both creates and renews all things, being endowed with such a nature, how could He be a created being, or how could the Son be conceived as a creature by nature, being the dispenser of the Spirit who has the power to create?
ANOTHER
The blessed disciple Thomas, when the fellow-apostles announced to him that they had seen the Lord who had risen from the dead, doubting a little, said: "Unless I put my hands into the print of the nails, I will not believe." But when the Savior was present, and calling him back from his diffidence, he ordered him to put his hands into the print of the nails, the disciple, believing, cried out: "My Lord and my God." B By saying this, he gained for himself great praise and admiration not only among those who were living with him at that time, but even among us to this day, as having certainly and truly thought rightly about the Savior. If, therefore, He is both Lord and God, how shall He be one of the created things? For all that has been made is by nature a servant, and not God; but the Savior is by nature Lord and God. He is not, therefore, a created being, for whom the beauty of the divine essence is appropriate.ANOTHER, from the same.
If the Son is by nature a creature, and if, according to their opinion, everything is as it stands when Thomas addresses Him, saying, "My Lord and my God," C and if he could say it without blasphemy, because that title pertains even to angels—what would prevent us from saying the same thing to angels or to any of the saints, when we admire them for some great thing? But no one of sound mind would think that such an appellation, which befits God alone, is appropriate for any of those we have mentioned; and we say that the disciple was far from error, nay, rather that he thought most truly when he called Him Christ and Lord. But He who exists as this by nature, and is so named, how can He be a created being?ANOTHER
"Many other signs also," He says, "Jesus did in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." D Let the Arians, who do not fear to fight against God foolishly, tell us whether, when they call Christ a creature, inasmuch as He is the Word, they establish Him as the Son of God and the Father. But I believe they would condemn their own rashness if they accurately observed what is created and what is begotten. For what is created is not taken from the essence of the creator himself; but that which is begotten draws upon the nature of its begetter. And this, indeed, we say concerning bodies, whereas in God there is another principle: but yetand bringing forward the most certain image of us, which shines forth through examples requested by us. Since, therefore, there is such a difference between the creature and the Son, and they are so far apart from one another, why does the evangelist, ministering the truth to us through the Spirit, say that many other miracles were performed, A so that we might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and not rather one of those things which were created by God, if indeed He is created, as those raving ones suppose? But he does not say this; rather, he transfers the mind of the hearers to the knowledge of the Son. Therefore, he does not wish the Son to be considered created, in so far as He is the Word.
ASSERTION XXXIII
B 333 That the Holy Spirit is God by nature, and of the essence of the Father, and that He is bestowed upon creatures through the Son.Objectio haereticorum. If, they say, because the Spirit is said in the holy Scriptures to be from God, we therefore grant that He is of the very essence of the Father, and confess Him to be consubstantial with the nature that is above all things, let the same reasoning apply to all other things as well; since the herald of truth confesses that all things are from God. What then follows from this? An infinite multitude of gods is introduced to us, if, to those to whom it is attributed that they are from God, consubstantiality with the Father is also attributed.
Solutio objectionis. Those who wish to understand the holy Scriptures rightly must approach with a mind prepared to believe. "For unless you believe, you will not understand," says the prophet. C But since the adversaries object this, it is necessary that we repel the damage which might arise from their blasphemies. We say, therefore, that not all things are from God in like manner and in the same way as the Holy Spirit is. For He exists in Him naturally, and is essentially implanted, if we may speak so, and proceeds from Him without any separation. But creatures were made through the Son in the Spirit, and are thus considered to be from God. But if you do not believe our discourse, but place creatures D on an equal footing with the Spirit because the Spirit is also said to be from God, just as they are, what prevents us from also inferring and saying: If all things are from God, just as the Spirit is, and there is nothing unique in Him more than in the creatures, why do not the individual creatures, since they are otherwise said to be from God, know the things of God and search the deep things of God? Why does God not reveal through all, but only through the Spirit? Since, therefore, the rest of the creatures have their revelation through the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself searches the deep things of God, as existing naturally from Him and in Him, just as in man the human—
spirit is clearly understood as proper to him and naturally in him; but other creatures are called "from Him" more improperly, as having derived their origin from God as Creator and Maker.
Testimonies of the saying.
Paul says thus: "Now we have received the Spirit of God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." And again: "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God which is in Him."
ANOTHER.
"But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."
ANOTHER.
If the human spirit knows what is in it, not from the revelation of any other, but because it exists in it naturally and properly, knowing and searching the depths of the heart, so also is the Holy Spirit in God and Father. Therefore, He must be of the divine nature, just as the human [spirit] is to man.
ANOTHER.
BPaul writes to some: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Receive from this again correct thoughts about the Holy Spirit, so that you may also learn that He exists from the essence of the Savior, and is not foreign to the one Godhead. For having called Him the Spirit of God Himself, he immediately adds that He is the Spirit of Christ, showing that all things that are proper to the Father pass over to the Son who is naturally begotten of Him. And again he calls Christ the Spirit, saying: "But if Christ is in you," C showing that He is not alien to the nature of the Word, but so united to Him, even if He has a proper subsistence, that He Himself exists in the Son, and the Son in Him, on account of the identity of essence.
ANOTHER.
We say that the Holy Spirit is from God, and so we believe. But those who are most ready for blasphemy alone, say that all other things also were made from God, as Paul writes: "One God the Father, of whom are all things." And thus they think they can prove that the Spirit is not from the essence of the Father, because that term "of whom"—which is said of the Spirit, declaring Him to be naturally of His essence—is also referred to creatures. But to this it must be answered that the name of "son" is said properly of the Son of God, but is said also of men improperly. Nor, indeed, because anything is given to someone through adoption and grace...
A nor will that term "from which," predicated of creatures, be able to drag the excellence and divinity of the Spirit down to the lowliness and likeness of creatures; but it will be said properly of the Spirit, "from which," because he subsists from the essence of the Father. It will also be fitting for creatures, because they were brought to be from non-being through God, that is, through the Son. But if there is nothing more or more excellent in the Spirit than in creatures, because "from which" is predicated of both: let them tell us for what reason, while the Father dwells in us, Christ is in us; yet when some other of the creatures, perhaps an angel or archangel, is speaking or working in us, Christ and God is not said to dwell in us. B Whose nature is, in fact, so different, how shall we not admit that everything about its nature is distinct, so that the former are creatures, but the latter is endowed with the faculty of creating, naturally inherent in the Creator, and again carrying in himself the Creator through the identity of nature and the unchangeable quality of the essential C property?
ANOTHER
Paul writes to some, and indeed very prudently and wisely: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry: Abba, Father" (Rom. viii, 14, 15). If, therefore, the Holy Spirit shows those in whom he dwells to be sons of God, and makes them partakers of the divine nature, so that from this we, united to the God who is above all, may with confidence cry: "Abba, Father" — he will not be ranked among servants or among creatures; but he will rather naturally bear the dignity of the divine essence, existing in it, and given to the saints by it through the Son: D and therefore he is deifying, and makes those in whom he dwells sons.
ANOTHER
It is written again: "For the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the sons of God" (ibid. 16). For as existing from the essence of Him who bestows him upon the saints, that is to say Christ, and as God the Word dwelling in us through the Spirit and coming to be in us, we attain the dignity of the adoption of sons, having in ourselves the Son himself, to whom we are also conformed by the participation of his Spirit, and rising to the same form of confidence, we dare to say: "Abba, Father." Therefore the Spirit is God, since he makes those who receive him gods.
ANOTHER
Paul writes again: "As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. xv, 49). He calls the first author of the human race, Adam, earthly: whose image we have borne, in the likeness of his transgression
and corruption. But the heavenly Lord, our Jesus Christ—whose image we have received, the vivifying and holy Spirit dwelling in us—we have been reformed into Him, the living Word of God, again attaining incorruption and being renewed unto eternal life. "For it is the Spirit that quickeneth," as the Savior says. Just as, therefore, because the Son is the most exact image of the Father, he who receives the Son receives also the Father: so, with the same ratio of analogy preserved, he who receives the image of the Son, that is, the Spirit, receives entirely through Him also the Son, and the Father who is in the Son. How, then, shall the Holy Spirit be numbered among creatures, if He is the exact image of the Son of God? For surely some will not descend to such a pitch of madness as to dare to say that the image of the Creator can shine forth in a creature without any difference, and naturally possess in itself all things that are in Him of whom it is the image. If, however, the Spirit is called the image of the Son, He is therefore God, and not otherwise. A
ANOTHER. It is written again: "Let two or three prophets speak" (1 Cor. xiv, 29). And afterwards: "But if all prophesy, and some unbeliever or unlearned person enters, he is reproved by all, he is examined by all. The secrets of his heart are made manifest, and so falling on his face he will worship God, declaring that God is truly among us" (1 Cor. xiv, 24, 25). Since, therefore, those who have received the Holy Spirit, possessing God in themselves, prophesy, and are therefore to be admired, how shall the Spirit be a creature, and not rather a partaker of that supreme essence, naturally passing from the Father through the Son to those who are apt to receive Him, just as heat passes from fire into bodies? B
ANOTHER. It is written also: "For he who speaks in tongues does not speak to men, but to God. For no one hears, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor. xiv, 2). Behold, Paul clearly says that he who speaks in tongues speaks to God. Then, showing that the Spirit is God, he subjoins: "But in the Spirit he speaks mysteries." How, then, are those not guilty of the crime of blasphemy who do not fear to number the Holy Spirit among creatures? C
ANOTHER. Paul writes again to the Corinthians thus: "For we are the temples of the living God, as God said: I will dwell in them and will walk among them, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (2 Cor. vi, 16; Lev. xxvi, 12). And a little later: "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed" (Eph. iv, 30). And again: "If anyone corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him: for the temple of God is holy, which you are" (1 Cor. iii, 17). Since, therefore, those who have received the Holy Spirit, and D
and we are called the temple of God, as having God in ourselves, dwelling and walking among us, as it is written. How then is the Holy Spirit not God, whether those of the contrary party—to whom it is habitual and dear to disparage the faith of the Scripture—will it or not? B
OTHER.
The blessed Paul, while calling himself a servant of Jesus Christ and a called apostle, says that he was set apart for the Gospel of God. Then again, designating the same thing in another way, he writes to others as if concerning God: "Who also hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit." If, therefore, the Gospel of God knows of a testament of the Spirit to which he says he was set apart, how is the Holy Spirit not God? B
OTHER.
It is written again: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." But if the Holy Spirit were truly a creature and a product according to the madness of the heterodox, how does He possess the whole operation of God? For I do not think that anyone will be so bereft of right thinking as to dare even to say that the divine essence ministers its own operation, which naturally passes over to those who are fit to receive it, through certain organs brought C into being from without. Since, therefore, the Son is life by nature, and the Spirit who is granted by Him bestows life, it must necessarily be confessed that He exists from the essence of the Son and of God, and that He possesses all His power and operation—just as if one were to say that vapor ascends from water, and by the operation through which it cools those to whom it might come, it indicates the nature of that which sends it forth.
ASSERTION XXXIV.
Testimonies by which it is taught that the Spirit is God and has the very same operation as the Son; and that He is not alien from His essence; and whereby it is also taught that, when God is said to dwell in us, it is the Spirit who dwells. D
Paul, writing to Timothy, says: "Keep the good thing committed to thy trust, by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us." To the Romans he says: "I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and work, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God." And again: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Spirit, that you help me in your prayers." To the Corinthians: "Know you not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in
you, whom you have from God?" A And again: "He who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." See how clearly he here calls the Spirit "Lord." And, making this even clearer, he writes again concerning the Jews: "For until this present day, the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament remains not taken away, because in Christ it is evacuated. But until this day, when Moses is read, the veil lies upon their heart. But when they are converted to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." And again: "But we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." Since, therefore, there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the opinion of Paul, yet he calls the Spirit "Lord," he recognizes no difference of nature between the Son and the Spirit; but as existing naturally from Him and in Him, he calls Him by the name of Lord.
ANOTHER
He writes again: "For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ," calling the Spirit that dwells in us the mind of Christ. Since, therefore, the Spirit is called the mind of Christ, how can He be a creature, when it cannot be that the divine and incorruptible nature should have in itself essentially any of those things which are from without?
ANOTHER
It is also found written, or rather the blessed evangelist John says: "In this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." If, therefore, C by the indwelling of the Spirit through participation, it is God who dwells, and we are in Him and He in us, because we bear the Spirit within us, how shall the Spirit not be God, who essentially contains in Himself the whole deity of God and the Father, of whom He is even the Spirit, and by the Son is gifted to creatures?
ANOTHER
Christ, addressing the Jews, speaks somewhere thus: "But if I by the finger of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." He calls the Holy Spirit here the "finger of God," as having in a certain manner sprung forth from the divine essence and naturally hanging from it, just as a finger does from the human hand. For the holy Scriptures call the Son the arm and the right hand of God, according to that: "His right hand and His holy arm hath saved Him." And again: "Lord, Thy arm is high, and they knew not; but when they have known, they shall be ashamed." As therefore D the arm is naturally joined to the whole body, and performs all things that please the mind, and is accustomed to anoint, using the finger for this purpose: so also the Word of God, naturally joined from Him and in Him, so that thus
A we may consider Him to be naturally and essentially proceeding from the Father, the Spirit through whom He anoints and sanctifies all things. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not appear alien or estranged from the divine nature, but natural, from it and in it. Just as the finger of the body is of the same nature as the hand, and the hand in turn is not of a different substance from the body itself. Since these things are so with us, the Holy Spirit is certainly God, and one must not think otherwise.
ALIUD. The blessed David, singing Psalms, says somewhere, while lifting up his words to God: "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take my wings in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me." B Since, therefore, he calls the Spirit the face of the Father—as if expressing, through His divine operation, the essence from which He is—and also calls Him the hand because of the omnipotent power that resides in Him: how could He not be God, being joined to the Father according to essence, and being from Him and in Him, just as the hand of a human body is not separated from it, but rather is bound to it and has taken root in it naturally?
ALIUD. That the Spirit is God, we shall understand also from this: The chief of the apostles, Peter, to whom—as the Savior says—flesh and blood did not reveal the divine mystery, but the Father who is in heaven, says somewhere to Ananias, who brought the price of the field but had withheld a part of it: "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the C Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" Then he adds to these things: "Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." If, therefore, he who lies to the Holy Spirit lies unto God, then the Spirit is God, and exists naturally in God.
ALIUD. Paul, writing to the Galatians, says: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." If, however, Christ is formed in us through the operation of the Spirit, by reforming us through every virtue into His own likeness and making us spiritual, then the Spirit of Christ is God, inasmuch as He is the One who, like Christ, is formed in us.
ALIUD. God, foretelling the good things that the coming of our Savior was to bring, says somewhere concerning His own flocks: "I will set up shepherds over them according to my heart, and they shall feed them with knowledge." But Paul, the herald of truth, writing to the elders of the Ephesians:
A "Take heed," he says, "to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops." B Since, therefore, God brings to pass and performs with power what He promised He would do, raising up shepherds as was promised through the prophets, the Spirit is not alien to the divine essence, but is as it were a natural and essential operation and one subsisting within it, proceeding from it and remaining in it, working all the things of God.
ANOTHER. Christ somewhere says to the Father concerning us: "Sanctify them in thy truth." C And God says again through the prophet Ezekiel: "And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them." If, therefore, when God says that He sanctifies those who cleave to Him, the Spirit fulfills that promise and sanctifies, the Spirit is therefore God, and not alien to the supreme essence of all.
ANOTHER. That the Word of God was incarnate, the whole of Holy Scripture confirms, and the heretics themselves will at any rate acknowledge. But since it is written of Him that at one time He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and at another time Jesus was led by the power of the Spirit into Galilee, let those who exclude the Spirit from the divine essence and do not fear to count Him among created things tell us: in what way the Son, the wisdom and power of the Father, was led into Galilee by the power and force of the Spirit, and conquered the devil in the desert through the Spirit? D Will they dare to say that He was so destitute of strength, or rather will they affirm that He labored under such feebleness, that the Spirit, who in the opinion of the heretics is made and created, was needed for help? But how is He the Lord of powers who has need of the help of a creature? But this, by mere reflection, is absurd. The Spirit, therefore, is God, who naturally exists in the Son from the Father, and has all of His operation. The Word was effective for the victory over the devil through the Spirit, as using that power which He has essentially in Himself, resisting the devil in the solitude, and in Galilee performing signs. For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
ANOTHER. God somewhere says: "Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?" And He fills them, evidently, by being present everywhere through the Spirit. The Psalmist, understanding this, said: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there. If I descend into hell, thou art present." If, therefore, God fills all things through the Spirit and is present everywhere, the Spirit is therefore God, inasmuch as He fills all things as God.
A
ANOTHER. Paul, discoursing to the Athenians concerning religion, and proclaiming the true God, said: "In Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts XVII, 28). But our Lord Jesus Christ ascribes this operation which comes to be in us from God to the Holy Spirit, saying: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth" (John VI, 64). Therefore, the Spirit is God, in whom we live and move and have our being, according to the voice of Paul and the testimony of our Savior.
ANOTHER. Christ speaks somewhere concerning those who are worthy to participate in the divinity: "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him" (John XIV, 23). But it is evident that He indwells in the saints through the Spirit. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit fills us with the presence of the Father and likewise of the Son, how shall it not be manifest that the Spirit cannot be separated from the divine essence, but is naturally emitted from it, and possesses the whole operation of the Father and the Son? And that the Spirit is the One who is sent to the saints by the Father through the Son, the Savior Himself will testify, saying: "When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of me" (John XV, 26). And again: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I have said to you" (John XIV, 26).
ANOTHER. The Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, says of himself at the beginning of the epistle: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (I Cor. I, 1). B Behold, here he clearly affirms that he received the name and office of the apostolate from Christ Jesus. But in the Acts of the Apostles it is written thus: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Separate me Barnabas and Paul, for the work to which I have called them" (Acts XIII, 2). If, therefore, he says he was called by Christ Jesus, when it was the Spirit who called him to the apostolate, it is shown clearly that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the essence of the Son. Rather, He is in Him and from Him, and is as it were a certain natural power, which is able to fulfill all things whatsoever It wills.
ANOTHER, that the Holy Spirit is perfect and nothing in Him is imperfect; for even if certain things are said of Him in the Holy Scriptures which seem to intimate something of that sort, we consider them to have been stated on account of the Incarnation undertaken for our sake.
Objection of the heretics. But how, they say, is it not exceedingly absurd to call the Spirit of the same essence with God, when He is so imperfect, and has nothing from Himself, C but is what He is by the participation of Another? Which indeed the Savior very clearly says of Him in the Gospel—
A “He shall not speak, saying, from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak.” If, therefore, He were from Himself, able to possess perfection, He would have spoken also of Himself, needing no reminder from Another.
*Solution of the objection.* One might wonder, and indeed with very good reason, at the ignorance and rashness of the heretics; for through those very things from which they could have been instructed about the mystery of the Holy Spirit, and have understood that He is a certain fruit of the divine essence, existing in it and proceeding from it without any separation, and united to it by identity of nature—from these very things they take offense, and are “bound by the cords of their own sins,” as it is written, and therefore cannot walk in the straight path of doctrine. For when the Savior says these things about the Spirit, He does not show that He is imperfect, but in order that He may make the faith of the hearers more certain, B that He, being from His C essence, will speak nothing other than what He Himself wills. For when He is the Mind of the Son itself, according to Paul saying of the Spirit, “But we have the mind of Christ,” that very mind speaks the things of Him whose mind it is. Therefore He affirmed that the Spirit would speak nothing from Himself, as if saying: “I am again who speaks,” just as if the mind which is in man were to say concerning the word which proceeds from it: “He shall not speak anything from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak.” But no one would say that this common and articulate word of man, by which we express our conceptions, is imperfect because it is first formed in the mind, and, having received what is in it, proceeds forth. For natural unity swiftly transmits into the word the things which are in the mind. The same almost should be thought concerning the Holy Spirit. For since He is the mind of Christ, He speaks all that is in Him to the disciples, not proceeding in some own and peculiar will, nor in the alien will of Him in whom and from whom He is, but as naturally proceeding from His essence, having His whole will just as He has His operation.
*That the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son.* The blessed Moses, in describing the creation of man and his production from non-existence into being, affirms that God took dust from the earth, and by His omnipotent power fashioned that form of the body which is seen by the eyes, and breathed into his face the breath of life. But we do not say that this divine breath given to the created man is the soul itself (for it would be immutable, inasmuch as it had come forth from the divine nature), but the participation of the divine Spirit, which was placed in the human soul from the beginning. For all perfection comes to created things from the Spirit. Hence also man is said to be created to the image of God, inasmuch as he was made conformable to Him through the participation of the Spirit. Moreover, that Spirit which Moses affirms that God breathed into man, this D
A Christ, renewing in us after His resurrection from the dead, breathed into His own disciples, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit,” that being again reformed into the image of the beginning, we might appear conformable to the One who created us through participation in the Spirit. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, when He becomes in us, proves that we are conformable to God, and proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it is evident that He is of the divine essence, existing essentially in it and proceeding from it. Just as, indeed, the breath that exhales from the human mouth, although this is a humble and unworthy example for such a matter—for God transcends all things.
ANOTHER
B Paul, prescribing most useful doctrines for the Churches, and teaching how we ought to be in them and appear before God, says: “The man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” Afterward, he asserts that the woman is the glory of the man. But for what reason both are so called must be examined. And first, indeed, let us consider what has been said regarding the man, and let us seek how he is the image and glory of God. But I think it is evident to all that the man is thus styled because he has participated in the divine Spirit, and through Him has become a partaker of the divine nature, as from this he is also filled with the glory from God. Since, then, he has within himself the Spirit who is from the essence of God, and through communion with Him is formed into the likeness of the Creator, he is called the image and glory of God. C We may learn no less, through the fact that the woman is also called such, the force of what is said. Paul says she is the glory of the man, because she was made from his essence. “For God took,” he says, “one of his ribs, and made the woman.” Therefore, just as the woman is called the glory of the man because she received a part of his members for her own construction, so too is the man called the glory of God, because he has become a partaker of His essence through the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Since these things are so, it is absolutely necessary to say that the Holy Spirit is not created or made, but is rather to be worshiped as of the essence of God, in the identity of nature with the Father and the Son.
ANOTHER
D Someone approaches in the Gospels and says to our Lord Jesus Christ: “Good Master.” To this Christ replied: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God.” Since, therefore, Christ affirms that one is truly and essentially good, the Psalmist says somewhere: “Your good Spirit shall lead me in the right land.” If, therefore, while there is one good, the Spirit is good, it is evident that He is of the divine nature, to which it is truly and uniquely fitting to be called good.
A ALIUD. Paul writes to some thus: "I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says 'anathema to Jesus'; and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit." It is evident, therefore, that he who partakes of the Holy Spirit knows that Jesus is Lord; but he who does not partake, is ignorant. How, then, does he who has partaken of the Spirit know that Jesus is Lord? Just as those who taste honey know by its very quality that the honey is sweet, so it is also for him who is a partaker of the Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, being a certain quality, if we may express it so, of God who is Lord of all. If this is so, then He is God, and not a created spirit, as the heretics dream.
ALIUD. Paul, attributing the distribution of the divine gifts B to the operation of the Holy Spirit, writes again: "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing in the one Spirit; to another, operations of powers; to another, prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of tongues. But all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as He wills." But, knowing that the Spirit is God, he says in the same Epistle: "And some indeed God has set in the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then powers, then gifts of healings, helps, C governings, kinds of tongues." Why, then, do heretics, most prompt to blasphemy, doubt that the Spirit is God, when Paul most openly says that it is the Spirit who divides, as it pleases Him, the various kinds of divine gifts? And when he says again that it is God who bestows such gifts upon the saints in the Church? How, moreover, is it not absurd for those who wish to think correctly to acquiesce not to the sentiment of Paul, but to the rash opinion of heretics? Therefore, the Spirit is God, however much the heretics may protest.
ALIUD. Paul, prescribing laws for women, says: "A woman is bound for as long a time as her husband lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, D only in the Lord. But she will be more blessed if she remains so, according to my judgment. And I seem also to have the Spirit of God." What, then, is gathered for us from this? If it is fitting for God alone to establish laws, and yet Paul establishes laws as one having the Spirit of God, then the Spirit that is in him—who is also the author of his deciding to prescribe laws—is God.
ALIUD. Paul writes again somewhere: "If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" But it is manifest that what
is divine—that is to say, the mysteries concerning God—he has quite rightly termed spiritual. A
ALIUD. The Savior says somewhere in the Gospels concerning Himself, "I am the truth." Now, the blessed John, demonstrating that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son, says in the Gospels, "The Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father." And in his Epistle, "The Spirit is the truth." How, then, can that which proceeds from the Father, and exists as the Spirit of truth, and possesses such great likeness to the Son by reason of the identity of essence that it is itself called the truth—how, I ask, could it be created or made? But this is absurd. Therefore, the Spirit is God, B if indeed He is truly the truth and proceeds from the Father.
ALIUD. The blessed John, discussing the Word of God, says that He is the true light which illuminates every man coming into the world. But the most wise Paul affirmed that the Holy Spirit shines into our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus. When, therefore, the Word is the true light, and the Holy Spirit shines forth, it is absolutely necessary to confess that the Spirit is of the essence of the Word, through whom He illuminates every man, C extending as it were a ray of His own nature, the illumination of the Spirit.
Objectio hæreticorum. If, they say, you state that the souls of the saints are anointed by God with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will be in the place of ointment. And how can that which anoints and the ointment itself be of the same essence, when even our own custom admits no such thing?
Solutio objectionis. O you who are drunk with every madness and filled with the foulest folly of all! For not even having recovered a little toward sobriety, and having abandoned thoughts about bodies, D you will not go up to the great heights of theology and discern in a manner worthy of God those things spoken concerning the divine nature, even if they are brought forth in human words and adapted to our custom, because not even in this way do those who hear understand without difficulty. But in order to say something akin to your ignorance: if the Spirit is in the place of ointment, as you imagine, and since the ointment must necessarily be of a different essence than the one who anoints, it is necessary to say that the Spirit is also of a different essence from the Father. And since the ointment is composed of many and various ingredients by those skilled in this art, it is necessary also that the Holy Spirit be composed of many and diverse parts for us. And again, since ointment is irrational, let also the Spirit [be...]
A be held to be such. This blasphemy, therefore, will redound entirely upon their own heads. But we counter them with this: If the Holy Spirit is of a different essence from the God who anoints the saints in Him, how is it that, when the Holy Spirit dwells in us, Christ is shown to be dwelling in us, He who is not different from the essence of the Father? Paul, understanding this, writes: "That He may grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts." Since, therefore, Christ dwells in the inner man through the Spirit, it is manifest that that through which He is seen to dwell in the saints is not alien to His essence.
ALIUD. The Mosaic law proposes inevitable punishment to those who blaspheme against the God of the whole universe. Hence, even the son of the Egyptian woman in the desert was ordered by God to be stoned by the whole multitude, because he had abused the name of God and dared to say something forbidden by the law. Our divine Lord Jesus Christ Himself, preserving the same honor for the divine nature, says that the sin against the Son of Man is forgiven, but to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the one to come. But if the Holy Spirit were a creature, C and not of the divine essence, and not glorified together with the Father and the Son, how could blasphemy committed against Him deserve such grave punishment, as much as that which is decreed against those who blaspheme against God? But it is clear that the Spirit is God from God and in God, to whom honor is deferred by the sacred Scriptures as to God, and thus He exists by nature.
ALIUD. If, as the Savior says, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and one who is such is "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," then the Spirit is God by nature, who regenerates the saints into unity with God because He dwells in them and makes them partakers of His own nature.
ALIUD. If the Spirit vivifies those in whom He dwells and makes them partakers D of the divine nature, then He is God, and is naturally supplied to the creation from the divine essence through the Son, and reforms it into Himself. For just as it is the proper work of light to illuminate, and nothing in the universe could illuminate unless it were light, so also it is the work of the divine Spirit to make those who receive Him gods. And indeed, He could not make anyone a partaker of the divine nature unless He Himself were also of the divine essence.
That the Holy Spirit is not holy by participation in God the Father, but naturally and essentially from Him.
A
Objection of the heretics.
We also profess, they say, that the Spirit is sanctifying, not because He exists as such by nature of Himself, but just as some vessel made of iron or some other material, when it has become a participant of heat from fire, performs the work of the fire itself; so also the Spirit, being filled with holiness from God, makes creatures participants of holiness. And the Savior Himself shall be a truthful witness to us concerning this, saying: "Because He shall receive of mine" (John xvi, 14).Solution of the objection.
The objection of the heretics is in every respect most absurd, and contains blasphemy rather than the discovery of truth. For it appears they do not strive to understand the divine Scriptures, but rather to twist them to each one's own pleasure. For behold, they again seize upon the words of the Savior to confirm their own falsehoods, and neither manifest the meaning of the statement to their hearers, nor connect what follows in a coherent series with the beginning, but by cutting up the verses perversely, they craftily seize upon that which alone seems useful to the goal they have absurdly proposed to themselves. For the Savior B does not say, "He shall receive of mine, and He shall sanctify you"; although even if He had said it in this way, it would have caused no harm to those who listen rightly. But He says, "He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you. He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak." For because He was about to ascend to the Father after fulfilling the economy in the flesh, and was to send the Paraclete to His own disciples, in order that no one might suspect the doctrine of the Holy Spirit to be alien to His own, He showed clearly that, since the Spirit is from Him, He would also dispense words from Him. "He shall not speak," He says, "from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, because He shall receive of mine." C For it is just as if honey were to say concerning the natural quality which is in it: "It shall impart nothing of itself to the sense of those tasting it, but shall receive of mine," since the quality of the substances, if I may so speak, naturally passes over into those things which proceed inseparably from them: just as, as we just said, sweetness from honey, heat from fire, or cooling from water. Therefore, the Spirit is not holy by participation, according to their argument; but rather naturally and essentially.OTHER.
That which is holy by participation, being as it were a vessel and receptacle of the holiness that has come to it, must itself exist first in its own nature by itself, just as, for instance, a man or an angel, or any other rational nature might. Let those, therefore, who dare to say that the Spirit is holy by participation in God the Father, tell usA what, then, is He by Himself and in His own proper hypostasis? But we have learned from the Divine Scriptures nothing other than that He is the holy Spirit. He is not, therefore, holy by participation or by composition, but He is an essence and nature that sanctifies, and—if I may so speak—the quality of the Godhead which is in God and the Father, just as sweetness is from honey, or fragrance from a flower.
ANOTHER
B That which is present to some by participation can be taken away just as it was given. For only those things that are present to those who possess them essentially appear to be inseparably grown together with them. If, therefore, they position holiness in the Spirit as a sort of accident, they must of necessity admit that it is also able not to be present. It could, therefore, be conveniently said, according to their opinion, that the Spirit could exist even without holiness. But this is impious. The Spirit is not, therefore, holy by participation, but is holy naturally from God.
ANOTHER
The holy Scripture is seen to call the Spirit from God "holy Spirit" continually, signifying not some accident of His, as heretics opine, but that which He is by His own nature, just as if someone defining a man, and signifying what he is according to his substance, should say that he is a rational, mortal animal. How then is it not most absurd that, while a man is considered to be precisely what he is defined to be, some should imagine the holy Spirit to be something other than what He is—that thing which His appellation signifies concerning His essence? For He is called "holy." If, therefore, He is holy by nature, He does not obtain this from without, but rather, since He is the natural, living, and indwelling operation of the essence of God, He C ever adds perfection to the creature through sanctification and the participation of Himself.
ANOTHER
The names which are imposed upon each of the things that exist signify the substances themselves, having a perfect definition of the subject, or they declare a species of ministry or function, as in the names "man" and "prophet." For if I name a man, I have already signified the substance of the predicate or of the subject. But if I name a prophet, I indicate a ministry or function and office entrusted to him. Therefore, if the holy Spirit is holy by participation, then that appellation will declare His ministry or office rather than His essence; nor can we by it understand what He is naturally, but what duty has been enjoined upon Him. Wherefore D He is something else according to His essence, and possesses some other proper operation besides this sanctifying one, which He has—as those blasphemers contend—added to Him from without and occurring accidentally from God. The holy Spirit is therefore imperfect, since He stands in need of completion through sanctification. Then how is it possible that things thus situated—as they say—the becoming in perfection for those who become partakers of Him
A or how can that which by its own nature is imperfect be able to sanctify Principalities, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Virtues, Angels, and men? And how, indeed, do they claim that the Spirit is filled with holiness from God—through a sanctifying power and operation, forsooth, sent into Him? For this, as is evident, is what they say, uttering blasphemies. But what need is there for these roundabout and crafty arguments? For we say that the Holy Spirit is that very sanctifying power and virtue which proceeds naturally from the Father and bestows perfection upon the imperfect. And it is superfluous, as it appears, for the creature to be sanctified through some medium, since the kindness of God does not disdain to reach even to the smallest things and to sanctify them through the Holy Spirit, since all things are His creatures.
ANOTHER.
B «The law was given through Moses,» says the divine Scripture, «but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.» If, then, a great difference is seen between the ministry of Moses and that of Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and men, it is necessary to admit that the law of Moses is imperfect; for it made nothing perfect, as Paul testifies; but we believe the grace that comes through our Savior to be true and perfect. What, then, is this grace? It is surely nothing other than the infusion of the Holy Spirit that takes place in our hearts, according to the word of Paul. How, then, will this grace in us appear to be true, if the sanctification reaching us was ministered through a creature, as the law was through angels? For if the Holy Spirit does not work in us of Himself, and is not by nature what we hear Him to be, but is filled with holiness by participation from the divine essence and sends forth to us the grace given to Him, it is manifest that the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred upon us through a creature. But this is not true. For the law was given through Moses—that is, through angels—but grace and truth through our Savior. The Spirit, therefore, works in us of Himself, truly sanctifying and uniting us to Himself through the union with Him, and making us partakers of the divine nature.
That the Holy Spirit is God by nature, and not a creature or a work.
From the Epistle to the Romans.
D Paul writes to the Romans concerning our Savior Jesus Christ: «Who was designated,» he says, «Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, of our Lord Jesus Christ.» If, therefore, because He rose from the dead and loosed the bonds of death by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, Christ is recognized as the true Son of God, and is understood to exist as such, then that through which this divine power is displayed—that is, the Spirit—cannot be a creature or a work, lest Christ might appear in some way to be helped by a creature…
but rather that he has employed his own proper force and power through the Spirit. B
ANOTHER. Paul again says: "I long, he says, to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you." If the Spirit strengthens those in whom he dwells by the bestowal of his own gifts, it would be manifest to those correctly wishing to understand, that he is to be ranked neither among works nor among servants. It is written: "The Lord will strengthen the just." But the ability to strengthen also carries with it, beyond any doubt, the dignity fitting a lord, established in the place of lordship by nature. But that which is made in regard to its generation is a servant. Therefore the Spirit is not a work; for he is proven to be Lord and not servant.
ANOTHER. Desiring to declare how much kindness the Lord of all has shown toward us, Paul says: "The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." If therefore God is love, according to the voice of John, and he is not one thing himself and another thing that is within him (for he is simple and not composite), but it is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, then the Spirit is God, C inasmuch as he dwells in us in the manner of God, and, so to speak, proceeds from the supreme essence of all, yet in his own proper subsistence is conceived as from the Father, and is granted to the creature through the Son.
ANOTHER, declaring that the law was set by the Spirit as if by God. "I know, he says, that the law is spiritual." And after a little he adds: "I delight in the law of God according to the inner man." And again: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has liberated me from the law of sin and of death." Behold, when he calls the law spiritual—that is, through the Spirit—he immediately calls it also the law of God. But he shows more clearly in what follows that the Spirit is God, crying out: "The law of the Spirit of life," lest the Spirit be said only to provide laws, but also that he is the Spirit of life. D And what is life, if not Christ himself, saying: "I am the truth and the life"? Therefore, when Christ provides laws, the Holy Spirit, as naturally existing in him and from him, is said to be the legislator.
ANOTHER. Paul, condemning the movements of the flesh and showing how much they stand against the will of the Spirit: "The flesh, he says, reaches out against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. For these things are"
A opposed to one another." Then, having gone a little further, he adds: "So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." He calls the movements within the flesh toward perverse pleasures the "law of sin," and he calls the will of the Spirit the "law of God." It is evident, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is God, for He establishes laws within us according to His own will. But it is not fitting for any other to establish laws, but for God alone.
ANOTHER
"For the creation," he says, "was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope." If, therefore, they say that the Holy Spirit is created and made, it is necessary to acknowledge that He also is subjected to vanity, and that He groans and suffers labor pains together with us, since He is constituted in slavery and will only with difficulty attain to the redemption of the glory of the children of God. But what will they make of Paul, who says: "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a Spirit of adoption of sons, in whom we cry: Abba, Father"? B Indeed, He delivers those in whom He dwells from slavery, and rather transforms them into freedom and sonship, proving them to be partakers of His own nature. Therefore, He is not a slave, and if He is not this, He is not a creature. But as for the one who has escaped both being a creature and being ranked among slaves, he must clearly be of the divine essence.ANOTHER
Having said that the creation groans with us, Paul adds: "And not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit." What is the point of the inquiry in this? Firstfruits are the firstfruits of something, and are entirely of the same species as that of which they are the firstfruits; as, for example, the firstfruits of wine are wine, and likewise of wheat are wheat. If, therefore, C as the saints are about to possess the most perfect participation of the Godhead in the age to come, the Holy Spirit has been granted to us in the order of firstfruits, it is absolutely necessary to say that that which has the nature of firstfruits belongs to the divine nature. If this is so, then He is not a creature, nor is He a made thing, but rather God, naturally from God and in God.ANOTHER
Writing again to the Romans, Paul says: "For I say through the grace given to me to everyone who is among you, not to think more highly than one ought to think, but to think so as to have sober judgment, to each as God has measured a measure of faith." Then again, D ascribing the distribution of divine gifts to the authority of the Spirit: "To one, indeed," he says, "God gives the Spirit of wisdom," and then, having added many kinds of gifts to this, "and to another faith," he adds: "But all these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each one individually just as He wills." If, therefore, in addition to other good things, the Spirit appears also to be the giver of faith, and for each according to a sufficient [measure]as being God, how is it then not extremely impious to enumerate Him among creatures, and not rather to profess that He has shone forth from God?
ANOTHER. Regarding the accomplishments made through him by the Savior for the benefit of the Gentiles, Paul boasts, saying: "I have therefore my boasting in Christ Jesus in the things pertaining to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." 37 If, therefore, Christ works signs and wonders through Paul in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a certain natural and living activity, and, if we may so speak, a quality of the divinity of the Son. But if this is so, how can that which is in God and from God naturally be a creature? Or how can all the power of the Son B be in a creature? But this is impious even to think.
From the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
When Paul wished to teach that the evangelical preaching does not need the strength of oratory and eloquence, he writes to the Corinthians: "And I was with you in weakness and in much fear; and my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 38 See how he calls the demonstration of the Spirit—that is, the operations and effects of the Spirit—the power of God. For from Him and in Him naturally is the Spirit, who works all things. How, therefore, can that be a work or a creature in which God—just as He is, in so far as it can be perceived by us—is known, as in a mirror and in an enigma? 39ANOTHER. Having said that no one who leads an impure life will be an heir of the kingdom of heaven, and having enumerated fornicators and the covetous and extortioners, he immediately adds: "And such were some of you: but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but C you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." 40 If, therefore, we grant that to forgive sins belongs to God alone, and yet the Spirit forgives and justifies, rendering holy those in whom He dwells, then the Spirit is God, having the divine operation naturally in Himself.
ANOTHER. "Do you not know," he says, "that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? but he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit?" 41 Just as, therefore, he who is joined to a harlot becomes one with her, so he who has become a participant of the Holy Spirit becomes one with the Lord. The Holy Spirit is therefore God, through whom we are joined to God and are made one with Him, and we are rendered participants of His divine nature, through the D
to the Spirit of that connection and unity. But if the Spirit is God, how can He be a creature?
A ALIUD. "Do you not know," he says, "that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?" Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit dwelling in us makes us to be called the house of God and a temple, how can He not be of the divine nature, or how can He be numbered among created beings, when it is manifest that nothing at all of those things that are made or created is said to dwell in a temple as God does? This [prerogative] is peculiar to the divine nature alone, among all other things.
ALIUD. "For he who speaks in a tongue," he says, "does not speak to men, but to God." For no one hears, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries. Therefore, the Spirit is God and from God, since he who speaks by Him speaks to God.
Ex II Epistola ad Corinthios. Paul, discoursing on the resurrection of the dead, says: "For we who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not that we desire to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has wrought us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the B earnest of the Spirit." He says that the Spirit is given as the earnest of life, insofar as He is this by nature; for the Spirit gives life. But we find from the sacred Scriptures that it is said of God alone, both the Father and the Word who proceeded from Him, that He is life by nature: "For as the Father," he says, "has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." And again: "For as the Father gives life to whom He will, even so the Son gives life to whom He will." If, therefore, while the Father gives life, the Son likewise gives life, and the Holy Spirit also gives life, how can He be a work or a creature—He who is very like the Father and the Son, and has the identity of essence with them?
ALIUD, in eamdem sententiam syllogistice. If the Holy Spirit, being a creature, as the heretics ignorantly think, has the faculty of vivifying those in whom He resides, there will be nothing superior in God, who also Himself vivifies: for we shall establish that the power and operation of the creator and of the creature are the same. But how, indeed, can an equal and alike faculty be established in diverse essential qualities? For those things which have one and the same operation and effect, also agree among themselves in quality. Therefore, you must reasonably either reduce God to the order of creatures, or attribute to the creature that which is proper to the Deity, if, according to those men, the Spirit, being D a work and a creature, has an operation equal to God. And thus, things that are in every way unmixed by nature will be confounded among themselves. But this is absurd, and nothing
of those things which essentially inhere in God inheres in a creature, as it does in Him. But the Spirit gives life, just as God and the Father do. How therefore will He be a creature, He who has in Himself, naturally, the own and pre-eminent properties of the divine essence? Therefore, the Spirit is from God and is God; and He is not a creature, according to some of the senseless ones, to whom the war against the truth is always sweet. A
ANOTHER.
"So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come; and all things are from God." Since, therefore, when Christ renews us and transfers us into a new life, the Spirit is said to renew, according to that which is sung in the Psalms: "You send forth your Spirit and they shall be created, and you will renew the face of the earth," it is necessary to confess that the Spirit is of the essence of the Son. For as existing naturally from Him and being sent by Him into the creature, He works the renewal, being indeed the fullness and complement of the holy Trinity. But if this is so, then the Spirit is God and from God, and not a creature. BANOTHER.
"Most gladly, therefore, I will boast," he says, "in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell upon me." If it is the Spirit who dwells and inhabits in us, and by Him Christ, then the Spirit is the power of Christ. But if this is so, how can that which by nature is in the Son be a work or a creature? Unless perhaps they wish to say that the Word of God is composite, consisting of both a created and an uncreated nature—that is, that He is constituted of His own nature. But since this is absurd, the Spirit is therefore not made or created, but is from the incomprehensible and divine essence, as His power and natural operation. CANOTHER.
"Test yourselves," he says, "to see if you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Do you not recognize yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed you are disqualified? I hope, however, that you will know that we are not disqualified." Since, therefore, with the Spirit dwelling in those who are approved, it is Christ who dwells, it is necessary to say that the Spirit is of the divine essence, inasmuch as He makes those who partake of Him participants of the divine essence. For no one of sound mind would say that the participation of God in us is effected through a creature, since created and uncreated substance are entirely different and unlike one another, and there is a great chasm between originated and unoriginated nature. DANOTHER.
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen." Behold, here again the Holy Spirit is said to complete the Trinity. How then is God one, and how is He simple, if the Spirit who is in Him is a created being or a work, something other thanHimself? Yet God is truly one, simple, and without composition, and unmixed with any nature of a different kind. A Clearly, the Spirit exists in Him and from Him naturally, being His fruit, and not brought into existence from without, nor having what He is as something acquired, according to the foolish opinion of the heterodox.
From the Epistle to the Galatians.
“My little children,” he says, “of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you.” If Christ is formed in us only through the Spirit, and He impresses His own characteristics, as it were, sketching the beauty of the Godhead upon human nature, then the Spirit of Christ is God, who is formed B in us just as He Himself is, and is a property of His own essence, and not subsistent from without.Another.
“Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” If, being schooled by the will of the Spirit toward piety and the correctness of life, we are called to freedom, shaking off the servitude of the law, then the Spirit is God, C for He has the power to set us free and possesses the dignity of lordship. For that to set free is granted to God alone is manifest from the fact that no one is able to take away sins except Him. Nevertheless, the Savior Himself will assure us of this, saying: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless the Son sets you free, you are slaves.” For the ability to do this does not reside in a creature, but in the Son alone as heir, the Word who proceeded from God and the Father. If, therefore, when the Son alone is able to call us to freedom, the Spirit is seen to do this, how shall He not be of the same essence D as the Son, since He performs all divine things by His own power, just as the Son does? But if this is so, then the Spirit of Christ is not a creature or a work. For the argument involves great impiety.From the Epistle to the Ephesians.
Speaking concerning our Savior Jesus Christ, he says: “In whom you also, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also having believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance.” If we are transformed toward God by being sealed with the Holy Spirit, how shall that be a created thing through which the image of the divine essence is impressed upon us, and the stamps of the unbegotten nature remain? For surely the Spirit does not sketch the divine essence in us like a painter, being something other than that; nor does He lead us to the likeness of God in this way, but, being Himself God and having proceeded from God, He is impressed invisibly like a seal upon the hearts of those who receive Him, as if in some wax.A through communion with and likeness to Himself, He depicts the nature back to its archetypal beauty, and shows man to be once again in the image of God. How then will He be a creature, He through whom nature is reshaped toward God, as having become a partaker of God?
ANOTHER.
Discoursing concerning the coming of our Savior, he says: "And coming, he preached peace to you who were far off, and peace to those who were near; for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." If, having received the Spirit of Christ, we are brought through Him to God and the Father, as having been shown to be partakers of His divine nature, how could He be a creature, He through whom we are already joined to God as genus to species?
ANOTHER.
B "So then," he says, "you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God. Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together into a dwelling place for God in the Spirit." If we are called a holy temple through the Holy Spirit, with God dwelling in us, how would it not be the height of impiety and madness C to number the Spirit among creatures, and not rather to confess Him to be from the divine nature, as proceeding essentially from it, and dwelling in us after the manner of God?
ANOTHER.
"To me," he says, "the least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the nations the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten what is the administration of the mystery hidden from the ages in God who created all things." Then again, a little further on, he says: "As I wrote to you in few words, by which you can, when reading, understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit." If, therefore, the prophet is truthful, crying out: D "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" it is manifest that the divine counsel is known by no creature; for any child, I think, could discern the counsels of men. But let us see, if it seems good to anyone, whether the holy powers of the heavens also lack such honor. Let us hear then the angel in Zechariah praying and saying: "O Lord Almighty, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, at which Thou art angry? This is now the seventieth year." How then, if he knew, does he desire to learn? Yet it is certain that he was ignorant of this very thing. If therefore no creature has a clear perception of the divine counsel, the Spirit possesses this...
knowledge and investigates it, and He knows the depths of God, and He reveals to the saints and makes manifest those things which are hidden in Him. How then might He reasonably be severed from consubstantiality with God? And how is it not entirely from Him that He, naturally existing in Him as His Spirit, knows all things that are in Him? If this is so, then He is not a work or a creature. A
*From the Epistle of James.* "Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." If the manifold gift of divine graces is sent down from the Father of lights, and yet Paul says that the Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one as He wills, how is the Spirit not God from God and in God, performing all things that are fitting for God, and this with authority? Therefore He is not a creature, as those delirious men claim. B
*From the Epistle of Peter.* "Be sober therefore, and watch in prayers, having above all things a fervent charity among yourselves, for charity covers the multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without murmuring. As every man has received the grace, minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Observe, I pray thee, once again that, because the Holy Spirit distributes and allots the divine gifts to each of the saints with authority and as He wills, the admirable Peter asserts that the variety and the giving of such grace are from God, knowing that the Spirit is not alien to the divine nature. Since therefore Peter calls the Spirit God, how is he not both impious and insane who places Him among creatures and does not fear to rashly gainsay the preaching of the holy apostles? C
*From the Epistle of John.* "These things I have written to you concerning them that deceive you. And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you, but as his unction teaches you of all things, and is true, and is no lie. And as it has taught you, abide in him." A certain such saying appears in the prophets: "And all shall be taught of God." Since, therefore, those who have believed in Christ and have been anointed with the Holy Spirit learn all things through Him, and have no need of human teaching but are found rather to be taught of God, according to the word in the prophets, it follows clearly that the Spirit is God. But if He is such by nature, how could He be a creature? D
*OTHER.* "And he that keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us." If he abi
abides in us, God is the one dwelling; how then is the Spirit not God, and from God, when whoever possesses the Spirit possesses an indwelling God? For he says through the prophet: "I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God." And if the Spirit is God and from God, who, by calling it a creature, will escape the eternal condemnation?
*OTHER.* "Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood and Spirit, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and Spirit and blood; and the Spirit is that which bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater." B Observe again how the herald of truth naturally calls the Spirit God and from God. For having said that the Spirit is that which bears witness, he immediately adds: "The testimony of God is greater." How then shall he be a creature, who is preached together with God and the Father, and completes the holy Trinity?
*From the Gospel according to Matthew.*
The genealogy of Christ.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." If the power to create belongs only to the divine nature, and this is its preeminent and peculiar property among other God-befitting attributes; and yet the Holy Spirit creates a temple in the Virgin, will not he who contends that the Spirit is created be rightly considered impious and mad? For he slanders the supreme essence of all, dragging it, as it were by force, to the condition of creatures, asserting it to be recent and not in the beginning. C But God shall not be recent in us, according to that which is written in the Psalms. He is not therefore made or created; but rather that divine and eternal nature was in the beginning. And if this is so, how can he be considered created who is in God and the Father, the divine and holy Spirit?*OTHER.* "If I, he says, by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." If God is glorified through the operation of the Holy Spirit in casting out devils, and yet the Holy Spirit is, according to the opinion of certain unlearned men, created and made; then the property of God D will reside in a creature. And how will that in which he is glorified not be greater than he? But this is impious even to think, let alone to say. Therefore not…
[… it] is an impious saying. The Spirit, in whom God performs all things through the Son, and by whom he is glorified, is therefore not a created thing.
From the Gospel according to John.
A “But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” If it is the Holy Spirit who, through faith in Christ, regenerates us unto salvation, to the extent that for this very reason we are called children of God, how could the Spirit not be God? And that we who believe are born of the Spirit, the Savior himself gives assurance, speaking thus to Nicodemus: “The Spirit blows where it wishes, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from B and where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
ALIUD.
“But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” If the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father, and is, as it were, a certain fruit and quality of his essence, while the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, how can the Spirit who flows forth from him be created? Or how are we called the temple of God when we have received the Spirit, if the Spirit is not God, as some C ignorantly contend?
ASSERTION XXXV.
Testimonies from the divine Scripture, through which it is possible to see that the Son is begotten of the Father, and not made.
Wisdom says: “Before the age he established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, and before he made the abysses, before the fountains of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills, he begets me.” The Psalmist: “The Lord said to me: You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” The same: “With you is the beginning in the day of your power, in the splendors of the saints, from the womb before the morning star I have begotten you.” D
That the Son of God is eternal and before the ages, having his generation from the Father in an ineffable manner.
John the Evangelist: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be.” From the Epistle of John: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life. And the life was manifested, and we seen, and we testify, and
announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.
The Savior in the Gospel.
Matt. 11:27. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is, except the Father; and no one knows who the Father is, except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
John 1:18. No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. A For the Word was in the bosom, that is, in the nature of the Father.
Isa. 53:7. Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. Who shall declare his generation? For the Son shone forth from the Father in an ineffable manner.
Micah 5:2. And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, are little to be among the thousands of Judah; from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, B and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity. For the Son proceeded and, as it were, went forth from the essence of the Father, not through any separation or division, but as radiance from light. Furthermore, "from the beginning," and, if we may so speak, outside the days of the age. Therefore he is from the Father, and is eternal.
Col. 1:15-17. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because in him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers, all things have been created through him and for him, and he is before all things. C By the name of "all things" are comprehended also the ages and the times. Therefore the Son is eternal and before the ages.
Heb. 1:1, 2. Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets in many and various ways; in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the ages. Now if the ages themselves were created through the Son, how is he who is before the ages not eternal?
Ps. 89:1, 2. Lord, you have been our refuge from generation to generation. Before the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and the world were formed, D even from age to age you are God. See how he attributes to the Son existence before all creation; by the designation of creation, the ages are also comprehended. How then is the Son not eternal, who is before all things?
John 17:3-5. This is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was. If then the Son was in the Father, even before the foundation of the world, how is the Son who is before all things not eternal?
That the Word is the Son of God.
Jeremiah. “Thus says the Lord: If they are prophets, and the Word of the Lord is in them, let them encounter me.” A For the Word of God, that is to say the Son, was not in the false prophets.
The same. “The wise men were put to shame; they were terrified and captured. What wisdom is in them, because they have rejected the Word of the Lord?” For the Scribes and Pharisees, puffed up with the conceit of wisdom, rejected the Son of God, saying: “If this man were from God, he would not have broken the Sabbath.” And therefore they were deservedly put to shame.
Isaiah. “But he, being wise, brought evil upon them, and his Word was not neglected.” For the Father of the Word of God, who is wise in truth, heaps evils upon those who have neglected and despised his Word.
The Psalmist. “My heart has poured forth a good Word.” — “For eternity, O Lord, your Word remains in heaven.”
“Sing to the Lord a new song; play well to him in exultation. For the Word of the Lord is upright, and all his works are in faithfulness.”
“He sent forth his Word and healed them, and rescued them from their destructions.”
“The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord. By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established.”
“You are my helper and my protector; and I have hoped in your Word.” B
“My soul faints for your salvation, and I have hoped in your Word.”
“Your justice is justice for eternity. And your Word is truth.”
Paul. “For the Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword.”
“For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected: for it is sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer.”
John the Evangelist. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”
The Savior. “Father, sanctify them in your truth; and your Word is truth.”
Paul to certain ones. “And now I commend you to God, and to the Word of his grace.”
James. “Of his own will he brought us forth by the Word of truth, that we should be the first-fruits of his creatures.”
Peter. “Love one another fervently, having been C born again, not of corruptible seed, but through the living and abiding Word of God.”
John. “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled regarding the Word of life.”
The same. “If we say that we have not sinned,
A we make him a liar, and his Word is not in us.” The same. “I have written unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.”
That the Son of God is light.
Isaiah LX, 1. “Arise, shine, O Jerusalem, for thy light is come.” Isaiah IX, 1, 2. “The region of Zabulon, the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, and the rest that dwell by the sea, and beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, parts of Judea, the people that sat in darkness have seen a great light.” Isaiah II, 5, 6. “And now, O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. For thou hast cast off thy people, the house of Jacob.” B Isaiah XLIX, 6. “Behold, I have given thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest open the eyes of the blind.” Psalm CXI, 4. “Light is sprung up for the righteous.” Psalm XLII, 3. “Send forth thy light and thy truth.” Psalm LXXXVIII, 16. “Blessed is the people that knoweth the joyful sound; O Lord, in the light of thy countenance shall they walk.” Psalm XLIII, 4. “For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance.” Daniel II, 20-23. “Because his wisdom and might are his: and he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.” I Tim. VI, 16. Paul speaking of God and the Father: “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.” C The same. “Walk as children of light: for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.” The same. “Giving thanks, saith he, unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance in the light.” I Peter II, 9. “That ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” II Peter I, 19. “Until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.” John I, 7. “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another.” For he who walks in the light lives in Christ. John II, 8. “Because the darkness is past, and the true D light now shineth,” that is, Christ. I John II, 10. “He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.” For he will not be placed outside the life in Christ, who possesses within himself the love that is pleasing to Christ.
THESAURUS.
A The Savior: “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” Likewise: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” Likewise: “And this is the judgment, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light; for their works were evil.” Likewise: “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.” John the Evangelist: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light. He was the true light.” The same: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” The Savior to the Jews: “While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” The same to them: “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you.”
That the Son of God is the truth.
Paul: “But by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience.” The same: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” Peter: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth.” Paul: “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” The same: “For God,” he says, “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” “For God,” he says, “hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” The same: B “For if we sin wilfully, C after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” The Savior: “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” Likewise: “And I,” he says, “will pray the Father, that the Spirit of truth may abide with you, whom the world cannot receive.” “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” “And Jesus,” he saith, “said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.” “And Jesus answered and said unto them,” namely, to the Jews: “Ye are of your father the devil.” D
and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.”
A Ezra: And he said, saith he, [Zerubbabel]: “The truth is great and stronger than all things. All the earth calls out for truth. The heaven also calls [upon it] and worships it, and all works shake and tremble at it.” B The same: “And the truth abides and is strong for ever and ever. And there is no respect of persons with it.” In the Psalms: “The beginning of thy words is truth.” For the first and innate and essential Word in God and the Father is the truth—the Son, that is to say. “Thou art powerful, O Lord, and thy truth is round about thee.” C “He that dwelleth in the help of the Most High,” and so forth, until, “With a shield his truth shall compass thee.” Speaking of the righteous one: “And I will put to flight those who hate him, because my mercy and my truth are with him.” “I have chosen the way of truth.” For he who is wise loves the evangelical manner of life in God, as being far better than that of the Law. “Thy righteousness is righteousness for ever, and thy Word, O Lord, is truth.” The Saviour: “Father, sanctify them in thy truth. Thy Word is truth.” John in the Epistle: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and in him the truth is not.” Likewise: “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Paul concerning those who do not believe in Christ: “For this cause, that they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them an operation of error,” D that is, the Antichrist, whom the Saviour himself signified when he said: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye received me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” That the Son is the image and likeness of God and the Father, and his face: In the Psalter: “Blessed is the people that knoweth jubilation, O Lord; they shall walk in the light of thy countenance, and in thy name shall they exult all the day.” “For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance.”
A Ps. iv, 7: “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us. Thou hast put gladness in my heart.”
In the Epistle to the Hebrews: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance.” B
In the Epistle to the Colossians: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the love of his Son, in whom we have redemption and remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.”
In the Epistle to the Philippians: “For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
John the Evangelist: “Philip saith to Jesus: Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: So long a time have I been with you, and have you not known me, Philip? He that seeth me seeth the Father.”
Solomon: C “For he is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness.”
In Genesis: “And Jacob called the name of the place Phanuel, saying: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved. And the sun rose upon him immediately after the face of God had passed by.”
That the Son of God is justice.
In Genesis: “God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness.”
Paul: “And it is no wonder; for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice.”
The same: “But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who is made to us wisdom from God, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption.” D
The same: “For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they knowing not the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.”
The same: “Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice.”
The Apostle: “The justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Now the justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ.”
In the Acts: “And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declares unto men, that all should everywhere do penance, because he hath appointed”
a day in which he will judge the world in justice.” B In the Gospel: “John came to you in the way of justice, and you did not believe him. But the publicans and the harlots believed him.” In the Gospel according to Matthew: “Seek ye first the justice of God and his kingdom, and all these things shall be added unto you.” “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill.” In Malachi: “And unto you that fear my name shall the sun of justice arise, and health in his wings.” In Amos: “The Lord who doth judgment in the height, and hath placed justice upon the earth. Who doth all these things and prepareth them; the Lord is his name.” In Daniel: “And Gabriel said to Daniel: Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may receive an end, and iniquity may be blotted out, and everlasting justice may be brought, and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled, and the Saint of saints may be anointed. Know therefore and take notice from the going forth of the word.” In Isaiah: “And they shall be called generations of justice, the planting of the Lord to glory.” “My justice is near at hand, and my salvation shall go forth as light, and the Gentiles shall hope in my arm.” In the Psalter: “The beginning of thy words is truth, and all the judgments of thy justice are for ever.” “Thy justice is justice for ever, and thy word, O Lord, is truth.” “In that I have learned the judgments of thy justice, I will keep thy justifications.” “The Lord hath made known his salvation: he hath revealed his justice in the sight of the Gentiles.” “For the Lord will not cast off his people, and he will not forsake his inheritance. Until justice be turned into judgment: and all they that are upright in heart shall follow it.” C “Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed. Truth is sprung out of the earth: and justice hath looked down from heaven.” “In thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded. In thy justice deliver me, and rescue me.” “And the heavens shall declare his justice: for God is judge.” “I have declared thy justice in a great church, lo, I will not restrain my lips: O Lord, thou knowest. I have not hid thy justice within my heart.”
A My tongue shall meditate on thy justice, all the day thy praise. B Generation to come shall be announced to the Lord, and they shall announce his justice to the people who are to be born, whom the Lord hath made. He hath prepared his throne in judgment, and he shall judge the world in justice. That the Son is called and is the glory of the Father. In the Psalter: “But I in justice shall see thy face, I shall be satisfied when thy glory appears to me.” The heavens shall announce his justice, and all peoples have seen his glory. “God, my God, to thee I watch at dawn. My soul hath thirsted for thee, how manifoldly thy flesh for me. In a desert and pathless and waterless land, so have I appeared to thee in the sanctuary, to see thy power and thy glory.” C Announce his glory among the nations, his wonders among all peoples. “Be thou exalted above the heavens, O God, and thy glory above all the earth.” Of Isaiah: “As if any one should glean olive trees, so shall they be gleaned, and when the vintage is finished, these shall cry with a voice, and they that are left upon the earth shall exult with the glory of the Lord.” In the Psalter: “And the nations shall fear thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.” In Ezekiel: “And the Spirit of the Lord took me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great commotion saying: Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place.” In Isaiah: “My spirit watcheth toward thee from the night, O God, because thy commandments are a light upon the earth: learn to do justice, you who dwell upon the earth. For the wicked hath ceased, let him not learn justice upon the earth; let him not do truth: let the wicked be taken away, lest he see the glory of the Lord. Be enlightened, be enlightened, Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For behold darkness and mist shall cover the earth, but the Lord shall appear upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And kings shall walk by thy light, and nations in the brightness of thy rising.” Of the same: “Let the thirsty desert rejoice, let the wilderness exult and blossom as the lily. And it shall blossom and the deserts of the Jordan shall exult, and the glory of Lebanon is given to it, and the beauty of Carmel, and my people shall see the glory of the Lord, and the height of our God.” In Ezekiel: “And the Cherubim were standing to the right of the house, when the man clothed with the stole entered, and the cloud filled the inner court. And the glory of the Lord departed from
the Cherubim into the courtyard of the house; and the cloud filled the house, and the courtyard was filled with the brightness of the glory of the Lord.
In the Gospel: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that is from the only God?" A
Peter: "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that is to be revealed."
In James: "My brothers, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality."
In Peter: "If you are reproached in the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."
"As all things have been granted to us by His divine power, which pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and virtue." B
In the Apostle: "But my God shall supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus."
"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened. Strengthened with all power according to the might of His glory."
According to the Gospel: "The glory of the blessed God."
That the Son is the right hand and the arm of the Father.
In Isaiah: "I looked, and there was no helper; I considered, and there was none to uphold; therefore My own arm brought salvation to them, and My fury stood by Me, and I trampled them in My wrath." C
"Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We have announced before Him."
"Listen to Me, listen to Me, My people, and you kings, give ear to Me, because a law will go forth from Me, and My judgment rests for a light to the nations. My righteousness is near quickly, and My salvation will go forth as a light, and the nations shall hope in My arm; the islands wait for Me, and shall hope in My arm."
In Exodus: "Then the princes of Edom were troubled, trembling seized the leaders of the Moabites, all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away. May fear and trembling fall upon them, by the greatness of Thy arm; may they become immovable as a stone, until Thy people pass through, O Lord." D
In Isaiah: "That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord has done this, and the Holy One of Israel has created it."
rough, O Lord." In Ezekiel: "And the hand of the Lord was upon me, and He set me in the midst of the field." A In Exodus: "And Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore, and Israel saw the great hand which the Lord had wrought for the Egyptians. And the people feared the Lord, and they believed in God and in Moses His servant." In the Psalter: "And you have made my arms like a brazen bow, and You have given me the protection of Your salvation, and Your right hand has supported me." In Exodus: "Your right hand, O Lord, is glorified in strength; Your right hand, O Lord, has crushed the enemies." In the Psalter: "May Your hand be found by all Your enemies; may Your right hand find all those who hate You." And I said: "Now I have begun; this is the change of the right hand of the Most High." B For they did not gain possession of the land by their sword, and their own arm did not save them; but Your right hand, and Your arm, and the light of Your countenance. O God of hosts, turn again, and look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine, and restore it, which Your right hand has planted. According to Your name, O God, so also is Your praise unto the ends of the earth. Your right hand is full of righteousness. In Exodus: "And the Lord said to Moses: Go in to Pharaoh, and you shall say to him: Thus says the God of the Hebrews: Let my people go. But if you hold them fast, behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your cattle which are in the fields." In the Psalter: "Sing to the Lord a new song, for the Lord has done marvelous things. His right hand has saved him, and His holy arm." C The right hand of the Lord has wrought power; the right hand of the Lord has exalted me. Come, let us worship and fall down before Him, and let us weep before the Lord who made us, for He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. In Numbers: "Six hundred thousand footmen are the people among whom I am. And You said, O Lord: I will give them flesh, and they shall eat for a month of days. Shall sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them, and will it be sufficient for them? And the Lord said to Moses: Is the hand of the Lord not sufficient? Now you shall know if My word shall overtake you." That the Son is the power of God and the Father. In the Apostle: "According to the working of His power, to me, the least of all the saints, this grace was given." "And my speech and my preaching were not in the persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power."
A 1 Cor. I, 24: "But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
Luke V, 15: "And the power of God was in healing them."
Ps. LXXXIII, 8: "For the legislator will give a blessing; they will go from power to power; the God of gods will be seen in Sion."
Luke XXIV, 49: "But you, stay in the city of Jerusalem, until you are clothed with power from on high."
Matt. XXII, 29: "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."
Ps. LXVII, 29: "Command, O God, your power."
Ps. LIII, 3: "O God, by your name save me, and by your power judge me."
Ps. LXXVI, 14, 15: "You are the God who works wonders alone. You have made your power known among the peoples. You have redeemed with your arm your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph."
Ps. LXII, 2, 3: "O God, my God, I watch for you from the light. My soul has thirsted for you; how often has my flesh to you in a desert and trackless and waterless land; thus in the sanctuary I have appeared to you to see your power and your glory."
Ps. XX, 14: "Be exalted, O Lord, in your power; we will sing and chant your mighty deeds."
Ibid., 1: "O Lord, in your power the king will rejoice, and in your salvation he will exult greatly."
Jerem. X, 12: "The Lord who made the earth in his strength, preparing the world in his wisdom."
Deut. V, 7-15: "You shall not fear other gods, nor shall you worship them, nor shall you sacrifice to them, nor shall you serve them further, but the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, in his great strength and with a high arm."
That the Son is called and is God
Gen. I, 27: "And God created man, according to the image of God he created him."
1 Tim. II, 3, 4: "For this is good and acceptable before our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Hebr. I, 8, 9: "But to the Son: 'Your throne, O God, is for the age of the age, a rod of uprightness is the rod of your kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation beyond your companions.'"
Hebr. I, 6: "And when he introduces the Firstborn again into the inhabited world, he says: 'And let all the angels of God worship him.'"
Joan. XX, 27, 28: "And Jesus said to Thomas: 'Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be faithless, but faithful.' And Thomas answered and said to him: 'My Lord and my God.'"
' A John 1:1, 2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God.
Isaiah 45:14, 15. Thus says the Lord Sabaoth: The labor of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you, and they shall be your servants. And they shall follow after you, bound in chains, and shall pass over to you, and shall worship you, and in you they shall pray. "For God is in you, and there is no God except you. For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior."
In the same. Thus says the Lord Sabaoth: "Go up upon a high mountain, you who bring good news to Zion. Lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good news to Jerusalem; lift it up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah: Behold your God! Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with power. Behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. As a shepherd, he will tend his flock, and with his arm he will gather the lambs, and those that are with young he will comfort."
In the same. "Be strong, you lax hands and weak knees. Comfort the faint-hearted in mind, be strong, do not fear; behold, our God will render judgment and shall recompense; he himself shall come and save us."
And they shall say in that day: "Behold, our God, in whom we hoped, and we shall exult in our salvation, because B God will give rest upon this mountain."
Behold, the Virgin shall have in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey he shall eat, before he knows or chooses evil, to choose the good, because before the child knows good or evil, he disobeys wickedness.
In the Psalter. The Lord is a God of vengeance, the God of vengeance has spoken freely; be lifted up, you who judge the earth, render a recompense to the proud.
For the lawgiver will also give blessings. They shall go from strength to strength; the God of gods shall appear in Zion. O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer.
Another. God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.
In Genesis. And Jacob asked him and said: "Tell me your name." And he said: "Why do you ask my name, and it is wondrous?" C And he blessed him there, and Jacob called the name of that place "The Vision of God"; for "I saw the face of God, and my soul was saved." And the sun rose when he passed by the vision of God.
Whoever sheds human blood, for his blood it shall be shed, because in the image of God I made man. D
That the Son of God is Lord.
A Malachi, ch. IV, 3-6. And you shall tread down the impious, when they shall be ashes under the sole of your feet in the day that I perform, says the Lord Almighty. Behold, I will send you Elias the Thesbite, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes. Who shall restore the heart of a father to his son, and the heart of a man to his neighbor, lest I come and strike the earth utterly.
Zechariah, ch. II, 10, 11. Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Sion, for behold I come, and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord. And many nations shall take refuge in the Lord in that day, and shall be for me a people, and I will dwell in the midst of you; and you shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you.
B Zephaniah, ch. III, 16, 17. In that day the Lord shall say to Jerusalem: Fear not, Sion, let not your hands be slack, the Lord your God is in the midst of you, strong to save you. He shall bring joy upon you, and shall renew you with his love.
Micah, ch. I, 2, 3. Hear, all you peoples, and let the earth and its fullness attend, and the Lord God shall be in witness against you. The Lord from his holy temple. For behold, the Lord shall go forth from his place, and shall descend and tread upon the high places of the earth.
Isaiah, ch. LX, 22. The least shall become thousands, and the smallest a great nation. I the Lord will gather them in time.
C Isaiah, ch. LXI, 1, 2. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to call the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of requital to our God.
Isaiah, ch. LX, 1, 2. Shine, shine, Jerusalem, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick mist the nations. But upon you the Lord shall appear, and his glory shall be seen upon you.
Isaiah, ch. XL, 3-5. The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be humbled, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways into D plains. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord has spoken.
Isaiah, ch. XXXV, 1, 2. Be glad, O thirsty desert, let the desert exult, and flower like the lily. And it shall bloom and exult, and the glory of Lebanon has been given to it, and the honor of Carmel, and my people shall see the glory of the Lord and the height of our God.
Psalm CXVII, 25. O Lord, save me now; O Lord, prosper me now. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Psalm XCV, 12. Then shall all the trees of the wood exult before the face of the Lord, because he comes to judge the earth.
A Say among the nations that the Lord reigns. For he has established the world, which shall not be shaken.
Make a way for him who rides upon the setting sun, the Lord is his name.
For behold, God helps me, and the Lord is the protector of my soul.
The Lord is strong and mighty, the Lord is mighty in battle, and the rest.
This man shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Savior.
In Genesis. And Lot entered into Segor, and the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and he destroyed their cities.
That the Son of God is King
In the Apostle. I testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearance, and his kingdom.
It is a faithful word: for if we have died together, we shall also live together; if we endure, we shall also reign together.
To the Son: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a rod of equity is the rod of your kingdom."
Who delivered us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of the love of his Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible God.
For know this, understanding that every fornicator or unclean or covetous person, B which is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
In the Gospel. Jesus answered and said to Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would indeed fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.
And Jesus found a young donkey, and sat upon it, as it is written: Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, your King comes meek, and sitting upon a young donkey and a colt.
And Nathanael answered him: Rabbi, you are truly the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.
And the thief who was crucified with him said: Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary; you have found C favor with God, and behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. D
A Matt. xxv, 31-34. Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Matt. xx, 20, 21. Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her: What wilt thou? She saith unto him: Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
III Esdr. iv, 38-40. And truth liveth, and abideth, and B prevaileth, and endureth for ever and ever. And with her there is no accepting of persons or difference, but she doeth the things that are just, away from all unjust and wicked men, and all men do well like of her works, and there is no unrighteous thing in her judgment. And hers is the strength, and the kingdom, and the power, and the majesty of all ages, and blessed be the God of truth.
Dan. vii, 13, 14. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Jerem. xxiii, 5. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, C that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Isa. xxxiii, 22. For my God is great: for the Lord shall not pass me by, the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King; he will save us.
Isa. xxxiii, 17, 18. Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off. Thine heart shall meditate terror.
Isa. xxxii, 1. Blessed is he that hath seed in Sion, and kinsmen in Jerusalem. For, behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
Isa. xxiv, 23. Through many generations there shall be a visitation of them, and the brick shall waste away, and the wall shall fall, because the Lord shall reign in Sion and in Jerusalem, and D before his ancients shall he be glorified.
Sophon. iii, 14, 15. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; be glad and rejoice with all thy heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The Lord hath taken away thy iniquities, he hath redeemed thee from the hand of thine enemies: the King of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.
Zachar. ix, 9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout,
preach, O daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King comes to thee, just and a Savior, himself meek, and riding upon an ass and a young foal. A
In Hosea: “For the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without teraphim. And after this the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and they shall be amazed at the Lord, and at his goodness in the latter days.”
In the Psalter: “The Lord has reigned, let the peoples be angry; he who sits upon the Cherubim, let the earth be moved.” B
“O Lord, in thy righteousness shall they be exalted, for thou art the boast of their strength; and in thy good pleasure our horn shall be exalted, for our support is of the Lord, and of the Holy One of Israel our king.”
“O God, give thy judgment to the king, and thy righteousness to the king’s son.”
“God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet: sing praises to our God, sing praises, sing praises to our king, sing praises; for God is king of all the earth; sing praises with understanding, God has reigned over all the nations.”
“The queen stood at thy right hand in clothing of gold, wrought about with divers colors. Hearken, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people, and thy father’s house; for the king has greatly desired thy beauty.”
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a rod of uprightness is the rod of thy kingdom.”
“Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.”
“Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O Lord, among the nations, and I will sing unto thy name, magnifying the salvations of the king, and showing mercy to his Christ.”
That the Son of God is life according to nature. C
In the Gospel: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”
“And again: He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.”
“I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”
“For the bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.”
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” D
“I am the bread of life.”
A John v, 21. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” John i, 4. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” In the Apostle. “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” “For the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” In John. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” Ibid. 12. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” In the Acts. “But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” B In Proverbs. “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.” “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.” In Baruch. “Hear, Israel, the commandments of life, give ear to understand wisdom.”
That the Son is the will of God and the Father.
In the Psalter. “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.” In Isaiah. “In that day shall God shine in counsel with glory upon the earth.” For he shone forth in the Son of his great counsel. In the Psalms. “The counsel of the Lord endureth for ever.” “And the counsel of the saints is understanding.” For the understanding of the saints is the counsel of God and the Father, that is, the Son. In the Psalter. “God glorified in the counsel of the saints.” For the Father is glorified in Christ according to his own word: “I have glorified thee on the earth.” C
That the Holy Spirit is naturally out of God.
In the Gospel. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” D
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. XXVIII, 19).
In the Acts. “Why hath [Satan] filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? ... Ye have not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts V, 3, 4).
Paul: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (I Cor. XII, 4-11).
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (I Cor. II, 10, 11).
Matthew: “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men” (Matt. XII, 31).
Job: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job XXXIII, 4).
In the Psalter. “Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth” (Ps. CIII, 30).
“This saith the Holy Spirit: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established; and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth” (Ps. XXXIII, 6). C
Paul: “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (II Cor. III, 13-17).
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (I Cor. III, 16).
In the Gospel: “The Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you” (John XIV, 17).
“Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit” (I John IV, 13).
Paul: “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matt. X, 20).
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God” (I Cor. II, 12). D
In Joel: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions” (Joel II, 28).
I Cor. II, 13–16. A “But the things which we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God: for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged by no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
I Cor. VI, 11. B “And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
Acts XVI, 6–7. “And passing through Phrygia, and the country of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word of God in Asia. And when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.”
Rom. VIII, 9–11. “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”
I Cor. III, 16. “Know you not that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”
I Cor. VI, 19–20. C “Know you not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price.”
Acts V, 3–4. “Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? You have not lied to men, but to God.”
Matt. XII, 28. “If I by the Spirit cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.”
Gen. VI, 3. “My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh.”
Rom. V, 5. “Because the charity of God is poured forth in your hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to you.” D “You have taken counsel, but not by me; and made covenants, but not by my Spirit.”
Haggai II, 5–6. “Therefore I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts, and my Spirit shall be in the midst of you.”
John I, 13. “Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY. PREFACE TO THIS BOOK.
A The comprehension of divine things is very difficult, even for those who are highly exercised and well-prepared to be able to contemplate mysteries and things that surpass all intellect, even if it be, as the most wise Paul says, in a mirror and in an enigma. Indeed, the human mind is too coarse, and is not capable of accompanying the subtlety of these concepts. Wherefore there is much fear in speaking of things pertaining to God, and it would be very wise in these matters to choose silence; yet, for those who are commissioned to teach, it is not without penalty to do so. Knowing this, the divine Paul said: “For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.” I have therefore arrived at the writing of this present book, and I have prepared for you again, most studious brother Nemesius, this discourse concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity.
B Having brought together the concepts concerning each of the matters under investigation, whether by genus or by species, we have composed the entire body of the book into seven dialogues; and, because he is very learned and an assiduous inquirer into such matters, we have addressed this to the most gentle Hermias. The style of the discourse is indeed relaxed, but it proceeds through question and answer involving two persons; the first is marked by the letter A, the first of the alphabet, and the second by B. Since there is a great deal of subtlety in the matters under investigation, in order that the subject being examined may be established and refuted with precision through questions and answers, the introduction of these persons became necessary. One must, therefore, accurately observe the letters prefixed to them. For thus we shall preserve, in the most excellent order, the discovery of the concepts, and the arrangement and force of the entire book, in a manner clear and without confusion. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord, beloved.
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK
1. That the Son is coeternal and consubstantial with God and the Father. 2. That the Son is also begotten of Him by nature. 3. That He is true God, just as the Father is. 4. That the Son is not a creature, nor a work. 5. That the properties of the Godhead, and the glory, exist naturally in the Son, just as in the Father. 6. That those things which are specific to the humanity, and which are not spoken of the Son with extreme theological propriety, would be more fittingly referred to the economy of the incarnation than to the nature of the Word Itself, insofar as He is understood and is God. 7. Concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is also God, and from God by nature.
OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL TO HERMIAS THE PRESBYTER, BY QUESTION AND ANSWER, DIALOGUE I.
That the Son is consubstantial and coeternal with God and the Father.
A 385 SANCTI PATRIS NOSTRI CYRILLI AD HERMIAM PRESBYTERUM, DIALOGUS I.
Quod consubstantialis et coæternus Deo et Patri sit Filius. B
A. It has not been possible to see our holy Hermias yesterday or the day before; for I suppose he had decided neither to be in the market-place nor to go abroad, but was certainly warding off the cold at home: for that is how one had to act. But now at last, the clear and serene sky has granted him to our sight.
B. You speak the truth. For old age is always morose, and goes out of the house with great difficulty, especially when the weather is rainy. C
A. Therefore, not unskillfully, nor inappropriately, I might compare you to the sea fish, which, if the wind blows more vehemently...
A and raises a roar, and rushes down with a whistling sound, enter the crevices in the deep one by one or in shoals, and as if into a forest or a flowering thicket, they hide themselves to shield against the injury of the air. But after the radiance of the sun’s beam has shone upon the waters, and they perceive that the whole sea is, as it were, smiling, they leap up and swim back, and sport upon the crests of the waves, having cast off at once both fear and lethargy. B. Know well, my friend, that my own situation is exactly thus! A. You are, then, far removed from crowds and business, and your mind, I suppose, is at rest by your hearth. B. And what comes of that? A. A very great and holy-minded benefit. B For shall we not attribute something good to tranquility? B. Assuredly. A. Indeed, the song chanted by the Psalmist from God upon the lyre will demonstrate that this is entirely true. B. What song do you mean? A. "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. XLV, 11). For the physical eye, when free from dust and smoke and every other thing capable of clouding it, sends a subtle and unimpeded energy to those objects which it is accustomed to perceive. But if it is marred by any affection, it fixes its gaze upon objects less than it should, and without doubt it will sometimes deviate from strict precision. Now, the human mind, if it is quiet C and composed, and accustomed to avoid idle and loathsome fantasies, sees acutely and clearly, and receives within itself a knowledge of things free from error. But if it should be dulled by any of the passions, it will no longer perceive the Divine beauty itself, but will, as it were, brood over earthly things, not otherwise than birds whose wings are wet, which are prevented from soaring on high. B. You speak well. A. Do you think then, Hermias, that staying at leisure at home, it is fitting to remember this divine voice? And just as yesterday and the day before, you have holy books in your hands; and a most studious zeal is nurtured in your mind, sharpening you like one of the keenest hounds D toward the love of hunting whatever you need to learn. Or perhaps we shall attribute the reasons for your lack of industry in these matters to the fact that the years of your bodily age have faded, or will you offer some other, even less true, excuse? I would gladly reproach you, asserting that an old man is a liar, and wants his words to be most readily believed. B. I could indeed bring many accusations against the infirmity of the body—
for we have come to the very sunset of life—but I will put aside such things for now, as it is necessary to speak of what is essential. My mind is always somehow inclined toward useful learning, and yet it craves nothing else perhaps, except for this alone. But just as a noble and most swift-footed horse, even though it may very much desire to prove the speed of its feet, is compelled against its will by the roughness of the field to show that the ability to exert its strength has been taken from it, so too do I, captured by a certain vehement and excited zeal to search out the divine Scriptures, find myself restrained by arduous and inaccessible regions, which are not set forth by a level or easy approach, as it seems, and which are not A passable for those who wish to attain them. Wherefore, the difficulty of the places sometimes pushes the mind back toward sloth; but I am more dismayed by this than by all other things, especially that I should have to speak regarding the faith, even though it is the head of the hope that is in us.
A. Yes, indeed; for I would agree that you speak the truth. But that no one, I think, could attain any of the goods from above and from God without sweat, is surely plain to everyone. For those things which are set far above nature, and are endowed with the highest glory, are not trodden by everyone, but are difficult to seize, inaccessible, arduous—and what degree of difficulty and labor do they not possess in themselves?
B. What, then, should those do in whom there has arisen a desire and longing for these best and most excellent discoveries, but for whom it is most difficult to attain them?
A. What else, I ask, do you think they should do, than obey the voices of the saints, by whom it has assuredly been proclaimed: «If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all B simply and does not reproach, and it will be given to him»? For those things that are in need of light are surely illumined by the divine and intelligible light, and thus Wisdom imparts wisdom to those things that lack intellect and wisdom. And Christ is considered to be Light and Wisdom, «who shone in our hearts for the illumination of his knowledge.» For God and the Father, as the divine Paul certainly says, «delivered us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of the love of his Son» in the light. And furthermore, some one of the saints called Him the Splendor of the day, and Lucifer besides. For he says: «Until the day dawns, and Lucifer arises in your hearts»; by the splendor of the day and the rising Lucifer, I think he means the illumination by the Spirit through Christ.
B. But no one would doubt that Christ is light, and indeed the day itself, and Lucifer for those who are once enrolled in the number of the faithful. But if we were to ask you to explain to us as clearly as possible the firm doctrine of the faith, which is ignorant of error, will you refuse to speak, and assume your familiar sloth? For infinite things are circulated by many who, fawning upon the straight word of truth, pervert it with elegant interpretations to suit their own opinion, and in-
the manner of wild wasps, flying about they drone importunately over cities and regions alike, speaking things that are of their own hearts, and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written 88.
A A. How I admire your incomparable zeal for God, good sir, and I entreat you, never cease from a disposition so upright and most praiseworthy. Nevertheless, my friend, it is permitted to you to attain even very easily and abundantly the things you desire; I do not say to dig out some spiritual meaning, as if I were promising to offer and explain something better than what was said before us. B For the writings of the holy Fathers are sufficient for this, in which, if whoever wishes should converse attentively and apply himself with vigilance, his mind would be immediately bathed in divine light. For it was not they themselves who were speaking in themselves: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable 90." Is it not so?
B. Yes, and this is true. But if you yourself act the sluggard, and in no way assist us, but rather, keeping your tongue restrained within your teeth, you persuade us to inaction, building up for those who are studious of such matters a firm and unassailable excuse for cessation, namely, that the Fathers have already spoken to us about these things abundantly and sufficiently—truly, I would not praise you for having chosen to act in this way, and I ask that you answer me as I inquire.
A. For why do you inquire of me? Do not, I implore you, inveigh against my mediocrity, O noble man.
B. It is not my purpose to inveigh—far from it—but answer me truly, and do not cunningly lead me away from investigating the things I have a mind to ask you.
A. Ask, then, if you wish.
B. If one of us wished to graze sheep or goats in the fields, would you not think that he had need of a shepherd's crook and dogs, so that he himself might drive back the savage beasts, if any perchance should invade, while they, by their barking, striking fear into them, might prohibit the audacity of the assault and keep the flock unharmed?
A. You speak rightly.
B. But if, as time went on, it happened that some of the dogs died, and the shepherd brought in others in their place, would the barking and watchfulness of the second be in vain, seeing that it was to those before them that success in these matters was credited?
A. And how could that which is useful be considered in vain, or be called so?
B. C Then will you yourself remain silent without blame, urging us to attend only to the writings of the Fathers, while calling it a superfluous thing to wish to go along in similar God-contemplating studies, even while the savage heretics with unbridled and unbarred mouths are consuming the souls of the simpler ones?
A. Therefore, since a keen desire has entered into me—for I have been pricked not moderately, and sufficiently impelled to wish to labor by your words, O man,
A come then, let us bring into the midst those things accurately and examinedly defined in the holy and most celebrated synod gathered in its time in the city of the Nicaeans, and let us observe, if it pleases you, what it is that seems not faultless to those who have chosen to hold heterodox views. For whoever would wish to assert that the faith best and most divinely defined and set forth by that holy and great synod is the unshakable and firm foundation and support of our souls, will speak truly indeed, and will obtain praise from Christ, and will shine forth as a most faithful and true worshiper. Let us therefore record, word for word, the divine and most holy oracle of that holy synod, that is to say, the Symbol of faith, polished and wrought for every true conception, so that for those who wish to discuss it, no room at all may be found for our babbling—lest any argument be admitted as if we were leaping upon alien dogmas, or having abandoned the royal road, we were turning aside into another, following a private and singular opinion. For I myself would indeed consider this to be truly an intractable disease of the mind. “For wisdom that is without rebuke errs,” as it is written. B The exposition of the faith is as follows: We believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day; who ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was a time when he was not," or "He was not before he was begotten," or "He was made from things that are not," or who affirm that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or is created, or mutable, or alterable—these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.
C B. Oh, the accurate and consummate prudence! Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, is what all those who set these things forth for us may surely be called. For they have uttered something great and supernatural.
A. I seem to myself, then, to have considered and acted in the best way. For to have nothing else in mind or on the tongue besides these things, but to follow the judgment and words which were conceived by the Spirit, believe me, I would account of the greatest consequence.
B. You speak rightly; but you will not persuade your adversaries to agree with you. For, just like calves that are separated and wanton, they are carried away at random wherever they please, and having abandoned the best and most excellent pasture, they rush into thorns and tri-
briars, being drawn away by the words of certain senseless false teachers, over whom perhaps even the Word of Wisdom itself has wept. For He says, A "Woe to you who have left the straight paths, to walk in the ways of darkness; who rejoice in evils, and delight in the perversity of evil, whose paths are crooked, and their ways winding."
A. You speak well. It would be most fitting for one to lament over them together with the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "Who will give to my head water, and to my eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep for this people day and night?" For he who, when it was possible to choose the knowledge of the truth, has senselessy lapsed into deceit and corruption and into profane false doctrines, how is he not henceforth worthy to be mourned? B "And they went out from among us," as one of the holy disciples of the Savior has written, "but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us." And on what ground, pray, have they decided to criticize a confession of faith so upright and most accurate, and which has nothing anywhere that requires correction, that is to say, C the confession of faith?
B. Yes, they say. For we will rightly censure the term "consubstantial," asserting that it is a new-fangled word and unwritten, that is to say, not contained in the God-inspired Scriptures.
A. Most foolishly would they say this, my friend. For the word does no harm at all where that which is signified by it is plainly true. You yourself would also grant, would you not, that what I say is true?
B. Most assuredly.
A. See then if we are not sometimes accustomed to apply other expressions of this kind to the nature of God, although they are unknown to the holy and divine Scriptures.
B. What kind do you refer to?
A. For if anyone were to call the Divine D incorporeal and without shape, and unquantified and without magnitude, would his discourse stray from what is fitting? And if he should further say that it is uncircumscribed and subject to no king, would anyone think that he was saying nothing relevant, even though he were thinking the truth?
B. Certainly, that would be drivel.
A. Why then must they rather, with a certain headlong audacity, childishly criticize the term "consubstantial," proscribing as foreign and unusual a term so highly significant and most philosophical, even though the fact is true and acknowledged among those who have wisely and learnedly examined the divine mysteries, namely that the Son is begotten for us from the very substance of God and the Father, and will not be degenerate, according to what they think proper, nor yet alien to the Begetter, but consubstantial with Him, and conformed, and of the same nature? For I shall not be at all ashamed to use any word that contributes to signifying what is true and correct. For God is altogether placed above genus and specific difference; but if...
we were to refuse those things by which one might be called A even to a slight knowledge of the essence that is above all things, we shall thereby be unbelieving and ignorant, indeed taught from nowhere who the God and Word truly is by nature, but oscillating and tossed about by every wind, as it is written. But if, having become terrified and putting them away, we were to reject this altogether—that we might at least see through a glass and in an enigma, and know in part—we shall all be in equal measure like to deaf and senseless stones, "an useless burden of the earth," as one of the Greek poets has said. B B. But, they say, where does Scripture use the word "consubstantial"? A. You compel our discourse to revolve upon the same point, my friend. For where did it title Him God of all, incorporeal, without figure, uncircumscribed, and subject to the authority of no one? Yet these things are so by nature, whether they wish it or not. If, therefore, we think rightly, those words which contribute to the knowledge of the truth ought not to be excluded. For would they suppose that God lied in what He said to Moses: "I am who I am"? "For this," He says, "is my name, and a memorial forever unto generations of generations." But I do not think they have fallen into such folly as to dare to conceive in their mind that God is not who He is. For it is truly, and that name suits Him alone properly and uniquely, even if it happens to be transferred to others by abuse of language. From this, indeed, we say that the ancients formed the word "essence" C as well, and that with the best of right, so that if someone should say the Son is of the same nature and consubstantial with the Father, we should not judge that he has coined an insolent word, but that he has used a term of the kind which holds the primary place, so to speak, in Holy Scripture. For derivative names do not hold fast in themselves as if in their own proper place, but are born from a first root, as it were, and a primitive source. Wherefore, if they contend that that word "consubstantial" is alien to sacred custom and usage, they sin against the true and legitimate mode of deriving language. For from "the Being" comes "essence," and "consubstantial." Moreover, laboring with such great ignorance, they also carry away with this word the others through which it is permitted to us to contemplate, via a glass and an enigma, to be sure, and to conceive subtle images of the Divinity in our mind. D B. But what if they say the Son is not "consubstantial" with the Father, but rather "like in essence"? A. They will not speak correctly, my good man; but first they will be caught dissenting among themselves, having maliciously rejected this word as though it did not exist in the Scriptures. For if they claim that the Son must be called "consubstantial," or if not this, then—according to their mind—"like in essence," whoever it may be
A that holds this opinion, the name of "essence" nonetheless creeps in for us through both terms. But they adulterate the word—I mean "consubstantial"—as spurious and erroneous, and discordant with the divine Scriptures; and yet, why do they not cry out against things like this, but rather receive it again, and inscribe it among the most approved terms? If, therefore, anyone allowed them to call the Son "like in essence" (homoiousios) to the Father, then what do such men seem to you to be doing?
B. They act with no small injustice, and they tremble at the power of the word, inasmuch as it demonstrates the truth—both generally and very clearly.
A. Do not suppose the matter is otherwise, B my good sir. For they are puffed up like youths in their own unbridled speech and in the impious dogmas of their own teachers; they rob the Son of his natural relation and affinity toward God and the Father, and, perhaps out of pity, they barely allow him a depiction and likeness, so that it might appear that he is the least bit different from those that are fashioned in the image, or at least formed in the quality of their ways toward the divine and incorrupt beauty.
B. How do you mean?
A. Do you not hear, my friend, Christ commanding and clearly saying: "Be merciful, just as your Father who is in heaven is"? (Luc. vi, 36).
B. I do.
A. Do you not understand, then, that the quality of our ways C shapes us, and, in a manner of speaking, the divine character is impressed upon us through the exercise of virtue? For the divine nature is a good thing, changelessly and substantially; and we ourselves, too, by imitation, might be seen as such, if we set our desire and zeal upon all excellent things by deliberate choice. For we would certainly not think—if we have a right mind—that those who have the divine image shining in their own souls by the quality of their morals possess a substantial and immutable likeness with Him, D and one that extends equally to all His natural properties; for if we admitted that, we would be granting that God is like us, with no distinction intervening. For we were created in His image and likeness (Gen. 1, 26). But the matter is not so: it is very far from it; for we are separated by an infinite interval. For we are not simple by nature; but God is simple, and composition does not fall into Him, but He has entire perfection in Himself, lacking nothing. Every corporeal nature is composed of certain parts, which concur to the completion of one whole. And we indeed are earth, as far as the flesh is concerned, corruptible and fading, similar to the grasses and lilies in the field. But God is placed above these. Add that the soul of man, owing to its lightness, takes on various changes from virtue to vice, and again from vice to virtue. But God is, as it were, fixed and stabilized in His own goods, and suffers no migration from one thing to another: and is
A of a substantial stability, not of will and reason. It is clear, therefore, that in created things there is not a natural likeness to God, but that it is discerned in action, in a certain manner, and in the quality of their habits.
B. B It is not said without reason, for since angels who did not keep their own principality fell away from the fellowship of God, and we likewise ourselves, yet we have suffered no loss in our nature. For we have not been utterly blotted out from the nature of things, but we still exist, though destitute of virtue. But as if deprived of the knowledge of a certain science or art, through our excessive facility and proclivity toward vice, we have been called back again to our pristine state through Christ, by whom we are reformed to that first and exemplary beauty. Nor indeed do we say that we attain such glory by His aid as if we were passing from human into another nature, but that we are transferred from evil habits to a better fruit and mind.
A. Therefore it is not obscure, C Hermias, that even though the characters of the divine image shine forth in us who strive with a ready mind to act well, just as you yourself have also just now confessed, we are not, however, one and the same in all respects with God because of a likeness to Him. For nothing would prevent us, if the matter were so, from being of the same nature as our Maker. For those things which are referred to one another, and have a natural likeness in every way between themselves, no reason, I think, would separate from a natural communion with one another. For is not an angel similar by nature to an angel, and man to another man?
B. Yes, indeed.
A. Therefore, this word "consubstantial," although it signifies primarily a natural identity, is cast aside as worthless by those who hold only twisted opinions; D yet they most willingly admit that which they themselves have devised, namely, that which they call "similar in essence," casting an external likeness upon the Word, and through extreme craftiness hiding their blasphemy. And they name Him God and Son, and also Savior and Redeemer, yet not believing Him to be Son by nature, nor God in truth, persuaded by certain wretched little reasonings which they collect from secular wisdom. They finally, as much as in them lies, enroll Him among men who are formed to the image of God by a likeness of purpose and will, and they wretchedly inscribe Him among creatures, saying that He is not consubstantial, but only "similar in essence." And yet, why on earth—and with good reason—might someone ask them, when they reject the term, and repudiate it as if it were foreign and insolent, do you not allow him who speaks it with you to go unpraised? I think they would be stuck at this. Indeed, it will not be difficult to understand, even if they stay silent, that they fear and adulterate the meaning of "consubstantial," not because it is derived from God, as they imagine and say,
A but because it is indicative of the truth, declaring the Son to be of no other nature than truly from the very nature of God and the Father.
B. You speak excellently.
A. For I think, as is likely, that those who have chosen to fight against God have forgotten the voice of the Savior, clearly and openly crying out that he is the fruit and offspring of the ineffable nature, and not of that which has been brought into being and has had its existence in time. For, he said, "I am not of this world; you are of this world." B And again: "You are from below; I am from above." And furthermore, the wise John writes concerning him: "He who comes from above is above all." For what else could "from above" mean, if not that he is entirely from the nature that is highest and excels all things? And what does "not being of the world" mean, if not that he is removed from any kinship with any of the things that have been generated, having as his sole source his own Father, God?
B. But if they should wish that "from above" not be understood as you have just stated, but that it means he is not from the lower and earthly human nature, but perhaps from heaven or some other nature that far excels ours, what should we then answer them?
A. What else but this? And what peculiar thing could one observe in the Son's nature and glory if they say he is such a Son as they have fashioned for themselves? C For is not every one of the holy angels also from above, and does he not come to us, that is, from heaven? And do not the Thrones, and Powers, and Dominations, and the Seraphim themselves vastly excel us according to the principles inherent in their nature? If, therefore, there is no preeminence in the Son, but he himself is seen to be constrained by these same natural measures, he will differ in nothing, I think, from the rational creatures who sometimes come to us from above, "ministering spirits sent forth for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation." But he would be endowed with the honor of deity as something added from outside, and he would falsely fable, saying: "I am the truth." For where or how will that which is not as it is named in the Holy Scriptures be the truth? And what, moreover, is that which they also D say, that the Son is not of this world?
B. I will explain. They say he is not consubstantial with God and the Father, but while they make him in some way lesser than the ineffable nature, they have kept for him an excellence beyond the creation. For they do not say he is of the same nature as created things, but that he holds a kind of middle place, or that he transcends the reasoning of nature, not being joined to the begetter proximately and substantially.
A And yet not [as if] he were entirely tending downwards, that is, into created things.
A. Therefore, if they would wish to explain the nature of the Son clearly and openly—without blushing, I should think—they might say that he is neither God by nature, nor yet begotten. For if he has gone forth from the substance of God and the Father, and yet transcends the nature of created things, he has certainly ceased to be true God, and I do not see how he could escape being numbered among created things.
B. You grasp it very well. And indeed, to confirm their opinion, they say that he has been named the mediator of God and men, for no other reason, I suspect, than this.
A. But what is more stupid than these men? Our enemies are foolish, as it is written. For how could they not be at the furthest remove from a wise and irreproachable mind, if they think that they can overcome the dogmas of the truth with their frigid inventions? For our holy and most wise Paul—or rather, the whole chorus of the saints—has established for us a twofold discourse regarding the Son, after he was united to the flesh, that is, after he became man according to complete likeness, except for sin alone. Wherefore, weaving for us a varied tradition of the mysteries, at one time they demonstrate the Only-Begotten as still naked, and alien to the conditions of a creature, and in no way entangled with our nature; at another time, however, as though shaded by the form of a servant, yet firmly clinging to the goods suitable to his nature, and immutably adorned with the dignity of the Godhead. For that man inspired by the Spirit B demonstrates that he is always the same, and knows nothing of the shadow of turning or of change, saying: "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and for ever."
B. What does this contribute to their opinion?
A. That although one ought to bring to the sacred Scriptures a mind that is neither sluggish nor remiss, they play in a certain way with such holy things, having turned aside I know not how from the straight path, and slipped and fallen into a crooked path. For what is commonly said, that one must walk the royal road, we would say to be nothing other than that one must deflect neither too far to the right nor to the left. Consider, in fact, how inconsiderately they are carried to whatever they please, not weighing or C examining which things in holy Scripture belong to the Word alone—that is, as he is understood to exist before the incarnation—and which things belong to him after he has already undergone our likeness. For if they think that no account is to be taken of these, and that whatever is written is to be accepted in this way, rashly and inconsiderately, let them tell me, I pray, what prevents them from—if it is said that he eats, and that he takes sleep, and that he cannot walk without labor, for he was wearied from the journey; D and what is even beyond these, that he died, I say, and that he needed food...
A and was subject to toil and infirmity, and was even a partaker of death, while yet confessing him to be the Word of God? Therefore, do they not say that the distinction of such things is most necessary for us, to divide and answer for each in the time that is fitting? B Most necessary: for how could it be otherwise? A Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated that it is altogether necessary and most useful to discern each of the things that have been delivered to us concerning Him in the divine oracles, hear now how Paul describes what is according to nature: C “Who, being,” he says, “the brightness of the glory of the Father, and the express image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” And elsewhere, again: “For the Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” And this indeed is concerning the Only-Begotten, not yet conceived as being with flesh. But concerning the same, already born as we are and in the flesh: “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” D Does it not indeed seem that, if the meaning of both be considered, the nature of the things fights against itself? The brightness of the glory of God and the Father, the character of the divine substance, he who bears all things by the word of his power, the living and active and most sharp Word, is said to offer up prayers and supplications, and that with tears, as if to ward off the approach of death? But “in the days,” he says, “of his flesh,” that is to say, when the Word, being God, became flesh, according to the Scriptures, and was not made in man as in the saints, in whom he truly dwells by participation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is a two-fold discourse concerning the Son. We must, therefore, refer those things which are of God to him as to God, and those which are ours, that is to say, human things, to him as having become like us. We must very carefully reject that disorderly and indiscriminate confusion of things, which steals away the exact and accurate comprehension of meanings, and not a little mars the beauty of the truth. B You speak rightly. A When, therefore, he is called Mediator, one should not think that the name denotes the substance of the Only-Begotten; far from it; but rather, one should refer it to the obedience of Christ. For thus he will destroy foolish counsels, and every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and will bring into captivity every intellect
A into the obedience of God, as it is written.
B. You speak the truth. But of these things enough has been said, since they possess nothing of doubt within them. I would very much like, however, to inquire from you what we ought to consider the mode of the Son's mediation to be. For this will show the deceitful argument of the heterodox to be obsolete.
A. Come then, if you please, and let our discourse turn to this point as well. We must, first of all, investigate when Scripture assigned to the Son the role of mediator. Paul therefore said: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all," and I believe he indicates no other time for the Son's mediation than that final one, when, as he himself says, "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," though he was God and Lord, so that he might gain us for God the Father through himself and reconcile all things, as it is written, "making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven," as mediator and man. And so, "we are ambassadors for Christ, be you reconciled to God," Paul again said under the person of Christ. B For since, in a manner of speaking, human nature could not approach to the bare and simple glory of the Godhead because of its own inherent weakness, the Only-Begotten profitably assumed our likeness, so that, by revealing the ineffable will of God and the Father, he might make us spiritual worshippers, no longer fixed to the shadows of types, and addicted to the Law which was able to perfect nothing, but that, because God is Spirit, we ourselves might exert ourselves to worship and serve him in spirit and in truth. For did not the most excellent Isaiah himself also say to us that a child has been born to us and a Son given, and that his name is called the Angel of the great counsel?
B. You have spoken excellently. But if, besides this, you wish to confirm these things more fully by bringing forward to demonstrate the mediation of Christ some ancient testimony, truly you will earn my great gratitude.
A. C Turning then to Moses himself, the priest of the sacred mysteries, and eager to erect, as it were, a manifest image of the mediation of Christ from the virtue of his deeds and words, we would rightly demonstrate our doctrine to be accurate in every respect. For to chide, I think, and always to rebuke our adversaries because they cling to their own opinions, even if they are contrary to the holy Scriptures, and meanwhile to strike against the same reef, I would certainly judge not to be devoid of the ultimate madness.
B. You speak rightly.
A. Since, therefore, the Israelites, having shaken off the D hard servitude... (of the Egyptian land)
and broken the yoke of slavery, had encamped at the mountain called Sinai, and since it seemed good to God to draft laws as instructors for their future actions, He commanded them to gather under the mountain and to wash their garments, so that thus purified they might then approach for an unusual vision of God. And when this was carried out, at the command of Moses, A “The Lord descended in the form of fire.” And there were globes of smoke swirling and rising, and a dark cloud, and flashes of fire, and darkness, and a storm, and everything productive of extreme terror, and a piercing sound of trumpets. And indeed, Moses led the people out to meet God at the foot of the mountain. For it is written thus. This event was, I think, a type of the mediation of Christ. For He says clearly: B “No one comes to the Father except through me.” For we do not approach God and the Father in any other way than through Him, having wiped away every old scar and having first cleansed every kind of defilement, and having clothed our mind, as it were, with the purity in Christ. “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” the divine word said to us. Therefore, the washing of the garments signified the power of spiritual purity. Do you not acknowledge that this too is true, being persuaded by probable reasoning?
B. Entirely.
A. Since, then, God had descended in the form of fire, although He displayed a sensible glory not overly unusual to those who watched, nevertheless the Israelites could by no means bear the sight of Him face to face; but, seized with fear and trembling, C they besought the leader of the people, I mean Moses, and even said: “Do you speak to us, and let not God speak to us, lest we die.” See then clearly how they were asking for one to mediate, since they were obviously unable to approach the pure glory of God. Come then, as if from a clear image of the things just said to us, let us move to the Only-Begotten, who, since it was not possible for Him to reach us with the naked divine glory, that He might teach the will of God and Father, became like us, a mediator of God and men. For “He Himself is our peace,” according to the Scriptures. Do not, however, think that I am telling a lie when I compare the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Christ. D But from this, as I believe, you will learn more easily. For summing up in what is called Deuteronomy the things concerning the assembly of the sons of Israel, He says thus: “You shall be perfect before the Lord your God. For these nations, whom you are dispossessing, they will listen to omens and divinations; but the Lord your God has not given you such things. The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall hear Him. According to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘We shall not add to hear the voice of the Lord our God, and we shall not see this great fire anymore, lest we die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Right is all that they have spoken. I will raise up a prophet for them from the midst of their brothers like you; and I will put my word in His mouth...
and He shall speak to them according to whatever I shall command Him. And the man who does not listen to the words of that prophet, whatever He shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance upon him.’ A Does not the frailty of human nature clearly demonstrate, as if in types and shadows, even in the case of Moses, the most absolute necessity for a mediator? Yet one must consider this.
B. In what way, you ask?
A. When the Israelites came to Moses, they said, ‘Speak you to us, and let not God speak to us, lest we die.’ And they asked this of Moses at Horeb when they had gathered there, at the time when God was in the appearance of fire upon Mount Sinai. But although the Creator praised their B statement as having been spoken and judged correctly, He was at the same time, as it were, prefiguring the truth itself for us in types and promising the mediation through Christ, saying: ‘Right is all that they have spoken. I will raise up a prophet for them from the midst of their brothers like you.’ A mediator, clearly, and one who would convey the divine words from above, and who would declare to the people the will of the ineffable and unspeakable Nature—something which it is easy to see was perfectly fulfilled through Christ Himself. For He cried out clearly: ‘I have not spoken of my own authority, but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak.’ And again: ‘The words that I speak are not mine, but His who sent me.’ The wise John also writes about Him: ‘He who has received His testimony has set his seal that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God.’ Do you then, my dear friend, support the truth of what I am saying, or do you refuse to give your assent?
B. By no means.
A. Therefore, let this have been said by us concerning Moses. Do you wish C that we should speak of something else besides this, which might express to us in an ineffable way the mode of the Son’s mediation; or do you think, leaving that aside, that we should pursue another path?
B. But why, my dear friend, should we leave aside the subject at hand, from which we hope for much benefit, and turn to investigate other reasons, when it will be better to do this now at our leisure, with no one hindering us?
A. I shall then go where it pleases you, and indeed I am already beginning. For Korah, Dathan, and Abiron were indeed born of the tribe and lineage of Levi; but they were not included in the lot of those appointed to the priesthood, but were among those who performed the menial service D within the tabernacle of the testimony. These were Levites, and this was their allotted portion. Afterwards, because they foolishly desired the honor of the priesthood and, in their folly, could not grasp the measure of that divine honor, they defected and with singular audacity came forward, and they stirred up the congregation against Moses and Aaron, and with bitter words [against] the otherwise gentle...
penalties for their audacity before Him who judges righteously, and they perished with their entire household. For
and the death that consumes us, and crushes us with death: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam." A And "hell also enlarged its soul," as the prophet Isaiah says, "and opened its mouth, so as not to cease." Although it had depopulated the whole earth, having spread an inescapable and impenetrable net, [it would have continued to,] had not the only-begotten Word of God, according to the good pleasure of God and the Father, descended and come to us from, as it were, the tabernacle above, and in the heavens. For he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, so that both having been named high priest, and as in the place of incense, offering himself for us to God and the Father, he might stop the destruction. For he stood, says the Scripture, "between the living and the dead, and the plague ceased." Is it not therefore easy for one to discern from these things also, that Jesus has become the mediator of God and men? B For when the battle had been dissolved as it were, and every ancient fortification had been torn down, those things which were once separated have come together, that is, God and humanity, with Christ mediating, and through himself binding the lower things to the higher. And thus the divine Paul said that "He himself is our peace, who made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition." And again: "Being justified therefore by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ."
B. Shall the Only-begotten be considered a mediator for this reason alone, that he drove away the sin which kept us from the love and intimacy of God, and restored us to our former state, having destroyed the enmity? Or, if there is some other reason, you will surely not begrudge telling one who is inquiring and desires to learn.
A. I shall do so, and not hesitantly. I will indeed say that he has undoubtedly destroyed that enmity in his flesh, as it is written, and having become, as it were, a reconciler and mediator for us, he has offered to God and the Father those who were separated as far as possible from the love of God on account of the love of worldly pleasure, and because we worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and he has gained us, having justified us by faith; yet we do not assert that he is called mediator solely on account of this dispensation of the matter, but that another C secret and mystical reason for this matter also accrues to him, [which pertains] to the name and the reality of mediation.
B. In what way, then, do you say this?
A. And how could one [speak] otherwise than according to that which is written: "Let this mind be in each of you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man"? D For he, being of God and the Father...
and God the Word in him, lowered himself into this state of emptying, not by being compelled to do so by anyone, A but by the good pleasure of the Father and according to his own will; and he became man, while fully and entirely preserving the dignity of his own nature inviolate and unadulterated within himself, yet assuming the human nature in accordance with the economy. And he is understood as one Son out of both, for the divine and human nature have concurred and united into one, inexpressibly and ineffably, and in a way that is beyond understanding, joined into a unity. And we do not, of course, say that God the Word has been transmuted into the nature of earthly flesh, or into the flesh of the Word himself—for I would attribute this to the malady of the most extreme insanity—but rather that, while each remains within its own proper definition and reason, the concurrence into a unity, which is lasting to the utmost and indivisible, is what the name of the so-called "concurrence" B indicates here. For the same one is God and man at once. And on the one hand, when you speak of God, you do not strip him of humanity after the union; nor, on the other hand, when you name him man, do you rob him of the dignities of divinity, if you have any care for thinking correctly. And he is the Only-Begotten and the Word, as having sprung forth and been begotten from God the Father; but he is also the Firstborn, when he became man and was among many brethren. Just as the name "Only-Begotten," being proper to the Word, is preserved even when he is united to flesh, so the name "Firstborn," though it would not properly be his, became his proper name with the flesh. He is therefore also fittingly understood as Mediator C, by showing that those things which are far separated in nature and have an immeasurable distance between them—namely, divinity and humanity—have been joined and united in himself, and by reuniting us through himself to God and the Father. For he is of the same nature as God, since he is from him and in him; and he is also of our same nature, for he is also from us and in us. For according to his humanity, he is not different from us, but is similar in all things, save only for sin, the Emmanuel.
B. You speak most correctly. But the discussion now necessarily brings us to this point: that we must also say that the Son is consubstantial with God and the Father.
A. Consubstantial, certainly: if indeed he is truly from him and in him, according to nature, and consubstantially. D For just as he would not be truly and precisely, nor even in the appropriate order, understood or called consubstantial with us unless he had become man, so he would not be from God and in God, unless he were bound into a unity with him by natural reasons. But neither would humanity be a participant in the divine nature in any other way, unless it had obtained this through the Mediator, the Son, having attained a certain natural mode, as it were, of conjunction. And it is permitted to hear the Son thus addressing the heavenly Father: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou me
A hast sent. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one."
B. But if they should say that the unity of the Son with the Father is perhaps such as is understood of us ourselves, what then are we to think? For it is written: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." For since there were very many souls in all of them, he said that theirs became one, B expressing the name and the reality of unity, not by determining it from the nature itself, but rather attributing it to the indivisible inclinations of the will, because they had one and the same purpose and volition. And since the Son is in all things of one mind and of the same will with the Father, for that reason He is one with Him. For these are the things those wretches sound everywhere.
A. But they will be found to have filled their own minds with extreme folly in this matter as well. For there is no thought so absurd, as it seems, and so weak and abject, that does not take possession of the minds of light-headed men, and that most easily. "For the fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will understand vanity, to practice error, and to speak against the Lord," as it is written. For how could anyone doubt that they are filled with the C ultimate folly and vanity, when they dare to assert and persist in the view that the union of the Son with the Father and God is not natural, but rather one of choice? For if the matter is so, it will in no way, I think, differ from those who are sons by adoption, and who have been admitted into the title of deity by the will of the Father, and who have acquired for themselves this so noble and illustrious glory by the splendor of their virtue. But let them tell me what further prevents each of the saints, who has a mind to feel and to do those things in which God delights, and who in some way makes the Lord's will his own, from using the supernatural voice of the Son, and addressing the Father with these words: "As I and thou are one." Let them show such a voice as having been uttered by some saint. But they will not do so: it is very far from it. For one may see the contrary, I think, in those who, having attained D the highest peak of piety, nevertheless proclaim themselves sinners in many ways, and are conscious of their own nature. And it would perhaps not be difficult to heap up countless voices collected from the holy Scriptures; but to leave a field of exercise for the studious, I would not consider to be beside the point. But I will turn to the things which they maintain (for that will be better in the end), and I will speak again of our own unity. For we have surely been gathered and brought together into unity through faith, yet we do not differ from one another by diversity of essence, although each one is in a way divided into his own hypostasis. For we are of the same species, and there is one rationale and definition of essence for all, which is predicated equally of all. However, we do not attain unity with God in mere and sole inclinations of the will, but other things for us
A unite in this, something ineffable and necessary. For as the divine Paul has initiated us, "We, being many, are one body, for we all partake of that one bread." For do you not know that the Gentiles are made concorporate with Christ, having attained unity with him through faith, and it is evident also through the mystical blessing? B
B. Assuredly so. A. Therefore, we shall examine that the unity in us, and in Christ, is at once natural and of the will. B. How do you mean? For I do not quite follow. A. But there is nothing difficult in these matters, my friend; but what I say, anyone who thinks and tastes aright will understand without trouble, if he considers in his mind, first, that we, as many as we are human, are bound together into mutual identity by natural law, but we are also united at the same time in another way. For though separated, as it were, into individual subsistence—I mean that according to which one man is Peter or John, another Thomas or Matthew—we have become concorporate in Christ, fed by the one flesh, and sealed to unity by the one holy Spirit; and since Christ is indivisible (for he is in no way divided), we are all one in him. And for this reason he said to the Father in heaven: "That they may be one, even as we are one." C See, therefore, how in Christ and the holy Spirit we are all one, both according to the body and according to the spirit. Therefore, those who choose to think otherwise are to be rebuked, as not even rightly understanding those things written concerning us.
B. Indeed, they are to be rebuked; for you have spoken rightly. Yet, being inquisitive no less, I will ask this: shall we admit that the Son is united to God and Father just as we are to one another, or shall we grant that there is some other unity among them beyond this? A. We say that the Son is united also to the Father, after our manner. For he is undoubtedly also coessential with the Begetter by all means, if indeed he is truly Son and from him. But since he exists in his own hypostasis, and is believed to exist in such a way—not as we are separated from one another, or by the law of bodies, by having any complete separation—I speak of diversity in the particulars, but he has a natural and ineffable unity, not a kind of confusion D of the hypostases that are affected mutually, as it pleases some, so that the same is Father and Son, but since each is and subsists, and is said to have his own hypostasis, the identity of essence constitutes the unity. B. Do you say, then, that the Son is in an own hypostasis, or in an essence other than that of the Father? A. Not in an essence other than that which is of God, but in the hypostasis which is of the Son.
A B. What then? Is essence one thing, and hypostasis another? A. Yes. For there is much discrimination and interval between them, since essence embraces individual things. B. In what way, do you say? For I am, as is evident, a little slow in such matters. A. Do you not know that it is not very worn or common for me to discourse on these things? Yet it is necessary that the sublimity of the divine excellence be summoned into an examination, albeit in a sense, as it were, in a cruder style. Thus, the significance of essence seems to pertain to something common, but the name of hypostasis is predicated and spoken of the singular things which underlie this universal: and consider this to be what I am now pointing out. B. Of what sort is that? A. We define man as a rational, mortal animal, assigning to him the definition that is appropriate to him; and we say that this definition of substance extends to all who subsist individually. Therefore, under this universal, namely man, or the definition of man, falls, I think, Thomas and Mark, or, if you like, Peter and Paul. And substance will indeed be signified in this way: yet the significance of those things which are understood individually will not yet be clear and manifest. For man, simply, is not yet Peter and Paul: but if you say Thomas or Peter, you will not remove from the definitions of substance that which is signified (for he is man nonetheless), but you will point out that he exists in such a species, and in his own particular hypostasis. Therefore, substance is indeed [predicated] of every man, especially since it brings forth the common reason of the kind: but hypostasis will be understood more conveniently of one, neither separating that which is signified from the commonality, nor, further, confounding and confusing by obscurity that which is finally singular and particular. B. I understand now; for it does not seem to me to have been explained unskillfully. B A. Because, therefore, we confess the Son to be consubstantial with God and the Father, we say that he is known in an own hypostasis, united both closely and yet distinctly, of necessity joining together extremely well, by the reasons of identity, the distinction of the persons or names, and the diversity of the hypostases, which, just as it is in the Father, so it is in the Son for this reason and this alone: that the all-embracing similarity of essence, and that identity and immutability in all things which is both in the Father and in the Son, may not in some way blot out the difference, and cause that which is singularly proper to each to be able to be distinguished only with great difficulty. For this one is the Father, and not the Son; and that one, in turn, is the Son, and not the Father. B. Therefore, if it pleases you, let us say that there are two essences: one, indeed, of the Father, and another of the Son. For thus the difference will be in a way more distinct and more manifest to everyone. A. Most certainly it will not. For beware lest you be carried away by their discourses into a reprobate sense, and C into a trivial...
A damnable way, and allow yourself to be led through bypaths and inaccessible places. B. In what way? A. For if the Father’s nature is one thing, and the Son’s another, and different from it, is it not necessary for a reason to be devised that divides and separates two things of unequal nature from one another? For how can the same substance be conceived as being one thing and another? B It is not permitted, even with men who have obtained one and the same reason of consubstantiality, to call it one substance and another, and to assign to each thing a reason of community as if it were its own proper and peculiar one. For if we were to do this, and introduce into substances a kind of mode of necessary difference, so that they are some things and others, the universal will vanish into nothing. Or will not that difference produce and beget in these things diversity of substantial difference, and alteration in their natural definition? B. I think so. A. It will remain, therefore, even against their will, to say that the Son is no longer consubstantial with God the Father, but rather different and of a different nature, and alienated from the definitions of the deity, if he is set in a reason of his own, having departed from the essence of God the Father. B. For they contend that the Son exists C otherwise than as the Father is conceived to exist by nature. Therefore, leaving behind the declaration of consubstantiality, and attaching to it what is strange and unusual to it, they say that one must acknowledge him to be of like substance—having attached to him, as one of those things which are especially holy and most becoming, the name of mediator. A. What then? Are these things anything other than trifles and old wives' tales? For if they conceive a certain middle nature for him, and for this reason say most foolishly that he must be called a mediator, what indeed follows from this, or what kind of rationale of contemplation is brought forward, I for my part do not see; but do you yourself tell me, since I am most desirous of learning. B. What should I say to these things? A. Therefore ask and urge whether the mediator is begotten or unbegotten, truly God, or whether he is also numbered among creatures. For as to what he is, according to their opinion—neither purely God, nor clearly a creature—what place could he receive from them D among things which exist, or even, so to speak, in bare notions, even if I were willing to say it? B. I say that he is between the two, God namely and the creature; for this reason, they say, he is called a mediator. A. They will speak most obscurely and will show themselves to be most ignorant if they think so. For even if you turn your mind into every part and search more deeply into the whole nature of things, you will by no means find such a nature, perceptible by notion or reason, which is alienated from the boundaries of true deity, and exceeds the reasons of a created thing, and shows itself to be more excellent than if it had been brought into being.
Is there anything midway between the begotten and the unbegotten, things uncreated and creatures? B B. I would not concede it; for you speak rightly. A A. Therefore, we observe two natures in the universe: the one, of Him who is and remains always the same; and the other, of those whose lot it is to have been brought into existence by creation. And certainly, the nature of the Uncreated excels and surpasses all, and is eminent in every respect of excellence and sublimity; but this other is subject and, as it were, put under the feet of the Lord. You will understand this most clearly when Christ says to the crowds of Jews: "You are from below; I am from above." And that the Only-Begotten comes to us from above, the wise John also declared, saying: "He that comes from above is above all." For he thought it necessary to assign to God by nature, and to the Son who is by nature sprung from God, the highest excellence and the position which is topmost. For that "from above" is not indicative of local heights, but signifies the very substance of God and the Father—how is this not beyond dispute, when one of the holy disciples has clearly stated: "Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration"? For whether one traverses the angels, or things superior to them, and everything intermediate, and reaches the Seraphim themselves and contemplates the supreme glories, one does not overleap the nature of created things. For either something is "from above," that is, from the Father of lights, and this is indeed God; and the Son alone is "from above"—or else something is conceived as "below" and "from below," that is, it is a creature and from creation; but there is nothing at all intermediate. And indeed, if someone should question and press the adversaries in this way: "What, finally, do you thrust upon us, friends? Is this Son and mediator of yours, as you wish, begotten, or is he unbegotten? For there seems to be nothing intermediate between these." What would they answer?
B B. I think they will be at a loss, and with good reason. A A. Indeed, they will be at a loss. For truth lives and prevails, as it is written. But let us, investigating the path that leads in both directions, come, let us discuss what is probable concerning this. For if they concede that he who is mediator in this way is uncreated, and attribute to him what is the property of the deity alone according to nature, they will signify that he has passed far beyond the boundaries of mediation, and that he holds a place of dignity greater than is appropriate. For that which is set above all things is God in glory and nature, to whom "uncreated" belongs as a proper good. Consequently, such a nature should not be reckoned in the place and order of created and corruptible things. But if, passing this over, they say he is created, how shall that which is of the same genus as the creature be deemed different from it? How, then, any longer is he a mediator, being lesser than God by nature, yet again greater than the glory and nature of a created thing?
A If by reason of being unbegotten he is borne up toward the glory of the Godhead, and rises far beyond the measures of mediation into the transcendent, yet by reason of having been begotten he proceeds toward the lower regions and will take up the place of such a mediation, being measured among things that have come into being—if indeed that which is begotten is of the same genus as every begotten thing, according to the principle of having come into existence—what is this nonsensical and most unwise sophistry, which introduces as something attainable what is unreachable, and fashions for us places in nature which, I suppose, no mind could ever reach? For the discourse is novel and obscure, and yet I say it is necessary that the demonstration offered for these matters be manifest. But one might see that their villainy is cleverly contrived for the sake of deception. For since they have acted most impiously and thought most irrationally, B having behaved insolently toward the Son, and, with reckless abandon, stealing away the [glory] of His consubstantiality with the Father, they somehow filch a small scrap of glory for Him from their own shamelessness, and quietly bring Him back from the pettiness of created things. Yet, as if debarring Him from the ascent to the heights—I shall say it—so that He might not be conceived as God by nature, they allot to Him a middle place, measuring out for Him as much as they might choose of glory, as if they themselves were established as the lawgivers and arbiters of such things, considering and defining in what measure the Son should be. For just as I suppose the makers of statues—having won the reputation for craftsmanship in this—having carved the form of human shape into wood or stone, afterward embellish it with deceptive elegancies, either by variegating it with gold or adorning it with other colors; and in this way, having bewitched the minds of those who look upon them, they do not suffer them to behold the internal and hidden materials by their art, but rather compel them, in a way, to be delighted by the fleeting and external brilliance of the ornaments: C just so, I think, these men, by skillfully shadowing forth the image of the Mediator, plunder the minds of the simpler folk, and lead away as captives those who are unable to scrutinize what has been maliciously instituted and wickedly invented by them. B. You speak rightly.
A. It behooved them, therefore, if they had any regard for thinking correctly and holding a reputation not maligned, not to imagine regarding Him things that cannot be understood, nor to attempt to fabricate what no reason can grasp—things that are utterly implausible and have expression only in bare thoughts—but rather to allow the Son simply to be conceived in the natural heights of the Godhead, calculating that, since He is begotten of the Father—that is, from His substance—He will therefore possess the exact and simple account of consubstantiality with Him, since God and Father has truly confessed the Son to be the Son, and no other besides Him, saying: [Matth. XVII, 5.] «This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.» And yet, why does He not rather seem to call out: This
is the mediator, if He knew Him to be a mediator according to them? Although, in very truth, he might have spoken well even thus. For He would have pointed to Him as having already become mediator by having become man, and God the Father might reasonably have uttered such a voice. But tell me also this clearly: have they slipped into such folly A that they do not even confess Him to be the Son at all?
B. They do say that He is the Son and that He has been begotten, being ashamed, as it seems to me, to withstand the holy Scriptures openly and with naked impudence, to speak in one word: nevertheless, they do not wish Him to proceed from the very substance of the Father, nor do they deem it right to accept and understand the event of the generation naturally.
A. They persuade themselves, then, that the name of sonship and generation is in some way fictitious, and they compel others to think likewise. For you see that they exclude Him from the essence of God and the Father, overturning the true mode of generation, and so they detract from the Only-Begotten being the Son by nature. But since they are sharp and subtle, as they persuade themselves, and are carried away by their own words, how did they overlook this too? For they do not perceive, as it seems, that here also they heap insult upon the very nature of God and the Father, if they deprive it of fecundity and despoil it of the power of begetting, the types of which the nature of created things has expressed in itself, both in parturition and in the bringing forth of fruits.
B. But perhaps they will say to this also, that if the term of generation is everywhere and in every way true of those of whom it is used and spoken, it is necessary to admit and conceive of infinite numbers as begotten of God and the Father. For it is said somewhere even of the Israelites: «I have begotten and exalted sons.»
A. We shall find them, according to that which blessed David sings in the Psalms, «making excuses for sins and declining into words of wickedness.» For if the Son were indeed something else by nature than what He is and is believed to be by us, and besides this, had obtained with us the title of sonship and generation, nothing would stand in the way of these terms being said and applied to Him C abusively. But since, by doing violence to the truth and, as much as in them lies, by transferring Him into another nature, they call Him a mediator, and are shown to have foolishly concocted a myth about Him, why do they not cease to exclude Him from His inborn and substantial pre-eminence, and why, wretched men, are they not burdened by insultingly mocking with, as it were, spurious honors Him who is truly of the Father? For the Only-Begotten has not been called to the glory of adoption in the same place and number as we are, nor yet in parity with created things, nor does this appellation procure for Him an D adventitious excellence; far from it. For He would be an adoptive son, and among sons according to grace, if it were thus…
A bounded by the measures of creation. But such things as these are mere trifling and importunate chatter, and nothing other than a vexatious heap of blasphemies. That the Only-Begotten, however, would not deign to rank Himself among adoptive sons, but recognized that He possesses a divine and ineffable excellence above all, and the true dignity of sonship, you might learn easily from what He says to the Jews concerning Moses and the holy prophets: "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; do you say, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" For if, because the word of God came to them, He showed them to be gods and sons, how would He not much more be Himself Son and God, better and more truly, the very One through whom they are gods and sons? Therefore, the name "Son" is not adventitious to the Only-Begotten, but it would be a name signifying that such is His existence, just as, indeed, the name "Father" belongs to God Himself and the Father. For the Father is Father because He has begotten the Son; and the Son, in turn, is Son because He has been begotten by the Father. For this reason, I suppose, although we explain the good things that inhere in the divine nature by very many and various terms, so that we may arrive at at least a moderate knowledge of it, I say, however, that the name of "sonship" and the name of "paternity" are not to be placed among those, even though other things are rightly and blamelessly said of both. B
B. What do you mean?
A. I shall most gladly tell you, since you are so eager to ask. In a twofold way, I think, we are accustomed to signify the prerogatives that inhere in the divine nature. For it is recognized by us either from those things which it is, or from those things which it is not. For when we say it is "Life," and name it "Light," we are speaking truly of things that it is believed to be. But when we say it is not "corruptible," nor "visible," we speak from those things which it is not. For the force of the words indicates to us that it is immune to corruption and not revealed to anyone's eyes; is it not so?
B. That is true.
A. If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Father and God is Life and Light, and moreover that He is also incorruptible and invisible, shall we not think that such a person is C acting rightly and in order, if, holding the right view, he attributes these things also to the nature of the Son, so that he may also distinguish the Word, God from the Father, with the very same titles?
B. Yes, indeed.
A. And if he were to call Him King, and wish to honor Him with all the glories by which the divine nature is revered, would we not say that the Son is also a partaker of them?
B. How could we not?
A. It is utterly foolish, then, even to doubt at all that the marks of divinity, and whatsoever belongs to the glory D
and pertain to his excellence, are common to both. Nor does the Truth, that is, Christ, lie, when He says to the Father who is in heaven: "All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I have been glorified in them." If, therefore, we say that these things are present in the order and station of dignity, just as are the other things—that to the Father belongs the title of Father, and to the Son the title of Son—tell me, what will hinder or forbid us from removing the difference between those names, and calling both Fathers and Sons, if they have obtained common and equal honors, and are equally crowned with the eminence of dignities? B. But that is entirely incredible to speak or to think. For the Father will not be otherwise than what He is, that is to say, Father; and the Son likewise; for the Son remains, and He will not be considered to be the Father. A. Most rightly and truly, Hermias. You will therefore agree and assent to one who clearly demonstrates that the name of paternity is not significant of dignity A (for I think we ought to speak thus, preferring the necessary signification of the thing to the ornament of language); and furthermore, that the appellation of sonship is not [merely such an ornament] for the Son, just as life, light, and other things of the same note are said of both; but that it is the proper name for each, which shows how each one stands. B. Entirely so. A. For the force and reason of the names in a way removes confusion, and seeks a stable seat in itself, B granting to each that it be unchangeably such. For the Father is Father, and not Son, because He has begotten; and the Son, on the other hand, is Son, and not Father, because He has been begotten. Come then, if you please, let us for a moment remove from the Father, in our intellect and thought, the name of Father, and likewise from the Son the appellation of Son, and let us weigh, I pray you, how the person of each might be signified separately. Shall we perhaps do so by saying "God," or "life," or "incorruptible," C or "invisible," or "king"? But that which is signified could not be sufficiently discerned from this. For how can that which is true of both clearly demonstrate what belongs peculiarly to one? The Father is solely and truly signified by the understanding that He has begotten; and the Son is solely and truly [signified] by the understanding that He has been begotten. Therefore, that which is His own and singular is proper to each, even though other things are said of both without distinction. For those things are numbered among the natural dignities, but these are not; D instead, they signify the one as begetter and the other as begotten.
DIALOGUS II. Quod coaeternus item sit Deo ac Patri, et quod ex ipso secundum naturam genitus sit Filius.
A A. Is it not true to say, Hermias, that the discourse of truth is simple, and that it has its seat most especially in simple hearts, and is far sweeter than the labor of bees? The divine David will persuade us that this is true, saying to God, the Savior of all: “How sweet are thy words to my throat, more than honey and the honeycomb to my mouth!”
B. Truly. I myself would agree that the discourse of truth is simple and sweeter than honeycombs; but what kind of simplicity should we understand here?
A. What else could show the discourse of truth to be simple, if not that it is free from convoluted arguments and from thoughts that see in a surly and cheerless manner, and that are B put together with malice, and that reveal the strength inherent in them, not for finding the truth, but for wearing out those who are weak in it? But, if you wish, you may clearly perceive—as if on a tablet—that my argument, which has not missed what is fitting, does not stray from the truth, if you contemplate the heresy of Arius and his followers; those of whom I believe it is right to say: “If the Ethiopian change his skin, and the leopard his spots, then you may also do good, having learned evil.” For I think that in mind, the adversaries differ in no way from the leopard. For the one is spotted in various ways and bears upon its back a gathering of mixed and multi-formed colors; but these men have a mind that is uneven and disjointed, and their tongue, according to the Scripture, only with difficulty wounds the word that issues from the heart, as it is written: “Deceitful are the words of their mouth. With his neighbor he speaks peace, but in his own heart he harbors enmity.”
C A. They pretend not to oppose the glory of the Only-begotten in any way; but they wound it, just as with a sharp dart, by letting fly from their tongue words that are treacherous and difficult to bear.
B. What words are these, do you say?
A. For while they quite rightly name the Word of God the Only-begotten Son, and do not refuse to acknowledge that he has been begotten, they do violence to the argument of truth, impiously turning the notion of him into the exact opposite, and transferring him into another nature, different from that which is understood in the Father, so that he is alien to His substance and of another nature, or rather, completely removed D
A from the natural relationship of the one who is said to beget, yet not, as they themselves would have it, having begotten. And I would say that for such folly as this, there is no other cause than that B which I shall mention. B. What is that, I pray? A. That they are puffed up with great pride, and are persuaded that they can think and speak more abstruse things than others; having been exercised in quibbles and nurtured in empty arts, they are able to overcome the unwary and simple with the subtleties of their arguments. Having placed a reed staff, as it were, in their own minds—namely, worldly wisdom—and gathering up chaff of adulterated concepts, they take no thought, I suppose, of deviating from the right reason of dogmas. For they do not perceive that the sacred pair, the sons of Aaron, were consumed because they had violated what was pleasing to God and had brought strange fire to the altar, nor do they deign to listen to the Law crying out: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and you shall be anathema, just as it is. You shall utterly detest it, and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is anathema” (Deut. VII, 26). For a fire that is truly strange, and unpleasing to God, is a fervent impulse of the mind, full of diabolical wisdom, and not kindled by the Holy Scriptures. And an abomination, in turn, is a statue fashioned in the form of God. Such is the Son they fashion: resplendent indeed with honor and glorious light, and in a manner befitting God—but not true; rather, He is a statue fashioned into the likeness of God with spurious names and words befitting God. For to say that He is begotten, and to name Him Son, and yet not to judge that He is begotten and is Son by nature, what else is this but that? But to us, the treasure is in earthen vessels, and the truth is lovable, devoid of worldly wisdom and diabolical deceit. B. Truly lovable, and well said. But come now, apply yourself also to the examination of those things which they assert concerning the Father and the Son. For I would grant that this would be of great use to the hearers. A. It will indeed be of great use, I well know. And since this seems best to you to do, come, as the Greek poets say, having cast off the mooring-rope, and having left behind the shore and the harbor, as it were, let us send the ship of our D disputation out into the deep. B. Let us go, then. A. That the name and reality of "Father" is the proper belonging of God and Father, we have confirmed through what has already been discussed, and for no other reason than that He has begotten the Son from Himself. And that the name "Son" is the proper belonging of the Son, we have also provided the cause: that He is begotten of God and Father. This opinion seems to us to be placed far beyond all reproach. B. It certainly seems so; yet I will warn of this:
A for I am fearful and perturbed, when I consider whither that excursion of arguments might eventually lead us. For an opponent might surely say: "If 'Father' is the proper name and reality for God the Father, because He has begotten, and 'Son' is to be properly spoken and is the reality for the Son, because He has been begotten; and if it is true to say that the things signified do not admit of a transition of the one into the other (for the Father will always be Father, not being transformed into the Son; and indeed the Son also will be Son, not being transposed into the Father), then the 'unbegotten' will be proper to the Father, since the 'begotten' is proper to the Son." And since to be unbegotten is truly something different from being begotten, they will also have those attributes in a different way, and would certainly not be conceived as being unchanged in things that are same.
A. What else then would such men do but corrupt the beauty of the simplicity that is understood in Christ, just like those who debase gold coinage? For observe how they twist the straight word of truth, and exult in the inventions of a counterfeit wisdom; and speaking arrogant things, they think, like the boastful Goliath, that they will swallow up the congregation of the Lord.
B. It is indeed so. But know that this is what they will say, and they will be instructed by the things I just mentioned.
A. But it is certainly possible for anyone now to see that they are cast down from right reason and a sound mind, and that they ought to pity themselves in their own ignorance, if they shall contend that these things are right, and be like those who say: "We have made a lie our hope, and by falsehood we shall be protected." For they are ignorant, I suppose, first of all, B that "unbegotten" and "father" are not the same, nor do they carry the same meaning. For if something is a father, it does not immediately and in every respect imply that it is unbegotten; nor again, if something is unbegotten, is it for that reason a father. Or if this is not the case, then there are many unbegotten things, for there are many fathers. And as many as are the fathers, that many, the test of our thoughts would show us, are also the unbegotten things. C For if we should examine the nature of existing things, and discern as best we can the definition belonging to each, we would not see that all things have been brought into existence through generation. Although the discourse of the perverse is truly cold and powerless, since "unbegotten" does not signify any one thing strictly—for there are many unbegotten things, and they are elsewhere different in nature by specific differences. What, then, would they say if someone were to happen to ask: "What does the name 'Father' mean to signify? Is it the not having been begotten by anyone, or rather, that He has begotten?"
B. That He has begotten, I suppose.
A. Correct. If, then, the law of fatherhood has sought to exalt fathers in every way so that they are unbegotten, why do we not ourselves, having been proven to be fathers, also strive for that prerogative of being unbegotten? But if the law of nature does not tend toward that, but toward the bringing forth of offspring, and the reality cannot be otherwise: why, by corrupting the truth... D
do they say that the unbegotten is the peculiar property of God and the Father? Even though the appellation of "father," even among ourselves, can signify nothing else than the single fact that he has begotten.
**B.** But what do you think we ought to answer, should anyone ask whether God and the Father is begotten or unbegotten?
**A.** I would say, if we wish to think correctly, that he is indeed unbegotten; yet he is not unbegotten *because* he is father, but because he was not begotten by anyone; rather, he exists in an unbegotten manner, possessing in himself and from himself his own Son in a begotten manner. For it is on this account that he is called Father.
**B.** Be it so, they say; yet "to exist in an unbegotten manner" and "to exist in a begotten manner" will be different things, and would not be understood as the same. For if one thing is not different from another, but you think they are the same, let the distinction again vanish between the two, and let the property of the names be the same for the Father and the Son, just as is the case with "incorruptible," "invisible," and the rest.
A **A.** It is indeed certain and confessed by all that to exist in an unbegotten manner is different from that which is by generation; for we shall not overturn the order of what is proper and true. Yet in such cases, the difference of the names does not suggest a diversity in God, insofar as He is God, but only signifies that He is not such, that is to say, not begotten. What, then, will those who muddle and confuse everything together answer to this, even though they possess a keen mind regarding these things, and are, above all, supercilious and arrogant?
**B.** It has fallen to God and the Father, then, to be unbegotten.
**A.** Not in the least; for as soon as God is understood, all things that are His are also understood, and nothing can be conceived as an accident in Him. And do not be surprised, for even with us ourselves, this is seen to be the case quite easily by those who desire to look without toil. Even though we are brought into existence in time, we are born together B with all things that inhere substantially and are inseparably affixed to us. Therefore, nothing can rightly be considered as an accident in God. And if accidents, even those that naturally inhere in the substances of some things, do not strictly possess their own independent and determined existence—such as we understand in man or in any other thing—but are seen rather regarding the substances of things or in them: what place is to be thought the "unbegotten" has in God? C For if the unbegotten is something in itself, and exists in its own separate existence—and this, as they assert, is the property of God and the Father—it would be something other than the One Whose property it is. For that which belongs to someone, and exists independently, is certainly something other than that to whom it belongs. And thus, at last, that simple nature of the Father is doubled, being composed for us of Father and Unbegotten. One must attend, however, not to the persuasion of their empty wisdom, D but to the words of the Savior, who very accurately distinguishes both His own and the
A nature of Him who begat. For He by no means called Him Unbegotten, but He named Him Father to us.
B. “Milk the milk, and there shall be butter,” the oracle of Solomon sings to us, and wise, as it seems to me, is the revelation. For to incite one whose mind is drunken with secret contemplations and filled with divine teachings to bring forth something useful would be, in my judgment, nothing else than a desire for him to be fed, as it were, with milk, on words pertaining to piety. B Accordingly, if you will allow it, I will present myself as such a person, and I will often interrupt and urge you on, while my mind desires to know what should be opposed to our adversaries. Answer me, therefore, as I ask this as well: Does the Son, they say, know the Father to be Unbegotten?
A. Yes, for I will by no means deny it, nor would I ever be found contending against things that are evident. Yet He knows Him to be Unbegotten, just as He knows Him to be incorruptible, immortal, and invisible; but He made mention of none of these things, rather He named Him Father, saying: “Holy Father, keep them in thy truth.” And again: “I confess to thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” And furthermore: “I came forth from the Father and have come.” What then? When He established the law regarding holy baptism, C and laid the foundation of blameless faith for all nations under the sun, did He not pass over those other things—I mean the incorruptible, and the unbegotten, and the rest—and command us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? In my judgment, He very prudently passed over those titles through which it was not necessary to declare the Holy Trinity to us, and He chose and preferred above the others those names which make clear to us the very distinct individual existence of each of the things signified. For those names which are attached to the highest essence are, so to speak, common to the whole Godhead; and if one should name the divine nature, he would at once show us the entire Holy Trinity as in one meaning—that which is understood in one Godhead—yet not yet D distinctly [showing] the person of each, individually and separately. But by saying Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, He makes the declaration not from those things by which the whole nature of the Godhead exists indistinguishably, but from those by which the identity of the Holy Trinity of essence is distinguished in individual hypostases, with the discourse assigning the fitting name to each thing apprehended, and placing in individual hypostases those things which are substantially united. For the highest root, beyond which there is absolutely nothing, you will conceive to be the Father; and that which has come forth from the highest root and has been begotten, you will acknowledge to be the Son—not produced in time, like created things, nor revealing the beauty of His own nature any less than the Father’s, but at once co-eternal, and in all respects equal to the Father, except for this one thing: that He begat—for this would belong to God and Father alone. And you will call the Holy Spirit the one who proceeds naturally from God the Father through the Son, and...
just as by the image of the breath from the mouth, signifying to us His own existence, so too will you adore the one and consubstantial nature of all, the Queen, while guarding the clear and unconfused peculiarity of the three hypostases in their proper existences. B B. You have spoken most excellently; for there is no way that these things could not be thus with us. But they say, nevertheless, that by that term "unbegotten," the nature of God and Father is defined uniquely, and so the Son is henceforth clearly revealed to be of a different, secondary nature, if the "begotten" is not the same as the "unbegotten."
A. Therefore, O good sirs—for so I would deservedly address them—if the "begotten" defines the nature of the Son, and for that reason you say that He is of a different nature and alien to the substance of the Father, what then follows from this? C The arguments of a frenzied mind are indeed most grave; but the blasphemous opinions boldly invade the substance of the Only-Begotten, casting down the Most High to inferior things, even though He says clearly to us, as to those who are created: "You are from below," but referring to His own hypostasis: "I am from above." But how He who is from above and of the things above will descend to that which is beneath and alien to Him, will be obvious to anyone who has examined it diligently. For will you not concede that, just as every unbegotten thing has a common definition with every unbegotten thing—in the fact, I mean, that it exists without generation—so too, by a certain consequence of the argument, is every begotten thing equal and similar to a begotten thing? D
B. How can that be in doubt? For the logic is one and the same in both cases.
A. Do you, then, Hermias, still say that this impiety is obscure, or that the deceit of the adversaries could remain hidden? It has a varnished appearance, adorned with expressions appropriate to God, which carries away the minds of the simple, but otherwise it brings forth a detestable blasphemy. For God has been brought down into a creature, and He in whom we live and move and have our being has finally been numbered among those things subject to generation and corruption. For if the name "begotten" is a definition of the Son, as they think, and we concede that the term signifies substance, then it will have the same rationale, insofar as it is understood as begotten, as every begotten thing. And these are innumerable, and beyond counting, and extending even to the most vile, I mean to a gnat and a fly and things even more shameful.
B. You speak rightly.
A. For what reason then do they call Him Son, or believe God to be Father, if He has not truly begotten the Son from His own substance? Therefore, let them no longer name Him Father, nor Son; for the truth is always dear to Christians. But against their vomit, is it not better to be silent? "Do not answer a fool according to his folly," says Solomon. But lest, as if in the exercise of speech provided as a defense, they should, as though having abandoned their surety, more intemperately and harshly fasten upon
A a certain argument, which I do not know how they have acquired, and which is supported by wretched syllogisms; come now, let us strike down, as well as we can, those who are armed with the panoply of lies and deceit—who are like naked and unarmed soldiers—by a refutation derived from common concepts, with Christ present and defending us, appropriately singing in harmony with the voice of David: "For I will not trust in my bow, and my sword shall not save me. For you have saved us from those who afflict us, and those who hate us and you, you have put to shame 1."
B. Proceed then boldly; for the Lord of all shall stand in the battle with us and shall take up arms along with us.
A. I will proceed indeed, and most willingly; for there is no reason to hesitate. But I think I must say this first of all.
B. What is that?
A. That they say in a most unlearned and most unskillful way that "the Unbegotten" is a definition of God. But I say that a definition is that which possesses the power of being a definition. Or is not the speech belonging to them of such a nature, and would they not be convicted of having arrived at such a point through impudence?
B. Indeed. For they fear nothing, and so they will speak, and will persist further.
A. You are not mistaken. For ignorance is a bold and most shameless thing, and fears nothing at all. C It does not even shrink from condemning the right and blameless opinion itself, if circumstances should cause it to do so; rather, it rashly seizes whatever pleases it, even if it appears most absurd. See, therefore, how they are entangled in this matter in the heavy snares of ignorance. For we shall find among philosophers that definitions of substances are not made by a single word or expression; and we shall find that this is rejected by those who are most distinguished by this very title and who investigate definitions accurately. Nor, furthermore, do they say that definitions are made in a single expression, but neither even if you employ two does it seem to be fully and completely manifested, but rather in three at least, or even more. For thus are the things defined most manifest.
B. Give an example.
A. If someone were perhaps asked to define what man is, and were to make the answer as brief as possible, as if in a single expression, and were to define him by saying, "animal," he would speak most obscurely. D For man is indeed an animal, without a doubt, but not solely and specifically, but synonymously with others. For there are very many other animals. For both the dog and the ox and the panther are animals. But if, adding a second word to the first, he were to define him as "a mortal animal," he will nonetheless fail in an accurate and complete demonstration of the thing, although he speaks the truth. For we say that animals are mortal, the dog and the ox and the rest. But if he were to proceed in order through
A all those things which belong to man substantially, both generally and specifically—calling him at once a rational animal, and also mortal, capable of intellect and knowledge—he would have brought forward a definition lacking nothing for the complete demonstration of the thing. Do you understand, therefore, finally, that our argument is correct and true? B. I understand; for how could it be otherwise? A. Since it is therefore repulsive and absurd, and foreign to the very art they profess, to circumscribe the power of a definition in a single word, what indeed would they have to say—even if they are puffed up in a wondrous way with the conviction of their own wisdom—if someone were to assert that the definition of the substance of God and the Father is "the Unbegotten"? Yet they seem to have slipped into such statements quite inconsiderately, although they are, as they persuade themselves, of a subtle and refined intellect. For this, I think, escapes even them. B. What is it that you say, or of what kind? A. For definitions of substances, if they are brought forward properly and as their nature demands, begin indeed from the genus, but along with the genus they introduce the substantial difference or differences of each of the things signified; but consider this to be what I wish to say again. B. Explain. For in this way I think we ought to discuss these matters. A. Indeed, if someone were to come up to you and ask what a dog is, and what an ox is, what would you say, Hermias? B B. I would say that they are animals. A. Then tell me, by saying this and only this, would you think that you had sufficiently explained the matter? B. Certainly not. For I would add, if I wished to speak plausibly, the natural differences appropriate to each. A. Most truly and correctly so. It is no longer obscure, therefore, but clear that in defining substances one must proceed first from the genus, and then through the specific difference appropriate to each. B. It cannot be otherwise. A. Consider therefore—or rather, let those who foolishly misapply "the Unbegotten" for the purpose of a definition explain to us—whether they wish that term to signify a genus or a difference. For if they say it is as a genus, it will signify nothing separate from others, lest we be caught assigning the power and function of the specific difference to the genus, and excluding it [the genus] from its own proper strength. But if, passing over this, they say it is a difference, let them further demonstrate to us whose difference it will be, if a definite genus is not posited in the statement? And how would a definition of a substance be sufficient for us, and be seen according to its own proper principle, if it consisted of a difference alone? C Will they not be worthy of laughter, if they insist that it is so? B. They will indeed be worthy of it, since this point has no doubt. A. If anyone, therefore, were to add that their dogma is altogether full of extreme calumny and appears utterly inept, would he not be speaking most truly? D
B. What proof do you provide? Tell me.
A. For as I said before, A a definition of any substance whatsoever can never be correctly made from a difference alone. For the genus is always conceived in some way before its own difference, from which the discourse, rushing forth as if from a starting gate and distinctly applying itself to the things that follow, makes a right and indubitable explanation of the matter. If, therefore, they foolishly contend that the word "ingenerate" fulfills the power of a definition, it will not be a difference—for it signifies to us that it is not begotten—but we shall not concede that the term has such power. Rather, as far as they are concerned, it would be taken as a genus, simply and without distinction, even if it is very alien to right reason to name a genus in regard to God, since nothing exists with Him or before Him. B However, let it be assumed that the ingenerate is a genus in Him, as they rashly think, yet that the genus signifies nothing to us at all, so that it may not hold the place and power of a difference. Since, therefore, the word "ingenerate" no longer brings in the signification of "not having been begotten," what difference between the Father and the Son could it show us? Or how could the Son be in any way inferior at all, even if He were thought to be begotten—I do not understand very clearly; but what do you say, Hermias?
B. What could I have to say in response to this?
A. And yet we have sufficiently and more than enough, I think, and clearly demonstrated that the "ingenerate" does not correctly and expertly contain the power of a definition. We were indeed unaccustomed to proceeding through such arguments, but were obeying necessity rather than our own will, and were, of necessity, touching upon things in the use and knowledge of which we are lacking. C And although it is not easy to add new reasons to those already discovered, I shall nevertheless endeavor, as far as I am able, to do so. Those, therefore, who are extremely clever and precise and professional in these matters say that what is called "conversion" belongs to every definition.
B. And what indeed is this? I would most gladly learn from you.
A. I shall thus return to the same arguments and, having recycled them, will speak. For we define man by such a formula as this: a mortal, rational animal; and again, a horse by this one: a whinnying animal. We shall, however, also make the signification of the subjects differently, and not by any means from the first terms, but from the last words, going backward to the beginnings of the definitions. D For if there is anyone who is a mortal and rational animal, you will understand this to be man; and conversely, if there is any whinnying animal, this will show the nature of a horse. If, then, the ingenerate is a definition, why does it not admit of conversion? For let them not hesitate to admit that if anything is ingenerate, this is also a definition and the substance of God and the Father. But this statement is not true. For there are countless such things, and they are beyond number, and it would be tiresome, I think, to recount them one by one. Do you understand, therefore, into what great absurdity their discourse slips?
B. Yes, a very great one indeed.
A. But there is also another reason on account of which the ingenerate
A cannot be a definition, if we consider it again in this way. For we define each of the things that exist from the things of which it is believed to be, and truly is, not from those of which it could by no means consist, and which it has merely happened to be deprived of. B. What do you mean? A. For if we wish to explain, for example, what fire or water may be, or indeed what their nature is, concerning fire we say that it is a body hot and dry; and concerning the other, again, that it is humid and cold. According to this, I think, it is fitting to define them from the things of which they consist. But if, while explaining the nature of fire, we were to say that it is neither cold nor humid, omitting to say that it is hot and dry; and concerning water, again, that it is neither hot nor dry, although we ought B to say that it is cold and humid, whence would we seem to you to be providing an explanation? B. From those things of which they are deprived and which they are admittedly not. A. Therefore, if anyone should decide to think and speak thus about any of the things that exist, would he have explained distinctly and without error what the truth is in each case? B. Not at all. A. If, therefore, in the case of God and Father, the "ingenerate" signifies to us only that He is not generated, how could it have the power of a definition, seeing that it does not signify what He is, but what He is not? B. You mean, presumably, that He is not generated? A. Exactly so; for that is what the force of the expression produces. But what, finally, will they devise if we add that the definitions of substances are not contrary to any thing at all, nor are they C reckoned among the things that are relative, of which if one names the one, it is absolutely necessary that he also make mention of the other? For the one brings with it the signification of the other at the same time. B. The things you say are not very clear to me. A. And yet there is nothing to prevent them from being understood by you clearly. For if one, for example, should name "father," he in a way leads the minds of those who hear to a thought of the "son," or at any rate of the "offspring." And it is true to say the reverse: along with the signification of the offspring, the begetter also comes to mind. In the same way, the "right" and the "left" behave: for as soon as one of these is named, the other also emerges. But he who, for example, brings forth the definition of the substance of a man, or of any other animal, has not joined to it anything separate D or necessarily opposed, just as, for instance, the left is to the right, or the son to the father, or, to speak simply, the generated to the begetter. For "man" is man, and "stone" is stone, having no opposition to anything, but these are their own and peculiar names. The word "ingenerate," however, while it signifies that one is not generated, also in a way suggests the "generated," the quality of which this word escapes, while it settles upon its own. How then could the word "ingenerate" be a definition, when it does not have a similarity to the "generated," as far as the signification of each is concerned?
B B. You do not say, then, that "ingenerate" is nothing when applied to God the Father? A. Far from it. On the contrary, I would say it must be attributed to Him alone, insofar as it signifies not being generated: nonetheless, that it ought not to be forced into the function of a definition. B. But, they say, if "ingenerate" is not to be set down in the capacity of a definition regarding God and Father, let it nonetheless be His substance; and if the "generated" is the opposite of the "ingenerate," the Son would not be the same as the Father in nature, since the quality of the names would very well establish for us an essential difference. A. How exceedingly sharp the argument is, and how easily it is embellished by the winding digressions of their thoughts from one thing to another! And it seems to me that the defenders of these impious dogmas have proposed for themselves something such as those whom they say are accustomed to doing in the art of painting and drawing. When they portray some animal in a color other than what its nature bears, because of a mistake in their conception and in their hand, they later cover it over with other dyes to correct the fault, hoping that at last they have achieved a skillfully painted board, and that nothing in it will seem faulty to the viewers. But they do not notice that the very things by which they think they will bring back praise will reveal their errors, and that the praise of the correction will be the shame of their ignorance. Or is what I said not true? C B. True indeed. But forgetting the intention with which they undertook those digressions, let us turn to them, lest we provide them with any handle for lifting their eyebrows against us if we seem to decline the contest. A. So be it, since you think it stands correctly thus. And indeed, since they ignorantly assert that "ingenerate" is the substance of God, someone, I think, having burst into laughter at this, will say: "If 'ingenerate' is the substance of God, and there are countless things in the world that are ingenerately, then everything that is ingenerate will be the substance of God, or at least will have 'ingenerate' in the capacity of a substance." Now, there are things without generation—the sun, for example; for it was created just as the moon, the stars, and the heavens: I pass over the Principalities and Thrones, and every creature that is above us, which were brought into existence not by generation, as we were. But not everything that is ingenerate is the substance of God, nor indeed is "ingenerate" D to be attributed to those things that are without generation as a definition of substance. Therefore, we shall not accept "ingenerate" for this purpose, if there remains in us any sound and uncorrupted mind. Moreover—for I think this too must be added—if "ingenerate" is substance, yet the name of substance, with neither genus, nor species, nor difference or differences brought forward, suggests nothing at all to the listeners except only that it is a substance, then "ingenerate" will signify nothing in God, nor indeed will it be thought to signify not being generated, but only this, namely that it is a substance, but of what sort is uncertain; for it is still lacking in genus, species, and difference. Let us speak thus also concerning the Son regarding the name of "generation," and let it be understood that...
A it is merely a substance, B still naked, and in no way defined. Since, therefore, both terms are uttered simply and indistinctly, and introduce the knowledge of nothing other than that it is a substance, what, then, will be the difference between the Father and the Son? For when substance is compared to substance, if nothing else is added, it will have neither, as they say, the greater nor the less, nor will there be any point at all by which they are distinguished from one another; but a similarity in every way of substance to substance will undoubtedly be present, if we philosophize correctly, as long as they are understood and spoken of merely as substances. Let those, therefore, who through their own ignorance take the "unbegotten" simply and indistinctly for the substance of God, and who do not obstruct the nature of the Son with that term as if with a certain rampart and fortification, but bark at the dogma of truth, blushing, be ashamed—those who thrust upon us as manifest a difference that presents itself in no way, if neither "the unbegotten" in God and the Father signifies, of course, "not to have been begotten," nor, in turn, does the other term signify "to have been begotten" in the Son, but both are substances, and that without distinction. For a little while ago we showed that there is nothing that separates substance from substance, in so far as they are said and considered to be substances. Do you think, therefore, that this doctrine is clear and sound, or will you correct it and change it for the better?
B. By no means. For it is correct.
A. But if they were to steal away from the very word "unbegotten" the declaration of "not having been begotten," and insist that it is simply a substance, what reasoning would move us—those of us who wish to take away generation from the "begotten" and record it in the order of substance, just as they do with "unbegotten"? Furthermore, how shall we then determine, and what C reasoning will distinguish for us the personal and hypostatic difference of the Father from the Son, or of the Son from the Father? For who exactly is the begetter, and who the begotten, will no longer be apparent. And so, all reasoning of our faith will be in vain and useless for us. For from whence and how do we believe in the Father and the Son any longer, as in begetter and begotten? For we shall certainly not admit a naked and corrupted meaning of names in these matters. Far from it. On the contrary, we acknowledge a precise and necessary one, if indeed we believe in the truth and have not fallen away from the true knowledge of God, having been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
B. You speak rightly. But I discovered that they also boast of this, that the Father is so called D inasmuch as He is the Creator, and has appeared as a sort of principle and origin to those things that have been brought into existence from nothing. And for this reason, they say, we ourselves have also been taught to name God in this way, and to address Him in our prayers: "Our Father, who art in heaven."
A. Then, O good sirs (for so we shall address them), we might say to this—
whether are we commanded to call God "Father" because we are numbered among the class of created things, or because we have been crowned with the glory of adoption and have been accounted as children?
B. As created things, indeed, because of our nature, but as children because of grace?
A. But wherever He is named Father, and likewise Son, let not the "made" be introduced immediately, nor let the concept of "having been made" be surreptitiously slipped in for the moment. For the relationship of the Father to the Son, and of the Son back to the Father, is such that nothing stands between them—unlike, indeed, the relationship of a maker to what is made, and what is made to its maker. If, then, we should take away what is fitting for each, and, by simply disregarding the force of those things which are termed "relative," we are caught assigning the force and relative definition of a made thing toward the Father, and of the Son toward the maker—who would not rightly laugh at us for such supreme insanity?
B. B If we call God "Father" as children, I think it is an idle and superfluous thing to dwell upon such matters.
A. But He would not be "Father" in truth, nor "Son," unless there be understood a begetter and a begotten.
B. You speak rightly. Let God, therefore, be called "Father," they say, if you wish, in an improper sense.
A. From where, my good man, would He have obtained that name, if He is not himself Father by nature? Or will they perhaps say that He received it from us, who are fathers by nature and in truth?
B. Be well assured that they will say exactly that.
A. What then shall we make of the blessed Paul, who does not attribute the principle of fatherhood to us, nor indeed to any other creature, but rather consecrates and ascribes it in a certain way to the one, true God and first Father, and whom we may hear writing thus: "From whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named" [Eph 3:15]? Answer me then, Hermias (for thus you will exercise us in this discussion), for I would be taught: was God made "unbegotten" in time, not being this in the beginning, or is He understood as God and as unbegotten at the same time?
B. He was unbegotten; for how would it not be utter folly to say anything else?
A. C Does the word "unbegotten" signify that He has not been begotten, or in what way?
B. Manifestly, that He has not been begotten.
A. But why at all was it necessary for God, who exists without beginning, to be viewed in such a way? Or what sort of distinction, or rather nature, would that term have created for Him, or against whom, if His nature is *the* unbegotten, when no created thing had yet come into being or co-existed, if indeed they say the Father is not the begetter of the Son? For toward what is He "unbegotten," when the substance of begotten things had not yet been introduced? D For they certainly will not say, lest they seem to be asserting that things are co-eternal and without beginning along with...
the unbegotten God, those things which have been created in a generated manner. And if it were true that God is always the Father, being unbegotten, it is A absolutely necessary to declare that He also exists, on whose account He was unbegotten; that is to say, the Son who is generated, whose image we have been enriched with; and having attained the form [of the Son] through the virtue of piety, we ourselves also call God "Father," having received the name according to the likeness of the highest and first Father. For archetypes are always more ancient than images.
B. And what hinders our adversaries from saying that God is "Father" only in an abusive sense, since we are plainly fathers by nature, whereas He, insofar as He is the author of created things, is called "Father," and possesses the "unbegotten" as a power and principle of substance?
A. Yet that truthful Paul has testified to us that the name of paternity flows from Him to every rational creature, clearly demonstrating according to the form and imitation of the First that which is even in us ourselves. He never said, however, that the entire nature of the "unbegotten" is from Him, in heaven and on earth, or else nothing at all should have been generated, so that the image of the Unbegotten might be impressed upon created things. For the likeness and conformity of the creature with Him who is supreme over all can contribute very much to its ornamentation.
B. Shall we therefore subvert the creature, by stripping away its generation, so that it might be fashioned according to that which is unbegotten?
A. I do not say this, but I thought it necessary to point out the absurdities that follow from thence, from which we must flee far away, as that wise word B primarily admonishes us with these words: "Keep yourself pure," and "Do not participate in the sins of others," it very well proclaims. For although it is our duty to cling firmly to the blameless opinion of the holy Fathers, why should we delight in what is foreign, and put on such a savage mind? For that mind is savage which barks at the glory of the Son and speaks injustice against God, as it is written. For it seemed, I think, and very rightly, to those celebrated, sagacious, and upright men, that "the unbegotten" is by no means the substance of God and Father, but is only a word which signifies to the hearers "not to have been begotten." Which we indeed also say is contained in the concept of the hypostasis of God and Father, not that it is the substance of God itself. C For it is allowed for anyone to see that of all things which are, or which we at least suspect to be, and which only show a pretense of existing: some are as if in their own seats, and thus they have obtained this which they are by a hypostatic principle of existence; others, however, are not so, in no way at all, but are rather foreign, and not stably rooted in their own natures, but flit about the substances of things, and from that which—for example—to this or to that, D [by]...
A they seem almost to exist together with those things by which they are received, and pretend that a foreign nature is their very own.
B. What do you mean?
A. Surely you do not forget our argument, which labored most on this point and, as far as it could, rightly demonstrated to everyone that things which are counted in the order of accidents, or even those counted as simply inherent, are not in the least B in themselves, but rather exist in others, and though they seem to be and to be called something in their own right, they have the nature of that which has received them as their own. For "begotten" and "unbegotten" are not something subsisting by themselves, since they signify only the fact of being begotten or, at any rate, of not being begotten.
B. You speak well.
A. Therefore, unbegottenness C must be credited to the account of the hypostasis of God and the Father, and must be posited as being of Him, but not as being Him. For consider the absurdity of this, if you will. For if they claim in truth that the unbegotten is a substance, while infinite things exist by generation, what further prevents them, in the same error of mind, from asserting that none of those things that exist truly subsist, even though they have been brought into being through generation, if each one has ceased to be a substance because it is not unbegotten?
B. It would surely cease; and why not?
A. But how does that kind of reasoning not suit them most especially? For if they hold D the unbegotten to be the substance of God and the Father—and He, being God above substance and above all things, has set this apart as a nature uniquely His own, having nothing naturally in common with that which is cut off from all others—then one must think that the rest exist by generation and reside in a nature of their own. For what ratio or what kind could there be between the begotten and the unbegotten, as far as quality is concerned—it being obvious that this refers to those things which are according to substance? And then, what would those who are prone to every kind of evil say when they see the properties of God and the Father also in the Offspring, that is, in the Son? For the Father is Life, and Light, and the true God; but the Son is these things also, not by participation, nor by the benefit of another, but substantially and in an equal manner. Do you perceive at last, then, that the properties and prerogatives of the Godhead would not be more appropriately attributed to the account and manner of unbegottenness—so that we might not say they belong to others, which appear to exist and subsist also without generation—but would fit more appropriately as belonging to the Father and God? For thus, I think, by the law of nature, identity of substance will flow eventually to the Son and from Him. Being unbegotten, therefore, is in no way the substance of God, but, as I said, it is only a signifier that the Father has not been begotten, and it does not subsist as a particular thing.
B. That is correct. But perhaps the adversaries will say: If you claim that the Son, who is begotten, is identical with and consubstantial to God and the Father, you will not hesitate, I suppose, to hold that He also always co-exists with the Father.
[...to] stand, nor can it be said, apart from passion and the flux which is said to attend generation, that it was generated, although every calculation compels us to believe that the cause of anything pre-exists its effect, and that whatever is generated harms the nature of the begetter in some way, for it comes forth as a part of it. Let that generation, therefore, which is so by nature and in truth, be dismissed, since it brings in upon the nature that is highest and exempt from all harm the necessity of suffering flux.
A A. Is this not, then, clearly what I said? For with whatever arguments they please, they induce a sort of coloration like a dye, and change them into different forms, and shift them easily this way and that, and differ nothing from reeds—when, on the other hand, they should be showing constancy, and not foolishly imitating infants. For while infants, lacking mind and reason as yet, are carried inconsiderately toward any movement, these men, endowed with a light intellect, rashly snatch at whatever teaching, and value even what is rotten and weak, which I think is a mark of one who is base and of a slumbering mind. But Paul says to us: "Brothers, do not become children in your thinking, but in malice be infants, while in thinking be mature." 76 For truly, to know less than one ought, 77 and less than is fitting for those who are already reckoned among men, and who are no longer underage and of feeble mind, but have reached the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ 78—this, for holy men, is certainly not fitting, and there is no doubt that it brings harm to those in whom it has firmly seated itself, which is very difficult to wash away.
B. Quite so: for you speak correctly.
A. Do you wish, then, to bid these things farewell, just as they are, and proceed to set the truth against their sophistries?
B. Certainly. For that will surely be better.
A. Therefore, since they seize upon and name "cause" and "caused," I know not from where (for they will not say they are drawn from the divine Scripture), what on earth do they intend by this?
B. Indeed, I have just heard you saying that the cause is always older than the caused, in concept and in reality; and that the begetter nowhere generates without passion and flux. And by distorting these things, they asserted that the Son is less than the Father, and that He is secondary, and in a way generated late: and so, impiously labeling the generation itself as untrue, they slander even the consubstantiality.
A. Let them, therefore, tell those who ask: Do they believe the Father to be the cause of the Son’s existence: is it as a creator, who led Him forth into being by creating, just as he did with creatures, or, if not in this way, will they agree with us that He was begotten in the true mode of generation—
that which proceeds from our own substance to that which is begotten?
B. As they speak of Him as Father, or rather as Creator. For since the Most High God exists as simple in substance, in the same way as He might be thought to create, so too does He beget. Therefore, they say, the similarity of His operation will establish that He is altogether simple.
A. A Indeed, this is to mix everything up and down, and to confound the distinct nature of things in a disorderly and confused way, and to bring together into a single confluence—as one of the sages of the Greeks once wrote—what a long and accurate account separates from the qualities of one another, just like the streams of rivers. For to create and to beget are different things, I think, as any reasonable account will make plain to us. But I think we ought not, by thoughtlessly attributing simplicity to the Father, to thrust the doctrine rightly and excellently founded concerning Him into absurd opinions. For if, as He creates, so He also begets, and both are thought to be the same, with nothing distinguishing them into a difference, and B if He does not have a different way of existing, I would not for a moment be afraid to say that of whatever things He is the Maker, of these He will also be the Father, and one might consider everything that has been made to be His offspring. Yet how many such things there are, and in what kinds and differences they are contained, is not easy to say; nevertheless, if anyone has the mind, he may reckon them up. For there is nothing among existing things that would reject the account of having been made. And who would deny that even the lowest and most cast-off things are at least to be numbered among existing things? Therefore, if things are of such a kind, God will be the Father of all things.
B. And how is this account not utterly full of absurdity?
A. Rather, you might say it is beyond the ultimate point of impiety, if you wish to speak the truth. For if, as they think, creating and begetting are truly indistinguishable in God and Father, and not different because of the simplicity of His essence—first, they make the Holy Scripture vain for us, which names the Son "only-begotten," He who—if what those on the contrary side say is true—is "the firstborn among many brethren," [Rom. VIII, 29] or rather one and the same with all things C that are believed to exist, perhaps either begotten or created. For to them both appear to be the same, and not to differ from one another. But that great teacher of ours, John, would have been mistaken, it seems, when he brought forth as an arcanum concerning the Son that He is the "only-begotten," whom indeed he says is "in the bosom of God and the Father," [John I, 18] not lying—I think—but also by this means indicating His generation. But the wise discourse has advanced to such a pitch of audacity that they dare to attack the Son Himself. For I would say that while it was permitted [for Him] to easily ward off the rash impulses of the Jews, He is found to be whetting them against Himself. For why did He not rather say: "I am a creature and work of God," rather than calling God His own Father, "making Himself equal to God"? D [John V, 18] Why
A was it not more necessary to proclaim in the synagogues: "He who believes in the Son is not judged," and not what it was natural and very easily possible to appease the untamed envy of the listeners: "He who believes in the creature is not judged"? For I think if anyone had heard Him proclaiming these things, they would not, I think, have deemed Him insufferable, nor would they have wished to stone Him, nor would they have foolishly resolved to cast Him headlong from the peak of the mountain, or attempted to drive Him down to senseless precipices. What then were the most wise disciples doing, having an opinion about Him, that He was the Son B by all means, and not a creature? For since He was walking upon the crest of a wave, and with ineffable power having spread out the liquid and fluid nature of the waters beneath His own feet, He was traversing the broad sea, He gave an unaccustomed spectacle to the holy apostles, and though He would scarce have ascended of His own will and sailed across in a boat with them, it was permitted, and it was easy, if only He willed, to walk upon the highest swell. But they, finally struck with awe and reflecting upon His invincible power in their minds, were worshipping, saying: "Truly You are the Son of God." Was it not therefore that they were confirming the matter with an oath, and because they truly described Him as the Son of God, they would be accused as liars and be caught and convicted of having strayed from the truth? For if He is not the Son, having sprung from the substance of the One who begot Him, but rather a creature, colored with the glory of sonship, and having obtained the title as far as appearance and name go, what cause had they received for which they should worship Him? But why did the teachers and heralds of the truth name Him the Son?
B. The discourse seems to us to proceed most excellently.
A. That divine and most sacred Paul, although called C by God a vessel of election, and an ordained priest to the Gentiles, and an accurate steward of the mysteries of our Savior, what would he wish to signify when he cries out concerning the Son Himself and the holy angels: "Who, being the brightness of His glory, and the image of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power, having made purification of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they? For to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You'? And again: 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies your footstool'? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth for service for the sake of those who shall inherit salvation?" And again: "For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward of retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?" How indeed could it be conceived at all by ourselves and by the holy angels, that the Son is the image of the ineffable glory D and, moreover, the brightness of the substance of God and the Father, if He does not possess the power of having been begotten in the truth of the thing, but is adorned with bare and mere words?
A And if He exists, having a nature that is different, and is ranked among the creatures, then nothing, it seems, will prevent the Father Himself from being placed in the number of creatures, and being considered as made, if indeed the Son is His character and brightness and happens to be made. But how has He inherited a name that is more excellent than the angels? For if, with God, to create is the same as to beget, it would be manifest, surely, that whatever is considered in the rank of a Son will be, without distinction, also a creature, and that which is truly numbered among the creatures is, no less, also a birth. Why, then, does God still delay, insofar as it is necessary, perhaps, even to say to each of the holy angels: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? For what the Apostles possess natively and essentially, why is He not seen to bestow it, or rather—for it will be said more vehemently—why does He withdraw it, and commit an injury against those who have already attained the glory of being begotten and being numbered among the sons? For since God is simple, there will be absolutely no difference for Him between generation and creation, as they foolishly think, but both are mixed into one meaning and converge upon the same reality, B and accept the convergence into identity.
B. Yes, for it seems that they think and speak in this way.
A. But we shall not say that the matter is so; far from it. For there is a very great difference for us both between the two names and between the things themselves. Answer me, if it pleases you, as I inquire.
B. Ask, then.
A. That most excellent and supreme teacher of divine things, John, wrote concerning the Son: C «He came into His own, and His own did not receive Him; but as many as received Him, He gave them the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.» D Shall we say, then, that the grace of adoption has been given to those who could not be placed in the glory of a son, or to those who would have no need to receive it from elsewhere, but possessed it within themselves and essentially, even if they had received it from no one?
B. To those who did not have it. For I think this is also true.
A. Then who in the nature of things will be found to be entirely lacking in it, if generation is nothing different from being created, or rather, if both are one and the same, with nothing at all intervening to create a difference? For we shall concede that everything that exists has been begotten, even if it has been brought into being by creation.
B. Did the Father, then, beget us from His own very nature?
A. God and Father has not begotten us from His own nature; otherwise, if whatever should be seen in us as absurd and impossible were seen, would that not immediately be opposed in the same manner to the Son who is according to nature? For we have indeed undeniably been created; but He has come forth from the substance of God and the Father, to whom we are also being conformed, and receiving the grace of goodness in the place of generation, we have been ranked among the sons of God, bringing back an external and acquired dignity.
A Adopted sons, however, will not exist at all, unless that natural Son existed before them, and the image of true generation first manifested the archetype within itself. If therefore the Father did not truly beget, because with Him to beget is the same thing as to create—and nothing else—the concept of the Son is taken away from us, and the nature of the Father is found to be sterile. B Vain also, in a way, is the hope of those who have embraced the faith. For where, after this, will sonship be at all? Where will that dignity flow from which can restore the creature to a better state, if the created thing is of the same logic and manner as the begotten thing, with creation and generation—as they wish—coinciding into one and the same thing? Would you not say that these are trifles, and filthier than all filth? B. Most certainly. A. If, however, He is also said to be an assessor, and is truly the Son to the Father, while true generation does not bring to Him—as to the nature of the Begetter—that He should be manifest in every way and in all things in likeness and equality with Him, will they not now at last clearly say that the glory which is due to and inherent in the author of the generation and birth of things pertains also to the nature of generated things themselves, and that the servant has put on the dignity of the master? And indeed the divine Paul writes: C "For to which of the angels has He ever said: You are my Son, today I have begotten you?" or, "Sit at my right hand?" For why did it seem good to God to assign to them the glory of standing by and ministering, while He alone is seen in the supreme thrones of the Godhead, and no assessor of equal nature is given to Him at all? A nod, as it seems, and the will, having entered into the power of the Father, placed the one in that place, and the others in the state in which they are, though they are by no means despised or neglected. For He decreed concerning them, namely, that they should stand blamelessly, be able to preserve their principality, and, ministering to God, run up and down. D Did God and Father therefore act unjustly, as it seems, by not allowing them to be adorned with equal glory? It is not so: not indeed (for we are not destitute of correct reason, as they wish). For an infinite space divides the begotten from the creature; and this One is the Son, and in as much as He is that, He sits on the same throne with the Father: but the others stand by, called into being through creation. Why then do they mix things that cannot be mixed, and absurdly attempt to bind into identity things that differ in their mutual identity of substance as much as the nature of things itself, being its own witness, would declare? But, as it seems, the sweat and goal for them is not to discern the truth, but to insult, and with their crafty inventions and unbridled insolence to impiously mock in a certain way. B. You are not mistaken indeed: for there is nothing useful in them
A for such men. Yet I suppose that I shall ask this: how can the Simple one bring forth for us different energies, and generate in one way while acting in another, yet neither act in a way other than He generates, nor destroy the concept of simplicity?
A. Indeed, this is nothing else, as I think, but to take a reed staff in one's hands, as the prophet Isaiah says. For what else is it to rely on such rotten and easily broken reasonings, and to think that one holds the firmness of right doctrine, but to foolishly choose to support one's own soul with a reed staff? You will see that that proposition, however sharp it may seem, is very easily overturned if you weigh the matter in this way and examine it with the exact eye of the mind. For there are countless natures of existing things, of which some, B having been brought to existence from the non-existent by the One who calls them, were not formed for mutual dissension and strife, but were rather distinguished for a peculiar lot, different from the others. But others not only attained this, but even destroy one another in their collisions and cannot bear a mutual concurrence; for the law of nature kindles enmity among them. Does your mind follow the path of what has been said?
B. Not entirely.
A. Understand then what I say, for I shall not hesitate to speak. Therefore, the angel and man, heaven likewise and earth, ox and horse, wood and stone, have been called to existence by the art and energy of God. Each of these is understood in its own and distinct nature, and is not C in every way and altogether identical in all things, or in those in which the others are. Yet they are not in opposition to the others. For a thing is not incompatible, nor otherwise unmixable—an angel to a man, or a man to an angel; for the natures are not in any way contrary to one another; and the existence of heaven, or rather the concept of its existence, does not contend with the others. For it will not hold apart in enmity earth from heaven, or the latter from the former, or the wood from the stone, since it has not acquired the concept of being from things that are opposing and cut off into a nature of contrariety. In addition to all this, we say that fire, which is characterized by burning, and water, which has the faculty of cooling, were made by the energy of God; but both are the works of One, the Simple One. If, then, these are the works of a simple energy, D even though they are separated by such great difference from one another, how can we still take away the simple substance by the variety of energy, having—I know not how—persuaded ourselves that the destruction of the truth is material for piety? But consider, if you please, still another thing besides these. For if, because God is simple, He will operate uniformly—and they will say that this is especially fitting for Him—why do they not also believe that the disposition in Him is simple?
B. What do you mean?
A. Does He not, I beseech you, abhor and laugh at the wicked
and treat the renegade as abominable, while He shows joy toward the holy and bestows honor and grace upon those who are virtuous A in their disposition? B. How could it be otherwise? A. Will you allow that the punishment meted out to those who transgress is a movement toward anger, while the honor and grace bestowed upon the saints is a fruit of gentleness? B. I concede it; for that is how it is. A. Therefore, since they say the divine nature is simple, and on that account take away from it the multiform nature of its activity, let them also assume that it is simple and does not possess a varied disposition within itself. Consequently, those whom He praises, He would, I suppose, also blame; and those whom He admires, He would surely also censure. And the result would be that the act of passion and anger would be the fruit of gentleness, and we would have to consider anger to be the same thing as gentleness. I would add this, moreover, to what has been said: the nature of the Godhead is one and simple. We say, however, that it is life, and power, and wisdom, and glory. For by life the thing that is quickened lives, and by power the thing that receives strength is strengthened, and by wisdom the thing that is made wise is rendered wise, and by glory the thing that is in need of glory—that is, the thing that is glorified—is glorified. Do I not seem to you to be speaking the truth? B. Indeed you do. B A. But how can a manifold mode of activity be a fruit of a simple substance, as they suppose? Yet God operates in a manifold way, even though His nature is simple. Would you, therefore, Hermias, admit that there is anything more absurd than this? For is it not much better, and does it not appear more consistent with right reason, to think of God as simple by nature, but to leave it to Him alone to know how He exists and how He operates in a diverse manner, and not to inquire more curiously? For God, and divine matters, clearly surpass all mind and speech. B. You have spoken well. A. We, therefore, shall not foolishly judge that that nature which is the procreator of all things is barren, nor that it lacks a fruit or offspring convenient and proper to it, to which all fruitful things are conformed, and on account of which they themselves are fruitful. B. That is certainly better, beyond comparison. But they will press C the point, as it seems: how is the Father to be understood to have begotten? Has something happened to Him of the sort that usually happens to those who beget—a division, for instance, or a flux? Or how does it come about that the cause is not in concept and reality older than that which is caused? A. It is a most difficult thing, Hermias, and well-nigh inextricable, and inaccessible to speech for even the most eloquent person—nay, even to the mind itself. For things that surpass the mind cannot be comprehended by the mind, nor is it possible to explain in speech things that are greater than language. For the faith has delivered to us that God is Father, and that He truly begat for us the Son from His own substance; the divinely inspired D
A Scripture is wont to name the Father and the generation everywhere. And I think that one ought not to examine further with bolder inquiries that which has been accepted by faith. For that which is sought is no longer faith. In the same way as—according to the voice of the most wise Paul—"Hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?" [Rom. viii, 24], so truly, faith that is scrutinized and does not possess that which is beyond inquiry would not be faith, following the same reasoning as with hope. For that which is honored by faith is surely free from testing. I say, therefore, that just as one who approaches God must believe that He exists, and seek nothing further [Heb. xi, 6], so we must be disposed and think that God is Father, and that He has begotten; but to dig into "how," as it is unattainable, must be abandoned. For I believe there is no one at all who would mock those who have decided, well and wisely, that one must yield in matters that are beyond our mind. But the manner of the divine generation shall be considered superior to every mind. It is permissible, therefore, to hear clearly God and Father exclaiming to the Word who has proceeded from Him according to nature: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you" [Ps. cix, 4, LXX]. Now, that the offspring is genuine, and that the Son has been begotten from the very substance of the Father, would be very well demonstrated by that, "from the womb," B which is most useful when taken as a likeness to us. But the statement "before the morning star," to define the birth, perhaps signifies, in some way, that the manner of the generation was enclosed in obscurity and incomprehensibility, and as it were in deep darkness. For when the morning star suddenly leaps up from the eastern limits towards the heights, faint rays are scattered into the ether, and a light, thin and feeble, and a precursor of the sun’s brightness, shines forth at the same time, as the darkness of the night is already fading. But as long as it has not appeared in the sky, night still presses on, and a thick gloom is poured over the eyes—both of the blind and of those whose vision is unimpaired—and those who are not subject to the affliction. Since, then, you yourself might tell us, what is the divine miracle in the Son being begotten, even if it be understood as before the morning star?
B. The matter of the generation, my friend, is not without wonder. For its antiquity and most ancient nature one might learn through it being understood as before the morning star.
A. Then would it not be better to say [that He was begotten] before the sun and moon, or rather before heaven and earth? For these are older than the stars and the morning star. C But I would think it small and meager to say that the Son is before the earth and heaven and all creation absolutely; for He has shone forth from the Father who is without beginning, and the manner of His generation is altogether unspeakable and beyond all thought. Therefore, the celebrated Isaiah himself also says to us: "Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth" [Isa. liii, 8]—calling, I suppose, the "generation" the birth, and the "life" the nature itself, which he well declares to be lifted up from all the earth—that is to say, to be raised and to transcend every mind of those upon the earth, and above D
the conceptions that dwell among us, untrodden and inaccessible to the measures of humanity, appears to me most true. And that A the Son has appeared to be both beyond all time and superior to such a beginning, no less than the Father, another of the holy prophets will convince us, crying out: "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art not the least that thou shouldst be among the thousands of Juda. For out of thee shall come forth unto me, that he may be a ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." By this he speaks of his existence from the Father, as a certain proper and peculiar "coming forth," according to which we understand him to have existed from the beginning—before which there is nothing—wholly with his own Begetter, not in an unbegotten way, but in a begotten way. How much laughter, therefore, do you think they deserve, who, I know not how, have persuaded themselves that they are able to attain to such sublime things by human and coarse cogitations? For how could you know the manner in which God begat, unless you had first learned what he is by nature?
B. But this cannot be; for "he made darkness his secret place," as it is written, "and round about him his tabernacle," signifying, I think, by the name of darkness and tabernacle, either obscurity or, rather, invisibility and incomprehensibility; entering as it were into which, he who fills all things is known only by himself and by his own offspring. For he said: "No one knows who the Son is, save the Father; and no one knows who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him."
C A. It is well spoken; you are to be commended for such a discourse. Therefore, if anyone should curiously inquire and boldly scrutinize things that cannot be comprehended by the mind nor explained by the power of words, we shall say that such a one is not a lover of learning but rather one who flounders in vain and superfluous labors. Indeed, it will not be beside the point to say of such a man: "He who leans upon lies, he shall feed the winds, and he himself shall pursue flying birds." For "he has left the ways of his own vineyard, and has wandered through the paths of his own field; he walks through a solitude void of water, and a land set in thirsty places, and he gathers barrenness with his hands." For, having as it were bidden farewell to useful things and those full of truth, they foolishly worship a lie, and embrace as useful that which lacks the fruit of piety. And to such a degree does the arrogance of their mind advance, that they perhaps think it a crime and a reproach that the divine nature is not known to them, and they are forced to confess that it is reserved for God alone—even though Holy Scripture, inspired by God, proclaims that the divine ways are altogether inexplicable, that is to say, the governance and administration of individual creatures. For the divine David sings and chants somewhere, saying: D "Thy way is in the sea, and thy paths in many waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known." For the track of a ship driven by favorable winds and carried into the deep does not appear. For when, like a plow, it [cuts] the sea...
the track is invisible; since, by the collision of the waves with one another, it immediately mingles that which appeared divided. Or is it not so?
B. It is indeed. Consider further how the generation for us might be without passion and without flux, and whether it is at all possible to say that the cause does not pre-exist its effect.
A. It does not pre-exist from anywhere, far from it; but neither would division and passion ever accompany it in time, if the matter should be understood concerning God, in whom passion cannot fall, nor temporal generation. For if we were speaking at present of bodies, to which it is fitting both to suffer, and, in that the nature longs for outflow, it is consequently circumscribed by time and has not an eternal beginning of generation, I would not undeservedly say that the things they imagine are perhaps not absurd. But since our discourse is about the nature that far exceeds every body that can be touched or seen, which is both the framer of the ages themselves and much older than all time, how would it not be entirely B senseless even to imagine that it suffered anything in begetting, and that what proceeds from it has a temporal generation, as something proper and existing within it? But to name "cause" and "effect" in Him is not even lawful, but it would rather be fitting to speak of God as Father, and of the begotten as Son.
B. But know that they would perhaps admit that the matter is thus, if you wish; yet they would inquire how the Father could have begotten from Himself after our manner, yet without there appearing to be any division or flux in Him into some other thing distinct from Himself, if indeed the Son is truly from Him according to substance in His own hypostasis? And how will the begetter not exist and be thought of as entirely prior to the begotten?
A. "The foolish man will speak foolish things, and his heart will understand vain things C," according to the voice of the prophet. For those things for which it would be fitting for them to blush the most, if they had any sanity of mind, with these I know not what stupidity they pride themselves, establishing divisions, and flux, and temporal generation in the divine nature itself. Then is it not better to think that it is unworthy either to conceive or to speak of generation in God as temporal or corporeal? For they would not be able to say that God the Father existed in time, but He was timelessly and without beginning that which He is, while that for which He is Father manifestly co-existed with Him. For D the Son shone forth in an incomprehensible manner from the substance of the Father, and in a way that no one can express, not through section or division of the Begetter, having His own existence as different, but existing in His own hypostasis, yet born in such a way as the incorporeal might bring forth, which is entirely devoid of section and division. For if the divine nature at all endures section and division, and what they say, let it also be thought of as a body; but if this is so, also in a place
A and in magnitude and quantity it will be. And since it is endowed with quantity, it will not avoid circumscription. This follows the host of other arguments attributing to it the properties of bodies, and is an unbearable absurdity of reasoning.
B. I also agree.
A. For indeed, O dear head, I would never fear to say this.
B. What is that?
A. Why, if the nature of God and the Father were also subject to the customs and laws of bodies, it would indeed bring forth, and not without passion, but would undergo division; and that which is begotten would certainly be in some seat and place of its own, especially since it would have proceeded from the quantity of the begetter: for thus are corporeal beings begotten. If, therefore, they think that God and the Father fills all things, where in the world will that which proceeds from Him reside, and what place of its own will it find?
B. You have rightly warned that a great multitude of impious reasonings would break forth from this. Therefore, they say, the very business of generation is to be spurned, and it must not be thought to be spoken truly of God. For thus the absurdity of their reasonings will perish together with it.
A. But this is nothing else than to reject B the accurate doctrine of the faith. For how would the divine and ineffable nature still possess identity in the Trinity, if we were to take away the true mode of generation? These are clever quibbles, I think, and the unlearned boldness of Jewish madness. We shall therefore be on an equal footing with those who suppose that there is indeed one God, the maker and Father of all things, but who do not yet acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. And what, indeed, would prevent us from stoning Him as well, reproaching Him like the Jews: "For a good work we do not stone thee, but for blasphemy, because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God"? For if they impiously take away the true mode of generation, no one, I think, would descend to such lightness of mind as to suppose that the Son is God by nature, but that He has obtained the name of divinity only as an appellation and as something added, as if He had not sprung from the very substance of God and the Father. C But since, as they wish, He is no longer the Son, but is reckoned with us among creatures, we are in no way set free from the worship of the creature before the Creator, when we worship Him; but God will not justly affix the mark of impiety upon this account to us, nay, He will rather show Himself guilty of that crime, since in bringing the Firstborn into the world, He says: "And let all the angels of God worship Him." But He who is worshipped even by the holy angels themselves, and who has the glory proper and fitting to God and the Father as His own, how would He not also be by nature from the Father, and on account of this, God? Do you perceive, then, to what an end that opinion of theirs leads, D which deems it necessary to think that neither is there a true generation
of God, nor are they willing that He have any way of begetting, but rather—as if by some inevitable necessity—they cast upon Him divisions and flows, which are the peculiar sufferings of bodies?
B. I understand; but how, they say, could He beget, and yet not in every way and altogether be subject to suffering?
A. Because, as I have already said, it is pious to suppose that the incorporeal is not subject to the laws of bodies, and that just because a body begets with division and suffering, it does not follow that the incorporeal begets in the same way. But, just as it differs from the body in the account of its being, so too it will have a mode of generation entirely appropriate and peculiar to itself. And A since the body begets in time, the incorporeal will certainly not beget in the same way. For every one of existing things, I suppose, is subject not to the laws of another, but to its own. Existence is common to all things, yet nature distributes to each its own distinctness, prohibiting by its own laws that it should be in every respect the same as some other. Let the bodies, then, be subject to the habits and laws of bodies, and let them beget in their own way, and suffer divisions; but let the incorporeal be left to its own principles, and let it beget by itself, having a nature free from suffering and division. And if the mind might attain to being able to discern in what way a body begets, yet does not understand the generation of the incorporeal nature, why should it not rather accuse itself of ignorance? B But that which is greater and better than the body, and incomparably superior, is forced down into the place of the inferior; and he does not blush to attach to it sufferings that in no way belong to it. And if what we cannot understand, or what is impossible to know, do we therefore immediately do away with it entirely? Since, however, no one can grasp what the Father is according to nature (for every mind, I suppose, is less than such a One), is it not more shameless than the impious who say that He does not even exist, or at any rate—since no created thing is devoid of suffering—to contend that He too must suffer something in His own nature, and be subject to the laws of generated things, even though He is unbegotten? But, I suppose, no reason could ever bring God down to this; He remains entirely settled in the state in which He is believed to be.
B. He remains indeed, for the divine nature is altogether immovable. But if God has begotten, they say, He will necessarily be conceived as prior to the Son, and will exist before His own offspring.
A. I shall then say C again that if the incorporeal does not follow and is not subject to the laws of bodies, it will surely beget in its own way, and not according to the nature of a body. For, as for those things [i.e., bodies], a necessary and utterly irrefutable reason will show that they must pre-exist and be seen as prior to the things which are begotten, and that their origin must be considered more ancient, if it is a case of one from one, and as a second from a first; and they proceed in time, not being begotten without a beginning by those accustomed to beget, since they do not possess the very root of their own generation
But what exists without beginning, and knows no end—I mean, of course, God—how, I ask you, would it not be contrary to the laws of His own nature if He were to assign a beginning in time to the Son who is His own by nature? For in this way the Son would be of a different nature and kind, if He were to belie the nature of His Begetter; and the matter would be not far from a prodigy. For to assume that the Son is distinct from the Father by a natural difference would certainly not be lacking in monstrosity. Therefore, the incorporeal entity will beget according to its own nature, in such a way that the offspring does not have its generation in time, but is understood and subsists simultaneously with the nature of the Begetter, and is in no way posterior to Him, since it has proceeded from an eternal beginning, which is set even beyond the ages themselves.
B. You speak rightly; nevertheless, if the discourse were rendered clear and adapted to the nature of created things, it would certainly make plain what is being sought. For contemplations which far exceed the capacity of the hearers become clearer, at any rate, if they are conducted by way of manifest examples.
A. You say truly, my good friend; but if you consider the nature of things, can you say with certainty that the form of God is so absolute and, above all, so perfect that it can represent the likeness of any thing whatever, and exist in exactly the same way?
B. By no means, since there is nothing B in nature that is God among those things which are reckoned under the name of creatures.
A. Holy Paul must therefore be praised C when he says: "For now we see through a glass, and in a riddle." Indeed, also that: "Now I know in part," it would be the mark of a holy and wise man not to pass over without admiration.
B. Well said.
A. Let us hasten, therefore, with all speed to holy Scripture itself. Like bees flying about a pleasant meadow, variegated as it were with the flowers of the seasons, and settling on examples most fitting for this discussion, let us fashion the mode of the ineffable and incomprehensible generation; and just as those who direct the sharpness of their eyes toward smaller letters, D come, let us also, with our mind similarly intent, contemplate at least in part, and as if in riddles, what the divine nature is. Therefore, the Father, comparing the Son to a word, says: "My heart hath uttered a good word." Come then, my friend, and tell me, as I inquire earnestly, what kind of division or efflux could be conceived of in these things, or what mode or place? For the human mind indeed brings forth and puts forward a word from itself, and by a subtle birth utters whatever it wills, and as it bursts forth from the depths into the heights and outward, it gives us a hint of a substantial generation of the word. And it appears indeed to be different from that which is brought forth, but it is in no way divided; nor indeed is the mind more ancient
A than the word which has sprung up towards what is above. For the word is always from the mind and in the mind, and indeed the mind is in the word. Or if they were to say this, that it is not in the best state, the mind would be without a word, and the word without a mind; and whatever both are—which makes them be understood as they are—this would already be in a way spirit-like, vanishing and driving towards nothingness. For the mind is always the root and generation of the word, and the word, in turn, is the fruit and offspring of the mind. For the one is in no way without a word, even if it brings forth a word; and the other has received the quality and form of that which begets it, as if it were its own nature, and it proceeds forth, having in no way caused harm to that which begets it. But to venture to say, especially in these matters, that the begotten is in any way more ancient than the begetter, is, I think, completely foolish. For the word proceeds from the mind. But since the mind exists because it has a word, and the word, in turn, because it is filled with the mind, how could there ever be a mind without a word, or a word lacking a mind? For those things which have any of the items said to be held, require in their own case a definition of existence that is more ancient, and they have become gray, so to speak, even in the mere fantasies of concepts, no less than fathers would have in relation to their sons; but those things with which it is necessary to coexist B both everywhere and in every way, it is fitting to think of as existing mutually and simultaneously. And thus the being and the subsistence of something are determined if someone were to join the lesser factor in time and the more ancient, and not rather [the fact] that we say they would perish together, one along with the other, if the one were to appear and manifest itself before the other.
B. I am somewhat slow in being able to learn these things, and I do not fully grasp what you mean. Therefore, explain it, and do not charge me with laziness, nor punish me with silence, as if it were some kind of penalty.
A. But I am ready to say [more]; for there is no great hesitation in these matters that are so subtle, so long as the discourse flows for us with a favorable current. For to turn the difficulties of the contemplations up and down, and as if into a circle, causes no harm; rather, it will provide us no small benefit. Therefore, what I said will appear clearly and plainly, if you were to consider the nature of colors. For tell me this: whiteness, for example, or blackness, if it has not yet settled into those things that are accustomed to having them, will you think it is able to exist by itself?
B. By no means. For such things coincide rather with others; then, [and only] at that time, do they finally appear, just as what they are.
A. You speak correctly. Therefore, there would be some substances that are intellectually conceived beforehand and presupposed to the word/account, which have received whiteness and blackness; but these are among those things that are held. But if anyone, having made a division of that which has and, in turn, of that which is held, were to say that the one which has is more ancient, and were to think that the one which is held is later, into what place of substance will he put for us that which is by its nature [destined] to be white, if it is not yet white? Or how would whiteness be what it is said to be, if not through its happening to those things that are knowledgeable and naturally disposed to it, [since it is] white—
such that, if it did not receive the concurrence of those things that together form a constitution for any one thing, and which are not able to be otherwise, it would be comprehensible by thought, but would not yet have the existence pertaining to it, according to the principle befitting them.
B. But I myself, and others too, I believe, no less than I, shall agree that this is the state of the case and that it has been truly said. Yet, how will the account of either analogy apply for us to the Father and the Son?
A. That the outward movement from the mind, as well as the impassibility of the generation—and further, that that which is generated will not be divided, but will rather remain both in the mind that generated and will in every way have the mind that generated it within itself—will be shown most sufficiently and clearly; and moreover, that it possesses an existence that is concomitant and co-subsistent immediately, as in concepts. But to say that color necessarily inheres in certain things, and that in them one thing is not older than another, since they necessarily exist at the same time (for they concur equably to the beginning of one and the same time), I do not think will explain what is understood by us regarding the divine generation; but rather this: that if God is Father, this which He is, He has not found to be so in time. For He is always the same and in the same state, and is ignorant of vicissitude, for He is most perfect, and lacks nothing in the fullness of any good, nor is He subject to any evil. B Consequently, along with Him is understood the significance and nature of the Son, by no means posterior in time, nor any less in glory than the Begetter, for the reason that it is necessary in every way that in God the Son should always be thought of, and should always exist, with the Father, and conversely the Father with the Son, since the evidence of an origin ignorant of time is provided by Himself, even if He is generated, being, for example, from the Father according to nature. Moreover, that the divine Paul calls the Son the radiance of the glory of God and the Father, and also says that He is the character of His substance, will, I think, confirm the argument just now made by us, as it is composed most blamelessly and is saturated with proofs for rectitude and truth.
B. How did you say?
A. Imagine for me again that this is the proposed statement: that which has shone forth from something—for example (this, I believe, is light, which makes the substance from which it is emitted known to those outside, and always brings it to the senses of the eyes, or in some other way approaches bodies)—provides an understanding of what that root and origin is, by nature, which emitted the light and shines. Let the argument proceed in order, taking as an example the nature of the sun and the radiance poured forth from it. For what that is by nature, the beam that proceeds from it C
the nature of the sun does not know—not even in the slightest degree—division, or separation, or flow, or passion, although it pours forth light from itself copiously and substantially. Yet it is whole and entire in it; and even if it should perhaps be poured out, it possesses its own light within itself, not being uprooted in the spreading, and seeming in some way, through this, to run toward a separate distinctness. For the reason, separating the sun by itself and considering what its essence might be, distinguishes the light within it and pouring out from it—which is its own—distinctly, though it still divides it well enough into an indivisible distinctness which is contained merely within the mind's conceptions, precisely because of its outward procession from it. But that it would be utterly ridiculous to imagine the sun's generation to be older, and the power of the light-bearing energy inherent in it to be even a little bit later, I do not think any mind that is sane and sound would doubt at all. For it is the same as saying that the sun does not even exist, if it does not have, co-existing with it, that by which it is understood to be what it is. Therefore, if you take the power of sensible examples as a correctly fashioned representation, and apply it to the most high and divine generation in the mind's thoughts, you will not corrupt it by foolishly introducing into it divisions, or flows, or passion. For the generation of the B supreme essence of all is free from passion, and indeed the existence of the Offspring is substantial and free from division, running together with the Begetter and being inseparably united and co-inhering. For the fact that it is without beginning in time is testified to by the Son, and by the wise John, who said: “In the beginning was the Word” (Joan. I, I), and in addition to these: “Who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Apoc. I, 4).
B. You have argued this matter for us most excellently, my friend. But you believe, I suppose, that you are finished with the task, and that there is no need for anything else to demonstrate that the Father in no way pre-exists the Son, and to understand that he is of the same nature and exists simultaneously; yet those things do not yet proceed according to the mind, since they have paths that are truly difficult and an approach that is extremely arduous.
A. What sort of things do you mean?
B. Know that they will inquire—for they are sharp in argument—whether the God and Father begot the Son by will, or indeed without will.
A. Then, where the malice of their such terrible inventions might land, I would most gladly know.
B. For having added this, I think they will say that if the Son is involuntary to the Father, he did not beget him willingly, but was compelled to this by some thing, or, to put it another way, he will be caught by necessity or by some of the C involuntary passions. Having thus brought the argument to an absurdity, they will coerce [their opponents] into a confession that it is necessary thereafter to say that the Son was not begotten by the Father without will, and finishing, they will bring forth...
as they say, for the Father also, a will that is prior to the birth.
A A. How impious are the inventions that these perverse men have fashioned against us! Their speech insults the dogmas of the truth in such a way that, if anyone wished to surpass all absurdities, I think he would achieve it no differently than they have. But since they have snatched such an ignoble palm, and surpass the ignorance of others with the sole glory of their impiety, let them at last hear: "Has Sodom been justified by you?" Enough, enough of this bitterness, you wretches, and of your perverse thoughts! Come now, let us take the straight path of the truth, and let us say that the Father, who is eternal and lacks a beginning, cannot be understood without the Son who is in Him and co-exists with Him. B Truly, although the Father is not without the will of the Son, nevertheless the will does not exist before the Son, nor does it emerge first. For if the will was in the wisdom and Word of the Father (for they will not say that the divine will lacks wisdom and Word), and the Son is the wisdom and Word of God the Father, then He Himself is surely that in whom is all the will of the Father. Wherefore, such a three-pronged proposition is in a way overthrown, as well as that sharp argument which they had prepared against us. For nothing, it seems, would prevent us—having contemplated the absurdity of their reasonings—from asking whether the Father exists and is by will or the contrary. If He is not by will, then He is surely driven to existence by necessity. But if not by necessity, but by will, then the will will surely precede His existence. And since He has perfected the will, wisely indeed, and not without the Word—and the Son is indeed the wisdom and the Word—the Son will exist before the Father. C But the divine Scripture identifies the Son as the counsel and will of God and the Father. For the divine David sings in the Spirit, as if in the person of the believers: "You have held my right hand, and in your will you have guided us." And elsewhere: "Lord, in your will you provided strength to my beauty." For we have been guided in Christ to the will of the Father, and in Him we are formed into a transcendent beauty, being strengthened through Him for every good work. Therefore, if we follow these putrid little reasonings and the absurdity of their arguments, the Son will exist before the Father, since He Himself is the will; and that which is begotten will in a way appear before the begetter. See, therefore, how much evil they have accrued to themselves, who cast it very far away: "Test yourselves, if you are in the faith."
D B. Certainly.
A. One could also, without much sweat, overturn their...
another absurdity, if you tell them to be questioned on this. B. What is that? A. Whether God the Father is considered and called by us, and by the holy angels, a merciful and good Creator and King, or not. B. They would surely say that this is the case, I suppose. And why not? A. Let them answer further then: for I shall add to the question, are these things so without will, or by will? For if they answer that it is without will, they will be forced to admit that a lack of will has befallen Him, as a suffering arising from necessity. But if they should think it is not without will, yet that the will to be what He is preceded His existence, A then He was not always Creator by power, nor King, nor merciful, nor good from eternity; but perhaps some time preceded [His existence] in which God, not yet being these things, was considering that He ought to be them. Who, then, upon hearing such language, would not immediately weep vehemently for their vanity, and, having refuted them, would not investigate better than they the nature of things, and consider within himself that in actions to be done or not done, willing and not-willing hold sway, but in generation, this is not so? And as for those who speak of "unwillingness," in this instance, it is well to suggest what is sung by some. "Nature desired it," one to whom laws are of no concern, and I would add, who pays no heed, will you or nill you, to anything at all. Or would I not seem to you to think rightly if I were to declare that whatever God the Father is substantially, He does not have it from an advancement through will, having turned toward the better, nor will He have His being Father by way of will? B. How do you mean? A. Do you say that the Father is holy, and moreover good? B. Entirely so. B A. Are these two virtues, then, substantially inherent in Him, or were they added from elsewhere by will, as if they were such that they would pass away if—perchance—an unwillingness were to occur to Him? For this movement proceeds from the will. B. Substantially. For if anyone dared to say that it is not so, he would, I think, rightly be laughed at. A. Well done, my friend, and I admire your love of learning, Hermias. Since, then, how could God and Father be Father by will—or perhaps "unwillingly"—and not rather substantially, if He is in this way holy and good, and does not have His being what He is by mere acts of will? And furthermore, how is it that you do not see what heavily plagues and, so to speak, barks at the adversaries? B. I do not yet understand. A. But you shall know, for I will tell you, as you are most keen to learn. Understand what I am saying. For will they deem it necessary to confess that the Father is begetter by nature, and say that this fact is substantial to Him, or will they deny even this, holding most impious thoughts? For if they say that it is not substantially...
A genitorem, they will utterly destroy the very existence of the Son, who does not possess being as unbegotten, but who is and subsists from the Father, according to the faith of the Holy Scriptures. And if God the Father does not truly possess a generative nature, but has been moved by will to be able to beget, it is time to say somehow that he has perhaps wrought his own nature by declaring it generative, and has brought it to what it was not, and thus he would justly be considered older than himself, if, being and subsisting, he willed to be what he is, namely, Father. But may such things be cast into the mountains and the waves, being utterly full of intolerable absurdity. We, however, following right doctrine, assert that it is superfluous and foolish to think that the Father is a begetter either apart from will or from will, but rather by nature and substantially. For that which is natural is not outside of will, since the willing to be what it is accompanies his nature. B B. I also judge the matter to be thus. A. Furthermore, the danger of another absurdity threatens them, in that they think they must say that in God the Father, the will is older than the Son. For we must examine, if you please, whether God the Father has finally attained something consistent with his own dignity in that he has begotten, or whether we should find that lacking the power to beget is more appropriate to him. If, therefore, because he has begotten, nothing will be lost to the dignity of his nature, why do these wretches not blush to attribute to him some defect arising from sterility? But if it were better and more appropriate for him not to have begotten, what was the reason that he begot, being destined to be in a worse state if generation had befallen him? Wherefore, both he departs from right reason, and he has willfully taken upon himself something harmful to his own glory and nature, and some new and insolent accusation, as it seems, has sprouted up against the ineffable will of the Father. Are these things, therefore, not more loathsome than any vomit, and have they not C reached the ultimate summit of impiety and malice? B. Indeed. A. Come then, having left these things far behind, let us turn to that. B. What do you mean? A. I mean that we must lodge in our souls the best of all opinions concerning God, considering that nothing precedes the generation of the Son, nor does the will of the Begetter arise before the existence of the Begotten, but God was Father at once, and willed to be Father: for he is not what he is against his will, nor does he endure a necessity of willing in this, as, for instance, even if he were conceived as being holy and good. For at once and substantially he is holy and good, and wills to be what he is, and we must not think of the matter in God otherwise. For at the same time he is God, and at the same time Father, not having a generation posterior to his substance, but at once he is Father, D and subsists, and is understood. But for one endowed with such a nature, it must assuredly be granted that the generated thing, that is, the Son, coexists with him from eternity.
B B. But let this be, if you so desire, they say, and let the Son be deemed to coexist with the Father. For God was always Father in potentiality; therefore He was only comprehensible by mere contemplation, and the Son was only in imagination before his generation, but was generated after this.
A. Therefore, let the generation be finally confessed to be true and truly from the Father. For the one whose nature it is to be Father in potentiality and in act does not receive from will that which decides between the two, but will rather follow the laws of nature, from which it would be conceived that He begets, nor would He become the Father of something alien, if indeed that which is begotten must be of the same nature as the begetter. But as for the foul mark they also attach to the Father Himself, as if He were changed—although the divine Scripture says: "With whom there is no variation, or shadow of turning" 1—from this it will be manifest. For what else, I ask, is B moving from potentiality to act, than a change, and a sort of gross vicissitude? For that which is thought to be anything by natural potentiality, yet has not yet received it in act, stands thus far in potentiality, as it has not yet received its movement to act, but still lingers in its first and primary state. But if by chance it were to receive the movement to act, it will pass, I think, to something other than what it was in the beginning, inasmuch as they do not assign one and the same place to that which is in potentiality and to that which is in act.
B. I do not think so.
A. If, therefore, they say there is no difference, but will bring them together and set them in one and the same place, then the Father is Father and God was without beginning in act. For nothing will now prevent us from saying this, if that which is in potentiality and that which is in act have coincided into the same thing. But if it is not so, but they differ from each other, and with no small difference, how have divine things not undergone change, since they no longer persist in that which is potentiality, but have in some way sustained the movement to act?
B. What you say is plausible; nevertheless, I think this also occurs to the minds of the adversaries, and they thus compel us: "Since the Father is creator by nature and without beginning, and yet did not make created things without time—for the creature is not co-eternal with Him, but He brought it forth in time from nothing—shall we concede that His immutable nature is changed and has suffered a shadow of turning? But who would dare to say this? Therefore, if he proceeds," they say, "to being said to beget from potentiality to act, this is not a change and move to variation, but rather an aptitude of nature which is set in this way for generation."
A. How very close you come to frivolity, if you think anything worth while has been devised by the heretics. For we must investigate with the utmost care the manner of movement in both cases, and what intervenes, and what difference exists between them, and thus you will then understand the old wives' fables of their ignorance. For that which from D
itself is said to have produced something, and has proceeded from potentiality to act, is stirred as it were in its own nature. A For it would undergo such movement [in actu] not in others, but in itself. But that which passes from not doing something to the necessity of working, we shall find to have the movement not in itself, but in others, both in having it and in exercising it.
B. You would grant me a favor no less than before, if you were to explain the matter to us more clearly.
A. Come then, let us bring forward the example of a human being. For he is endowed with the power of generation according to nature, and while he possesses this in potentiality at the beginning, he proceeds to the act in time. Now, possessing knowledge not without art, but rather an innate substantial power for making any artificial thing, he builds a merchant ship, and fashions figures from bronze, or produces some other similar thing. Does it therefore seem to you that he is moved in the same manner and reason as he who, that he might be Father, was brought from potentiality to act, and as he who arrives at the performance of things which belong to art?
B. I would by no means think so. B For the latter is not moved in himself, but rather exhibits the manifestation of the knowledge residing in him toward external things. But the former is substantially moved, as it were, in himself, and works a certain change and conversion regarding our very nature, or at least the act and potentiality of the nature which is in anything.
A. Indeed, this is what I was saying just now: C that one must diligently consider the difference of movement in both cases. Nothing, therefore, necessarily compels us to say that the nature of God has been changed, or has suffered movement in anything that is substantially in it, because it proceeded in time to create; but it would suffer movement in its substance if it were brought from the potentiality of generating to the act of generating in some way or other.
B. It is well said.
A. Furthermore, in another way—for I think we should imitate those keen-scented dogs who choose to track down discoveries from the truth—one may perceive the weak and insipid reasoning of our adversaries. D For no reason at all would prevent the divine and most exalted offspring from coexisting with its Begetter, since the Father is always and from eternity understood to be and is God. But since the creature is the act of the creative power, how and whence will it have the glory of coexisting with God and existing from eternity? For it is neither without a beginning in time, and it is moved from nothing to existence. Do you not say that it is necessary that the creative nature be understood prior in every way and exist prior to all created things?
B. I agree.
A. Therefore, while as yet the creature had not been brought into being, God was even then Creator; and he was not Father because he was Creator, but because he has begotten: and the Son, because he has been begotten. When, therefore, as regards the Creator and the creature, coexistence is not necessary...
A nor can it be that those who think rightly should deny coexistence in God—whether he be named Father or Son—how could one arise before the other, and the one appear in some way prior to the other, if both are what they are, in that they are understood to coexist and not to be lacking a mutual concurrence? For Father is related to Son, and vice versa. Does the argument seem to you to be twisted toward what is not right? B. Not at all. B A. But if it has seemed a good and noble thing to God and Father to beget from himself, and to be seen as Father of the Son according to nature, what or whence could there be any delay in begetting? What is that obstacle, or what is it that might usefully and necessarily persuade God not yet to be a Father? For that men are always fathers in potentiality, though not yet in actuality, is hidden from none of mortals; and the cause which stands readily at hand and acts as a hindrance is very clear. For when the age of the body has not yet reached puberty, it is meanwhile in a way hidden and rests in nature, and awaits the fitting time in which to manifest itself. But in God, who always possesses himself perfectly and is what he is—not by a progress toward something that is not yet present and necessarily revealed in time, but as it were from his own substance bringing forth the Son for us like a light, and having his own offspring substantially implanted in him in the order of a character—how could it be conceived that he does not always and simultaneously with his being beget in actuality, C but rather stands in potentiality and suffers a substantial change, passing over into that which he was not in the beginning? But we shall be involved in no small crime of impiety even against the Son himself, unless we beat back the opinion of our adversaries. For the Only-Begotten will no longer be the Maker of the ages, since time, I know not how, will have crept in, and that generation by which God and Father is said to beget in actuality will be believed to be more ancient, if indeed he proceeds from ingenerability—that is, from that which is potentiality—to actual generation not without time, even if that interval be conceived as very short and momentary. I, however, declare it shameful and utterly unbecoming to think that the sun and fire are not always what they are, yet that they did not remain in a state of potentiality alone, but came to actuality by a temporal motion and nature, and indeed that they received at the very beginning of their origin those things that were congenital and whatsoever was inherent in them; but to assert that God does not excel bodies, and so to think that he does not D follow the laws of his own nature in begetting, in so far as it is befitting to him alone, as if following the laws in the very fact of the need to beget, which...
A
DIALOGUE III
That the Son is true God, just as the Father.
A. I am well aware, Hermias, as you would likely agree yourself, that one ought to adorn oneself with the zeal for virtue, and to find delight especially in discourse that pertains to piety, such as those divine oracles. For this reason, Holy Scripture says: "And you shall speak of them, while sitting in your house, and walking by the way, and lying down, and rising up." For I believe that to keep the divine word constantly on one’s tongue is not without profit, and it could befit no others more than those who make it their concern to live in a way pleasing to God.
B. I agree; for nothing is more excellent than this. But since we have already discussed with sufficient abundance the divine and ineffable generation, and have proven that the Son did not shine forth from elsewhere, but from the very substance of God the Father (for so it was made manifest), what is it that still drives our adversaries to think that God the Father is one, natural, and true, and that absolutely no one is to be numbered with him, but that they must banish the very nature of the only and true Son far away from the true deity, together with all others? B
A. What drives them, since you choose to ask me, I would say regarding those who have reasoned thus, it is as it is said: "For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and their shoot from Gomorrah; their grape is a grape of gall, their cluster a cluster of bitterness; their wine is the poison of asps." Being intoxicated, as it were, by falsehoods found I know not where, they belch out evil things from the evil treasure of their heart. And since they let loose their tongue on blasphemies against the Son, and suffer from a godlessness that is the sister and neighbor of that of the Pharisees, let them hear with those same people: "Brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, being evil?" And yet, it surely behooved them, if they were to apply their minds to such holy and ineffable investigations, not at all to suppose that their own opinion was entirely exempt from reproach, but rather to turn their inner and hidden gaze in every direction, and running far and wide through infinite arguments, to flee far away from those things that have been fashioned out of inconsistency, and, having carefully tested what is profitable, and by right reasoning and sincere doctrine serving as guides to comprehension, to hold fast only to the dogmas of truth. For it is the part of a foolish and deranged person, I believe, to deny that the God who exists is the true and natural Son of
implies a lack in him, rather than a natural power. For is it not better to see, with an enlightened mind, that wherever there is generation according to nature, and not something falsely so-called, there must necessarily be found in the begotten a relationship to the begetter, which is not merely relative or falsely termed a relation, but is natural? For that which is truly begotten will be from the very substance of the begetter. How then, as they would have it, can that which is begotten from God not be God in truth?
B B. Truly, they might perhaps grant that he is God and from God, but in a different way and with a distinction.
A. But what that "different way" might be, I do not very well understand. Perhaps you could explain, if you happen to know, for it is very likely that you are informed about it.
B. I am informed. For they say that the Father is the true God, but the Son is not so, even if he is called God, and is from God. For they say, "All things are from God."
C A. But indeed, this is openly to proclaim that the Son is not God, but just like other things that are from God, brought into existence by way of creation, when he did not exist, and finally to be placed alongside the creature as his sister. For I think it is most useful and excellent to brush away the deceits of their malicious craft, and not to allow our adversaries to gild the nature of the Son with sophisticated words, when they hold no truth about him, but rather to compel them to declare openly and plainly what they believe him to be. For no argument will fail to assault their folly, I think. That the Son proceeds from God the Father signifies nothing else, to one who has an uncorrupted mind, than that he is begotten and has come forth from the very substance of the Father, as the discourse we just concluded demonstrated. Now I think we should sharpen our minds to investigate the other matter.
D B. Most gladly you shall do so, being spurred on to this. Now, that which they have resolved to oppose to our arguments is this: They say that only the Father is named the true God in the Old and New Testaments. For Moses said: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord" (Deut. vi, 4). And moreover, in the canticle he introduces God himself crying out: "See, see that I am, and there is no God beside me" (Deut. xxxii, 39). And again: "I am the first God, and I am after these things, and there is no one beside me" (Isa. xli, 4). And indeed the Son himself says to the Father: "This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God" (John xvii, 3). Countless things of this kind they can gather without any trouble, but they will use them to confirm their own arguments, and so will not be far from
A they themselves strive to support with their words; and indeed, hope will not depart from them for long, that some should choose to agree that the Father is one and truly and by nature God, and that there is no other at all besides him.
A. What, I pray, compels them to labor in vain? For we have no need to labor in this matter, seeing that we most readily agree with them, and in our faith we accept one natural and true God the Father. For how or from where would anyone doubt? If, even if they were to add that there is absolutely no other God besides him, this will in no way weaken the nature of the Son. For he is outside all created things, nor is he among creatures, but coexists with his own Father, and always shines forth with him, and is comprised together with the Begetter in the one nature of the Godhead. Therefore, God is one, and he is the true one. For we have been redeemed from polytheism, and having washed away that stain, albeit late and with difficulty, we have at last come to recognize the one and true Master. But leaving these things aside for the present, let us proceed to the other matter, for so it seems to you that we should do. B
B. What is it that you mean?
A. The Son said that the Father alone is the true God.
B. He did indeed say so.
A. And what is more, the ancient oracle proclaimed to us that there is no other God besides him.
B. It is true.
A. We must therefore, O dear friend, go ourselves to the Holy Scripture and those books of the saints that diligently investigate these things. Come, then, let us see if anyone anywhere has called the Son the only God, and has furthermore named him true.
B. You speak rightly. C
A. Therefore, that wise John will immediately be with us, who is also surnamed the Son of Thunder, clearly crying out: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know the true God, and we are in the true God, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." And the great Baruch will also come to our aid, and will clearly declare the nature and glory of the Son, himself also shouting in this manner, and all but pointing with his finger: "This is our God, no other shall be reckoned against him. He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel whom he loved. Afterward he appeared on earth, and conversed with men." And indeed, I could say that the holy Paul told us of one Lord Jesus Christ. And David also sings in the Spirit: "Who is God besides the Lord? And who is God besides our God?" D Is it not, therefore, most clearly and most manifestly declared through the voices of the theologians that the Only-begotten is one and alone and true God?
B
B. It is true. A. Since, then, the Father is proclaimed to us as the sole and true God, and the Son in like manner and without variation is possessed of the same, for no one at all could be reckoned as another besides Him—where, then, would the mind of those who believe run, if both should be cast out by them, and they should not constantly maintain the divine glory, having obtained a nature that could be easily shaken and overturned? Or is it not true to say that, if we admit only the Father to be the true God, we immediately seal the character of "other-natured" upon the Son, and, excluding Him from the definitions of true divinity, we will behold Him as having become of some other nature? But if, attributing the name and reality of true divinity to the Son alone, we reckon no one at all alongside Him, shall we not be establishing things against the majesty of the Father which it is forbidden even to speak?
B. The force of the arguments tends indeed in this direction; yet it is likely that the adversaries will also say that we will certainly be led, if the Son is the true God, to say not one, but two gods.
A. They leave no absurdity untried, and they range widely into every kind of blasphemy. Our intention, however, is by no means to say this—in no way at all—but the argument compels us to acknowledge that we must understand the Son to spring from the substance of God and Father by true generation, true God from true God, not born into some alien nature of a different kind, but substantially existing as that which the Father is also understood to be, with this one exception: that He is the Father. For when the Holy Spirit is thus numbered together and concurs in the divinity, one true and natural deity is finally worshipped in the consubstantial Trinity.
B. But, they say, if we grant that there are three hypostases, the divinity would also be understood in a triplicity, as is probable.
A. But the reason of the true mystery has certainly not taught us that these things are so. For we have been baptized into Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; yet we do not say that the faith is in three gods, but in one deity C to be worshipped in the Trinity. Why, then, do you use force, and attempt to subject to human reasonings things that surpass mind and word, which I believe ought to be honored by faith alone and without curiosity? For it is very impious, and holds the summit of wickedness, to question with excessive curiosity how, in the final analysis, the Trinity is, or what it is, and how the nature of the divinity subsists in itself. It is more pious, rather, to wish to contemplate correctly in what manner one nature of divinity is worshipped in the holy Trinity. Confess, therefore, Hermias, that we think and judge these things rightly, but that the adversaries act impiously, who senselessly and rashly investigate with the inventions of miserable reasonings things that transcend the mind.
B. You speak well. For I myself say that they do this. How then is God one among us, if both the Father and the Son D are understood to exist in their own proper hypostases?
A A. We shall necessarily adopt as an aid and assistance in this matter the mode of consubstantiality. For it is able, very effectively, to combine the duality in the hypostases into a certain unity, and to contract into a natural identity that which appears to be dispersed into a property singular and peculiar to each, so that neither may the duality be predicated by anyone of a nature precisely simple and incomposite, nor may we, fearing to appear as though we were violating the principle of simplicity, seem to do away with the duality in the hypostases. That the things said concerning consubstantiality are true, the testimonies concerning the Son brought forward to us from the holy Scriptures declare. For the Father, being nature and truly God, would not have admitted any other than the Son, being nature and truly God, to subsist in his own hypostasis and in a natural identity, unless he were himself from him and in him, and the Son conversely had in his own nature the Begetter, and for that reason they were considered to be spoken of and to be one. And certainly our good Philip was rebuked, because, though he was of keen intellect, he was not speaking with sufficient consideration. For although it was possible to contemplate the nature of God and the Father in the Son, he was entreating, saying: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." To which Christ: "Have I been so long with you, and you have not known me, Philip? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? He who has seen me, has seen the Father. I and the Father are one." Which indeed is true. B For since the Son has shone forth from the substance of God and the Father, he himself exists in his own Father, but he manifests in himself, through natural identity, the substance of the Begetter as well. But the Father will not be understood otherwise than through the Son, and in the Son, since he is the character of his substance, shining forth in his own form the nature from which he proceeded. For I think we must also speak in our own way: therefore, whatever will be said concerning both will naturally have a place, even separately, in either, and will harm the glory of neither.
B. But how do you mean this also?
A. Do you not hear, friend, the blessed Paul crying out concerning God and the Father: "That God may be all in all"?
B. What then?
C A. Come, then, and consider in what way he attributes the equality of glory to the Son, and adorns the nature of the Only-begotten with the same things in which the Father himself also is indeed glorified. For he says somewhere concerning him: "The fullness of him who fills all in all."
B. He did say so.
D A. No one, therefore, will doubt, I suppose, if he has in this way brought into his mind how the matter stands. For since God and the Father fills all things and is in all things, and is considered to be in a manner befitting God, I do not see in what place that fullness of the Son would eventually be. Therefore, it is necessary to think that, unless each is substantially in both, that fullness is, as is evident, superfluous...
and not conferred in a fitting way, or else the fullness comes of the Son—even though the Father is most sufficient and quite capable of filling all things. But what could one point out as lacking, if all things have the fullness that comes from the Father? Shall we then, my friend, conclude that it will appear that the wise John has prattled in vain, A when he says concerning sacred things and the Son: “For from his fullness we have all received”? For in what are they still lacking, if they receive [what they have] from the fullness of the Son, even though God and Father is sufficiently capable of and in need of nothing else in things—B (or if we were to wish to argue through what the fullness given through each consists of, would it not then be clear to everyone that if the principle of essence in each is distinct, so as to be diverse according to the nature of each, in the same way he [the Son] will work the fullness in us)? B Rightly have you spoken.
A But if we truly wish to investigate what the fullness given through each is, would it not be clear to everyone that if the principle of essence is different in both, so that it is diverse according to the nature of each, in the same way it will work the fullness in us? B Necessarily. A And if the Father is the true God, then the operation will surely be divine; C however, if the Son lacked true deity—he being a separate entity—then his power of fullness would surely not be divine, but merely similar to it. We have therefore been made into a [state of] fullness in a twofold and dissimilar way. And if the divine fullness of the Father, being better than the other, was meant to be sufficient for those who are being worked upon for salvation, why did the Son also work within us, if he adds something inferior, as he would not work in the same way that he who is God by nature does? But if we have been enriched with the fullness through the Son as a useful and necessary provision for salvation, D it will surely remain for us to think and to say that the superior work was in need of the inferior, and that the lesser element was added to the greater to supply what was missing, if the fullness of God and Father did not once and for all suffice to save us. But I maintain that to think and to say these things is a cause for the utmost madness and a writing of folly. Therefore, let such foolishness be cast away as far as possible. Rather, let us maintain and believe that the operation and fullness in us through both is one. For the nature is one. For natures that have been led into a difference thought of according to otherness, and into an alienation completely diffused, would not have identity of operation and complete equality in any things; but where the principle of the mode by which they exist appears different to some, there they are entirely different, and what is by operation is dissimilar.
B It is so; but I would gladly ask of you how the fullness of the Father and the Son, being one and not diverse, is to be understood and [brought to] pass in us. A And yet, there is nothing in this that is at all difficult or hard to grasp
For how could it be otherwise than through the Holy Spirit, who fills us with divine graces by himself, and declares us participants in the ineffable nature? For A in this place the disciple of the Savior says: "In this we know that he is in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."
B. Then by the one Holy Spirit the fullness from both is wrought, and not separately?
A. Assuredly so, Hermias. But that which compels us to ask you, and presses you to understand thoroughly, is, I believe, this: how the operation from both, tending toward fullness, can come to pass through the one Spirit.
B. What do you mean by that?
A. You perceive, surely, as I surmise, that since they—as some think—have not attained a nature similar to each other (especially since the Son is substantially lesser, as I know not how they dream), if they were to work something in us, it might be thought that the works of their operation would not have been accomplished in an equal and utterly identical manner in every respect. Further, how will that fullness of both be in us through the one Holy Spirit—who does not, as it were, sign upon us the properties of the one or the other in a ministerial fashion, or fulfill the role of a minister in us, but rather holds within himself, as in his own nature, the fullness of both?
B. Most judiciously you speak. For this is precisely what revolves in my mind.
A. Let all the effort of this discussion, then, turn to this very point. I would say that whatever imparts participation in something to others through itself, would by no means depart from a natural conjunction with that thing, but will work in such a way as if it were perhaps that very thing itself. For things that are seen to possess one another’s operation as having identical power are necessarily, I believe, linked by a law of substantial identity.
B. Use examples, I pray: for I do not follow.
A. I proceed, then, and I now undertake it. The sun itself is understood to be and is something in its own right, and it traverses a sublime path, having obtained this lot by the nod of the Creator. Sending down its rays and grazing the lands, it infuses the sense of heat. But if we desire to inquire anxiously what kind of nature it has obtained, we shall accomplish this without labor. For that it is hot and fiery, anyone who has once had experience of it might easily grasp in his mind, taking as proof the hot ray which proceeds and pours forth from it.
B. You speak rightly. One will understand, indeed, since the matter itself lacks difficulty.
A. How then is it not manifest to men of sense?
B. What is it that you say?
A. That the nature which pours forth from it is not of a nature other than that of the sun.
and that it possesses the nature of the sun as a sort of root and mother of its own emission, so that from those things by which it is believed to exist, it might display in itself the whole quality of the substance of the one who emits it?
B. It could not be otherwise.
A. Let us arrive, then, at the nature of the Holy Spirit, A and let us consider it more closely, not by leaping away into extraneous arguments, but since the occasion urges us to matters most pertinent: whether, namely, the Spirit is to be numbered with the Father and the Son and inscribed in the one nature of the divinity, or not?
B. They say that the Father is the one true God, and they number no one else at all with Him.
A. Therefore, according to their opinion, the Spirit also will be excluded from the true divinity along with the Son, and will slip away into the multitude of created things, and according to them will be of the same nature as the Son, so far as the concept of being created is concerned, but will be most far removed from the substance of God the Father. Let them show, therefore, who it is that is God in us, if it is the Spirit that dwells and stays in those who are baptized. For concerning God the Father, they would say nothing, as I suppose. For no one would ever receive participation in the true and natural divinity through a created Spirit, since this would not be a natural participation in Him. B It remains, therefore, to say that only the Son is in us, although, according to them, He is called of a different nature and has departed from the substance of God the Father, and on that account is numbered with the creature. The creature, therefore, is in us, no longer God, and the creature is enriched with sanctification through a created Spirit, having nothing from God the Father. But if, passing over this, they should turn to a saner mind and say that the Son is God, let them explain whether there will be a duality of gods in us, with the Father and the Son dwelling in us, or one and only one? For Christ said: "If a man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John xiv, 23).
B. I do not think that even they themselves would hold that there are two gods; but perhaps they will turn to the straight and blameless faith, and will confess that the one true and natural God is in us, but perhaps they will add, the Father alone.
A. Therefore it is necessary that even unwillingly they must dare to say that if the Father is the one and only God in us, the Son enters in with Him, no longer usefully, but rather superfluously, since He is not the true God, and His fullness will perhaps be an idle number in us. Moreover, that encounter will take place with less than proper and fitting order. For since we are temples of God, and not temples of gods, the Son must at length depart from the heart of all, as someone proclaims; nay, rather, why does He plainly declare at the beginning—
A if there is to be no one entering in, when God the Father is by nature, and quite sufficiently fills to the full the temple in which He happens to be? Therefore—for I shall again recall the argument on this point—not even God would be in us through the Spirit. For He will not accomplish the participation of the divine nature in us, because it is not from Him in their view. But the Son, who concurs with His own Father, would be—it seems—superfluous, and nothing would prevent one from calling the blessed Paul both a babbler and a vain talker, since he wrote clearly that Christ is in us as God through the Father, who calls us through Himself to the participation of the natural and true divinity.
B. These are trifles, and discourse leading to the peak of impiety.
A. We shall therefore posit that there is one nature of the divinity, which must necessarily be what it is and what it is called, and entirely and in every way follow from it; yet the Son is by no means, according to them, a creature alien to the Father, but as God existing from Him and in Him, He will be arrayed with the Generator in natural identity. B For thus, two gods would no longer be conceived as being in us, but one and only one, worshipped in the holy Trinity. Do you think there is anything to censure in this, or do you say that it is wrongly put?
B. By no means.
A. Consider then, if you please, even the most holy Moses himself, O dear friend, attributing a phrase not fitting to a simple person to the simple and uncompounded nature of God. For it is possible for those who examine it even from this to see without struggle the threefold in hypostasis within the one divinity.
B. Indeed, I would like to hear more of what it is that you say. Tell it to me therefore more clearly.
A. For did not Moses, when composing the first book of his history, immediately write down God as the creator and artificer of all things? And he says that He spoke concerning the creation of man alone (for He made the rest of the things without deliberation): "Let us make man according to our image, and according to likeness." C And having thrown in a small thing in between, he said: "And God made man; according to the image of God He made him."
B. I understand.
A. And when some once had determined, through the height of folly, to build a tower reaching to heaven: "Come," says the God of all, "and having descended, let us confound their language there." Who then is the one speaking, and to whom, the "Come, and having descended, let us confound"? For no one, I suppose, would say that He had any need of the hand of the holy angels, or generally of any alliance or concurrence of anything at all in existence, for God to be able to accomplish what He wished. D For the divine power is perhaps omnipotent, and has within itself the ability to accomplish easily whatever it might determine, and God Himself is the whole power of things. For just as we say that He is wisdom and life, and that He cannot anything
living or participate in goods, without having the supply gushing forth from Him as from a fountain, in the same way, I suppose, nothing among existing things would have the strength, nor would it ever advance to the point of being able to accomplish anything, unless it were brought to this by the power of all things. A It will therefore be permissible to say, without reproach, that God did not say that, "Come, and let us descend and confuse their tongues," to angels or to certain other rational powers, but that the holy Trinity, as if in a simple motion of one nature, stirred Itself in a way to perform something—since it was the work of a creative power alone—to change the harmonious motion of the tongue at will, and to lead the nature of the daily and familiar speech, from the simple language which men were then using, into the multiform and multisonous diversions of languages, such that He made the minds of the perverse to set out on an unknown and untrodden path. In order, therefore, that we might be able to understand that it was not an angelic work, but rather a work of divine B power, It says, "Come," the holy and consubstantial Trinity itself to Itself.
B. It is rightly held.
A. But how, I ask, could they suppose the nature of man to have been formed after the likeness of God? Whose image will they say is imprinted upon those on earth?
B. What if they were to say it is that of God and Father?
A. But if they were to say it is only of God and Father, they will fall into the extreme stupidity of mind.
B. In what way?
A. First, because the phrase, "Let us make," and furthermore, "after our image," would not be fitting for one person, but rather for those who are more than one or two. Moreover, we say this, pondering the following: Does not that which is being reformed, when it has departed from the exemplar and bears deformity in itself, C justifiably return to that which it was in the beginning, and, having cast off the damage of the corrupt form, leap back again to the unblemished vision of its nature?
B. How do you mean?
A. You shall hear, and that most clearly; for I will explain it as well as I can. If some most excellent artisan, say a coppersmith, should craft a statue, having impressed upon it his own form, but it should be knocked down from its base by the envy of those who are jealous, and having fallen, it should be mutilated and thus changed into the D unlovely; then the craftsman, perhaps indignant, should determine to consume with a fiercer flame—as with a rot—the envy of him by whom it was mutilated, and surely, having removed the damage, remake his own work into its original form: will it seem to you that he is acting rightly if, having abandoned its proper form, he remakes it entirely into the form of someone else?
B. Not at all.
A. But if he should bestow upon it the form it had in the beginning, has he truly reformed it, and again impressed upon it its own image?
A Since the argument stands thus for us, what must we say the Father and God has done, if, wanting to reform man—who had been made to the image and likeness of Him and Him alone (for this, I suppose, you say your opponents believe)—having slipped and suffered ruin, He did not restore him to his pristine form—that is, to His own likeness—but rather endowed him with a different form and figure? For the Son is by nature someone other than He, toward whom we have been fashioned. For thus the most wise Paul writes to some: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you." And again: "For whom He foreknew, and He also predestined" (it is manifest, of course, that this is God) to be "conformed to the image of His Son, these He also called." For Christ forms us through the Spirit into His own image, and in an intelligible and mysterious way imprints the beauty of His own nature upon the souls of the pious. We have been formed, therefore, I suppose, toward God, but no longer toward the true One; instead, the form of the creature shines out in us. And certainly that which was chanted of old by the voice of the Psalmist: "Thy youth shall be renewed as the eagle's," would already fall into nothingness, shown to be, as it seems, in vain. For if "renewal" (as the Scriptures intend) is not that, but rather a "re-formation," we would be those to whom it is not permitted to return to the pristine state, nor to recur to that which we were in the beginning, but we would have been driven by some force to a worse state than before, and possessing much deformity. C Furthermore, that prior creation would incomparably surpass the renewal through Christ, if indeed that one granted us to shine in the form of the only and true God, but this one refashions us into another and different form, transforming us into the image of the Son. What then, in the end, have we gained through Christ, if we have been, as it seems, despoiled of the likeness with God, and already stripped entirely of that glory of nature—if indeed our whole blessedness consists in being made to the likeness of God? But these are, I think, trifles, and objects of laughter, and old wives' fables. For we are reformed to that former image, so that we may be in that state, sealed with a certain seal, that is to say, by the Son, who is also the character and likeness of the Father, and not other than Him in respect to substantial identity, being sealed by the Son, to have it thus, who is another besides Him, according to what is identical in essence. For Christ forms us through the Spirit into His own image, D and B truly, the beauty of His nature is imprinted intelligibly and ineffably upon the souls of the pious. We have been formed, I suppose, toward God, but no longer [toward] the true nature, but a form of the creature becomes us. B You have spoken most accurately. A. For see into what absurdity their argument would slide, if they intended to censure those who choose to think and believe thus. For if the Father alone is the true God, and they should assert out of madness that it is so, it would be gathered from thence necessarily that the Son is not God according to nature. B. By necessity. A. But he will be altogether of a plainly worse condition than the Father, since He who is supreme of all is God by nature and truly.
B B. For the argument leads at last into this.
A. Observe then, Hermias, that we are in danger, according to their foolish opinion, even though the Son is lessened, of being obliged to think Him already in some way better and superior, and that He is even to be reckoned as God and Father, if we judge that we must obey the voices of the saints without hesitation.
B. And truly the matter is not ambiguous.
A. Will you then hear the divine Paul crying out thus, how he was a Pharisee according to the law, pursuing the Church according to zeal, having been blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law, "But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord"? C
B. He said so indeed; but what would he mean by this?
A. Does not the law proclaim to the ancients that there is one God and Lord?
B. Yes.
A. And they say that this is the Father, evidently.
B. They say so.
A. But he who declares himself to us a steward of the mysteries of Christ, the guide of the world, what had he learned, or what was he considering, when he set the knowledge of Christ incomparably above the older and legal training, and calls it surpassing, and considers those things in the law as dung, but cherished and greatly loved the evangelical and saving proclamation? Or is it not necessary for us to consider and think that, of those things whose knowledge would be greater, to these there must immediately follow the appropriateness of being placed above those with which they are compared?
B. I think so.
A. Then how could our mind fall into such folly and ignorance as to say, or even to suppose, that the Son is better than the Father, He who has the Begetter as, so to speak, root and fountain? For we would altogether bring insult upon the fruit with the tree, and upon the shoot with the root, and upon the stream with the fountain from which it flows—and which is not foreign to it—and upon the light with the radiance that shines and flashes forth from it.
B. We would bring insult; for how could we not? D
A. Shall we therefore necessarily admit the reasoning which binds the Son to the Father in natural identity, and introduces Him together into the natural and true Godhead?
B. Necessarily, certainly: for these things are so. But, I ask you, how will the knowledge of Christ excel and be superior to the ancient and legal training, when He has been assumed into natural identity with the Father and true God, and has been proclaimed by the ancient Scriptures?
A. It will excel by far, and will surpass that former one.
A For it possesses a clearer proclamation, and extends itself to a knowledge unaccustomed to the Law. Hence, the sacred minister Moses himself used to pray, and that frequently, so that he might receive a certain and shadowless knowledge of Him who is, and therefore he called upon God himself, the Savior of all, saying: "Show me yourself, that I may see you clearly." Moreover, He commanded him to pierce the rock, and to gaze through a very narrow aperture, if he wished; by which, I suppose, God enigmatically signifies to us that the Law radiates a meager knowledge of God to those being instructed, and introduces that light as if through an aperture. For He wished them to believe that there is only one God, calling them away from imaginary gods; but how the divine and ineffable nature exists in itself, He did not clearly demonstrate, as does that saving proclamation through Christ. For when we have known the Son, we believe that He has been begotten and has proceeded from the Father as from a root, and the glory of the offspring, by recording the nature of the Begetter as on a tablet, has prepared the eye of the mind to reach things superior to thought and speech. Therefore, He also said to the Father and God who is in the heavens: "I have manifested your name to men"; and to the Jews: "Neither me do you know, nor my Father; if you had known me, you would have known my Father also." But to know that something is, yet not how it exists, anyone would say is far less than to know both that a thing is and how it is. The evangelical proclamations, therefore, far excel the legal instruction, which indeed proclaimed to the ancients that there is only one God, but did not at all extend the nature of the Deity into the Trinity according to hypostasis, B and gather it back into a natural unity. For this the new Scripture has taught us. Therefore, if natural unity and identity in God the Father and the Son are not admitted (for I shall insist upon the matters proposed at the beginning), there will be confusion and disturbance, and in the faith of the sacred Scriptures there will now be nothing, I think, certain and stable.
B. In what way, then?
A. For since the divine Scripture proclaims to us that there is one God by nature and truly, shall we exclude the Son from this glory and honor, unless he admits in some way the identity and immutability of substance together with God and the Father? Have you not heard the saints crying out concerning God, sometimes indeed that He is the one legislator and judge, C at other times, however, that He alone has immortality? Whom, therefore, must we think to be the only legislator and judge, and the only one to have immortality?
B. The Father, to be sure; for I do not suppose they would say that anyone else is meant by this.
A. I know indeed that they will say so; for the recklessness of their folly aims exactly at this. We shall think, therefore, that [the Son] is not the legislator and judge, and that he does not possess D
immortality, and has life derived from some external source in himself? And what follows from this? He will be subject to law and judgment, even against his will, and will be numbered among mortals, so far as the condition of his own nature is concerned. Furthermore, how would that divine proclamation—I mean the Gospel—not be deceit and imposture, and something even more shameful than these, if it forces us to establish the truth of the Son's words? For he said, "I am the life," even though, according to their opinion, he does not possess immortality, since the Father alone is immortal. But that he was declared to be a judge and legislator, you will understand, I think, without any labor. For have you not heard him saying, on the one hand: "It was said: 'You shall not commit adultery,' but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with the intent to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"; B and on the other hand: "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son"?
B. I have heard. But tell me, I ask, do you wish for us to test our argument against these opposing objections, or shall we leave it, as it were, deserted and without examples to counter the arguments of our adversaries?
A. Indeed, proceed with a noble spirit. For the matter will sharpen the mind to oppose our adversaries with something more vehement than before, and to beat back more forcefully the arguments of those who seem to oppose us.
B. Therefore, let us now state each point separately and clearly.
A. State what you wish. For I shall not think that it is your own opinion, but rather the opinion of the adversaries.
B. "There is one legislator and judge, God and Father." For it is fitting only for the nature that is queen of all things to enact laws and to judge. However, the Son has also attained to this degree of glory, by the Father and God having granted it to him by his nod.
A. And to whom among those of sound mind is it not manifest, my friend, that you would be drawing upon empty words for us, and would be heaping up a cold and useless crowd of arguments, if you did not show us the writings of the saints that are consonant with your words? For we shall not follow those who wish and are accustomed to belch out [only] the thoughts of their own minds, but those who speak from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written. C
B. You speak rightly. Therefore, the divine David sang, they say (he uttered the words as if to God the Father, concerning the calling of the nations): "Appoint, O Lord, a legislator over them; let the nations know that they are men." And that this was already accomplished most clearly in himself, the Son himself also explains to us, saying: "But I was appointed king by him over Sion, his holy mountain, proclaiming the command of the Lord." Now, he who possesses as a gift from the will of another [the power] of reigning and enacting laws, how could he not have a derived and by no means natural [authority]...?
A A. "Awake, you that are drunk with your wine," 51 someone might shout at the heretics, and with good reason. For the Son, being in the form and complete equality of the Father, endured a voluntary emptying, lowering himself into our form; and he became man, to whom the power to reign and to enact laws is in no way other than a bestowed one. Since, however, he shared in poverty with us and, for the sake of the economy, underwent a condition befitting a servant, he acknowledges that what is his by nature is something bestowed, and he conforms himself very well to the deeds and words of the emptying. And, I think, there will be no harm to those who believe in him from this, if they should perceive the time proper to the words. For when did Christ enact laws for the nations, and when did he arrive announcing in Sion the command of the Lord? Is it not when he became man? Yet one could see very clearly in the Mosaic writings that the Son was sent to announce the command of the Lord to those from Israel at no other time than when he donned our poverty, and he who is the Lord of the prophets was called a prophet, and the Word who was in the bosom of the Father was numbered among men. For God said somewhere, verifying this very fact to the most holy Moses: "I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren, like you. And I will put my word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them according to what I command him." 53 Therefore, O friend, before the Word had union with flesh and was joined to human nature in a way beyond mind and ineffably, would he be thought a brother B of those from Israel, and did he grow up from those earth-born ones? Or is that which you say better and truer: that he was called a brother, and took the place of Moses—as a pedagogue, 54 clearly, and one appointed to the necessity of enacting laws—and fulfilled a certain servile ministry, when, casting aside the preeminence of his innate glory, he lowered himself into a voluntary emptying as time and necessity required?
B. Indeed, you have spoken brilliantly, and know that I have grasped your meaning.
A. If, therefore, they wished to divide rightly what is appropriate to each time, they would not, I think, fall into such mental stupor and a perverse heart, but would finally be able to recognize the straight doctrine of the truth. Moreover, I would add to what we have said, that if to anyone it seems small and counts for nothing to adapt to each point of what is contained in the divinely inspired Scripture its proper and most fitting time, what stops us from saying—even if the only-begotten Word of God is not yet thought to have been made man—that he died, endured the cross and the sufferings of the cross, and before the meeting and union with this earthly flesh, that the Jews wickedly insulted him, and did and said the things which befit none other than their own audacity and fury, since D
Christ himself says, as if he had already suffered: “I gave my back to the scourging, and my cheeks to the buffetings, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting.” B Is it not, then, reasonably a matter of madness and laughter to think that the Son endured these things not at the appropriate time—that is, the time of the incarnation? B. It is true. A. But let us leave the argument concerning this point, and, if you please, let us move to the present matter. B. What is it? A. I mean to subject it to examination and to learn precisely, and to ask the adversaries, whether, in the case of his being established as king and legislator, this state of being is according to substance, or if this way of being is perhaps the Son’s. B. They would not say that, in being established as king and legislator, he is in that state—for instance, or otherwise—as the Son (for I do not suppose they would fall into such folly, although they rave beyond measure, that they would dare to say that this establishment is a definition of substance). But they will perhaps say that C it signifies the nature of him who is established. For they say that he did not receive from another what is naturally in him. A. Therefore, O worthy man, it will be said by us again, that you will be found to be by no means sensible and lovers of dogmatic correctness, but rather very prone to error and deceit. For you have quickly forgotten that what is written must be assigned to the appropriate times, and that things not very becoming to God—even if they might be said of the Only-Begotten—must be granted to the times of the incarnation. Since, however, you do not completely swerve from reasoning that tends toward correctness, as you say that being established is not a substance predicated of the Son, but is indicative of a fact, what prevents one from thinking and saying that God and Father willed that the Son, who is king and legislator substantially, should appear as such to those on earth? And I do not mean that he began to rule, but that he consented in some way to perform the duties of a legislator, and to bring under his own kingdom those who had slipped away from the rule and power bestowed upon them, D through the error of polytheism. It is absolutely absurd, I think, to suppose that the Word of the Father, if he might choose to instruct some in wisdom, is called for the first time to the office of legislator by the will of the Begetter, but not to think that he is a legislator by nature as God. For if, into a dark and hazy cell, the light of a solar ray did not penetrate for some time, the entrance being blocked, and soon that entrance were opened, and the light rushed in, and the darkness was driven away, and an unusual light shone upon those places—a light which, if it could speak, would perhaps recount to those astonished by the event that it had been set by the parent sun to be poured forth to that place and to cheer forever that which was shrouded in darkness—would anyone, I say, admit that the light itself was only then first brought into its nature when it first penetrated?
those things held by darkness; one might grant, then, that it was first brought into the nature of light at the moment it first entered in? B. Not at all, as it seems; for there was always light. A
A. Why then do they oppose to us, as an impregnable rampart, the claim that the Son is constituted legislator or king by God the Father, even though God and Father does not declare that the Son began to possess the glory of a legislator, but commands, approves, and consents to his bringing even the flocks of the Gentiles under his laws, although in other, past times Israel alone had been subjugated and had submitted its neck to divine laws? B
B. But if they wish to show clearly that the Son is a legislator, how or whence could this be done by us?
A. I think it will suffice, for those who are a little sharper, to use what we just said. For since God says clearly regarding the law and those things provided divinely to the ancients C that one must neither add to them nor subtract from them (for to enact laws, and to add and subtract what one wills, belongs solely to the nature that is the queen of all things), the Son has enacted a law, and set aside the old commandment as useless, but brought in a new one, namely the evangelical one, and this as a legislator, not with contracted power, but with divine authority. The wise Paul will seal this argument, writing in this way: "I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that were under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law." Observe how, in rejecting being "without law" to God, he says he is "in the law to Christ," attributing to him the glory of both, and referring the power of enacting laws—as to God by nature—to him as an extraordinary and peculiar [attribute]. Since, therefore, according to the voice of the holy man, one who is in the law of Christ would not be "without law" to God, what argument remains to prevent the Son from being both legislator and God? D
B. None, as I think.
A. To those things which have been said, you might also add this.
B. What is that?
A. That no one, I think, could show that the Father and God gave laws to the ancients or to their descendants separately and alone, but anyone will notice without any effort that he did it together with the Son and through the Son. For where or to whom did the Father give laws, with the Son being neither present nor mentioned?
B. Indeed, the wise Paul writes that God once spoke to the fathers in the prophets. Moses indeed again said somewhere to the Israelites: "The Lord our God spoke to us in Horeb."
A A. Well done, O dear friend. For since the saints, as you say, assign that ancient and shadowy oracle to the person of God and Father, come, let me show you that these are the proper words of the Son who uttered them. For He has come, by no means to destroy, and least of all to overturn the oracles of the prophets, but rather to fulfill both the prophets and the law: "For I say to you," He says, "that one iota or one serif will by no means pass away from the law, until all things happen. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away." Do you understand, then, how, having said that the law must in everything and in every way be brought to completion according to the truth, He called His own words the law? And one might see Him also elsewhere, through one of the holy prophets, clearly crying out: "I, who speak, am here." I have become human, and I have appeared in the form of you who are of the earth, I who spoke of old, even though it was God and Father who spoke the oracles through the holy prophets. But that to him who once possesses the glory of the Lawgiver, the need also to be a judge will naturally and in every way follow—inflicting sharp penalties on those who trample upon what has been determined and deviate toward what seems good to them—is in no way a matter of dispute. B B. Entirely so. A. Just as, therefore, even if the Father might be called the one Lawgiver and the one Judge, the Son would in no way fall short of the glory and truth of both, since nothing separates Him from the natural identity with God the Father; so in the same way, I think, even if God and Father be said to have immortality alone, that dignity will be essential also in the Son, and He will be altogether acknowledged as immortal, or rather, as immortality itself by nature, and being illustrious with the sublimities of His Begetter, He will be worshiped both by us and by the holy angels. But if they should say that these things are not so, and bring against us—even though we are worshipers of the truth—the accusation of lying, let them tell me this. C B. What, then? A. First, if that which lacks life and immortality, and does not have this of itself, will be absolutely mortal, and has life assigned to it as if handed down from another? B. For that which is not immortal by nature will obviously be potentially mortal. A. And in addition to these things, let them answer further, what might be conceived as the operation of life toward those things which lack life? B. Vivification, of course, just as, for example, it is the work of light to illuminate. A. You speak rightly. But if anyone were to think that life itself is vivified by another, and that light itself is illuminated, would it seem to you that he is reasoning correctly? B. Not at all, but rather that he is devoid of sound reason. For that which is being vivified by another is no longer life. D A. When, therefore, the Only-Begotten comes into our midst crying aloud: "I am the resurrection and the life," does He...
have to be thought of as destitute of immortality, or otherwise? B B. Not destitute, surely. For life is, by nature, immortality.
A. Since, then, only God and Father—as I say—possesses immortality (for so, I believe, the divine oracle has declared to us), how could the Son possess it? But I believe certainly that the matter of unity would demonstrate in both, and very easily, that life is substantial and immortality is innate, not an acquired good. But if, through madness, they should think that they must say that the Son is alien to God and Father, and that He has carved out for Himself another, peculiar nature, and that He is not truly God, although He is by nature immortal and, more than that, life itself; would they not also attribute to someone who is reckoned in the number of creatures—as these men foolishly dream—the properties that belong only to the divine and ineffable nature, and because of which we, with the holy angels, rightly revere it, and say that these things are present in him, and that he subsists thereby, and is finally perfected among the creatures, according to what they foolishly think? C B. In what way?
A. That it is appropriate—I believe—for the God who is truly God by nature and in truth that He has the power to vivify and to be life, they themselves also, I know, would say. If, therefore, the Father is this substantially, but the Son, as they will have it, has slipped away from the natural identity with Him, and has descended to such smallness—and yet says that He is life Himself, and arrogates to His own nature what is excellent in the Father's substance, how is it not true what I have asserted? For that which is proper to the ineffable nature has already been transferred to that which is not of it, but has been summoned into generation along with other things as if it were one of them. For among those things that are believed to exist, God is understood in the first place, and after this, the creature. And there is absolutely nothing intermediate. Or is what I said not true? B. True.
A. If, therefore, the Son is of another substance, and not in those things in which they say the Father exists, how could there be understood one and the same natural operation of those who differ so much in the account of the mode by which they exist? "For just as," He says, "the Father vivifies whom He wills, so also the Son vivifies whom He wills." D B. But yes, they say: The Son indeed is life; nevertheless, He said: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father." Therefore, He is life because of the Father.
A. Are we, then, O sirs, to suppose that the Son Himself is also vivified by God and Father along with the rest, and must this life be numbered among those who have an external and adventitious life? Let the Son be ranked, then, with those who die; for what is added is alienable, and if one should choose to possess such things, one might forfeit their possession, if circumstances should happen to bring it about, since they are not preserved by natural laws in a firm and unshaken state. B. How then is He to be considered to be life ...
if He Himself is also life by nature? A A. And yet, this is a proof of the nobility that He has from God and the Father, and a precise indication of the identity according to nature. B. How do you distinguish that? A. For He said, not simply that He is vivified by the Father, but that He lives "because of the Father" (John 6:57). B. What then is the meaning of this? A. Insofar as for one who possesses a nature devoid of immortality and life—and who acquires this quality as an adventitious gift from another—it would be fitting and, I think, quite correct to say: "The Father has given me life." But for One who knows that He has proceeded as Life from Life, and that He possesses immortality as the fruit of His substance, it is fitting for one who acts according to the divinity to say: "I live because of the Father." For if the son of a human, B being rational and born of a rational father, were to say: "I am rational because of my father," or similarly, if the heat streaming outward from a fire, were it to have a voice, should say: "I possess hot force because of the fire from which I have proceeded"—would it not seem to anyone of sound mind that such things have obtained the properties of the natures from which they consist rather in themselves, than that they have received the faculty of existence in this way as something borrowed and in the order of things granted? B. It is like that. A. Therefore, the Son lives because of the Father. For Life proceeded from the Life of the Father, being true God just as He who begat Him. I will take as a supporter of my words the most wise John, who wrote about Him in this way: "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us a good understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in the true Jesus Christ His Son. This is the true God, and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). C Would there ever again be anything to you more manifest, or more robust for refuting that opinion by which it is thought that the Son exists otherwise than the Father exists according to nature? B. Nothing, I suppose, when the voice of the Theologian opposes an unassailable testimony to the adversaries. Yet, if the Son be called true God, they immediately dissolve in laughter, and say that He is not truly God in the proper sense, but that the name was granted to Him according to the will of the Father. For somewhere, they say, the divine Paul has said: "God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9). A. That the name which is above every name was bestowed D upon Him, know that I too would say. For to wish to foolishly resist the words of the theologians is, I believe, not the effort of a sound mind, but rather of one deranged and stupefied. However, I am astonished at the inclination of the adversaries toward error, who do not even wish to take into their minds the reason why it was given, but rather greedily snatch and seize from the syllables and words anything whatsoever that appears contrary to the honor and glory of the Son, considering nothing better, even though the divinely inspired Scripture does not define the time when it was given as anything other than that
according to which: “Being in the form of God, the Only-begotten did not think it robbery to be equal to God,” as it is written, “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. For then indeed God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” A
B. What, then, does this mean?
A. The path is open and plain for those who wish to think rightly, leading toward the truth. Attend, therefore, my friend. To receive by grace the name that is above every name—this is what is called the emptying and the economic descent of the Word to us. But if this "receiving" is found within the measures of the emptying, then it is seen that He is altogether exempt from the necessity of receiving what He possessed before the emptying, for the reason that He possessed naturally what He was, that is, the being in the form of God and the Father. B And if He humbled Himself, having come down from a supreme and surpassing state to a lesser one, He will certainly rise again to what He was, not seeking after foreign honor and glory, but his own and original ones. But if they consider it highly important to insist that the Son arrived at an unaccustomed honor and glory when He received the name that is above every name as something given by the Father, there is nothing, I think, to prevent us from taking the mystery of the Incarnation by an opposite method, and for the matter to be turned entirely into its contrary. I will say how. For if for the Son "to receive" is not an emptying, but rather it is an acquisition of things that in no way belonged to Him essentially, which happened to Him when He was emptied, then the emptying—if we wish to estimate it truly—would be that time which preceded the emptying, and that time would be one of preeminence and glory, in which He is said, I know not how, to have been emptied, even though He possesses things that exceed His nature and measure, C and suddenly invades those things that incomparably surpass the prior state in which He was. It is clear, therefore, from your opinion and that of those who think rightly, that the name which is above every name must be thought to have been given to the Son at that time when, having also assumed our form as one of us, He was inscribed as a Son of God, adopted with us and for our sake—He who is the true and genuine Son—so that we also, through Him, might be participants in a supernatural glory as sons. Do you not think that the argument proceeds for us straight to what is appropriate?
B. Truly, it proceeds.
A. Yet, since we have proposed to think better than the foolish temerity of those men, we shall keep the glory of the Only-begotten unharmed, D and we shall destroy their counsels and every height that exalts itself, as it is written, and we shall bring every thought into captivity to the obedience
A of Him. B But if we do not endure to act thus, but yield to the necessity of overcoming by their calumnies, and we cast away the fact that the Only-Begotten is truly God, we shall say that in this manner He possesses nothing more than we do.
B. In what way will you explain this, I wonder, and will you not hesitate to speak?
A. Indeed, I will speak readily, for I would not hesitate at all in these matters. For is it not true to say that if the name which is above every name has been granted to Him, and the title of God has been given to Him, as it were, by a bestowal, He might be cast down from it whenever the opportunity arises? For what is given is not altogether firm. Moreover, the Father Himself, as far as we can follow it with our reason, would be involved in things that are wrong to utter. For He would be less than the Son, and he who is, according to them, lesser—or rather, he who possesses the glory of deity as a mere counterfeit, and who barely prides himself on spurious honors—would surpass the nature of Him who begat him, B if He is truly God merely and solely by the appellation.
B. What grievous absurdities you bring before us!
A. They are grievous indeed, in truth, yet they need to be brought forward. For sometimes that which is not thought to be correct drives us to inquire more zealously after that which tends toward the truth. If, therefore, as they think, the Son has received wages, and has brought back from God and the Father that name as a sort of compensation for the emptying [kenosis], then surely it would be supposed that He lacked even that before the time of the emptying, if He is seen to have become enriched in time with this acquired and easily lost grace. Furthermore, how was He in the form and equality of God and the Father, not yet having undergone the voluntary emptying, but also not having deigned to take the form and state of a servant? For He did not count it a prize to be equal to God, although it was His to have this. If, therefore, we say that the Son was—even before the time of the emptying—in the form and equality of the Father, but was honored when He was emptied, and has returned to the measure of the glory belonging to Him, and if that which exceeds it has perhaps even surpassed the Father Himself...
B. How sharp the argument is!
A. And yet it is true, as far as reason goes. And if the Son has gained anything better by receiving the name which is above every name, He will surely prevail altogether in those things which are His own, and will exceed the nature of God and the Father. For this is what that sharp argument recently demonstrated to us. But if He does not appear any more excellent than He was, even if it is understood that He has received it, and the grace adds nothing at all, would they not be foolish and mendacious who do not refuse to advance to such a pitch of audacity as to now dare to say that a creature would be superior—I will not say by a little, but not at all—to the ineffable nature of the deity? Moreover, it would be of no avail at all to elevate anything to a more noble state, even if one were to attribute to it one's own things. But to think in this way is foolish; for the things of God are worthy of belief, and lead to the consummation...
and God the Father will be seen to be better and the bestower of better things than those in which He exists. B
B. In what way?
A. For since He gave the Son a name—He who was in the form and equality with Him, even before the time of the emptying, and who in no way was inferior to the glory innate to Him—He set Him above and on high, giving Him the name which is above every name. Is not this, then, already a heap of dross, and a ferocity of blasphemies, and an absurdity of thoughts, smelling of the utmost ignorance? C
B. Certainly it is.
A. There is also another reason by which one might, I think, most justly condemn their absurdity, if one considers this: If the Son knows Himself to possess only the usufruct of the name of divinity, and that this is not a fruit of nature for Him, what is it that urges Him to cry out openly: "I am the truth"? For that which is counterfeit is not true; and that which through external and added-on embellishments appears to be what it is not by nature, indeed forces its way in and audaciously breaks into the opinion of truth while in reality not being such, and its absurdity is exposed by the investigation of reasons. Why, indeed, did He not think He should count Himself among the gods by adoption, He who is by nature God, but, separating Himself from the crowd of the saints, retired into a place effectively peculiar to Himself and accessible to no others, saying: "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, do you say: You blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God?" For if those, He says, are called gods, having received the word of God and admitted it into their soul, how shall He not be God, by whom they are gods? For the Word was God, according to the voice of John. But "was" does not attribute a more recent glory to Him, but one older than any time indeed. For where, pray, would that "was" end, or to what end would it arrive, when it always proceeds further and is carried along at an irrevocable course, and knows not how to yield priority to time, and in a way has already meditated how to outrun every thought beyond time? D
B. You speak rightly; for that "was" is indeed always better than time.
A. Moreover, the divine Paul does not know the Son to be rendered illustrious by spurious dignities, but rather acknowledges Him to be God by nature, joining Him in essential and natural unity with the Father and God.
B. In what way?
A. For thus he writes: "For although there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." If, therefore, he knew that it were fitting for Him to be numbered among those who are gods by grace, why did he not place Him indiscriminately with the rest, and show Him to us as one and only...
A revealing God and Lord as the Father, yet, as it were, putting each separately, did he judge that the name of deity should be assigned to the Father, and that of lordship to the Son? But I suspect, one might deem it wise and necessary that we should neither despoil the glory of being able to rule and have lordship over all things from the natural and true deity, nor should we wish to alienate the nature of the deity from the true lordship; but rather, that both should belong to both, even if they seem to be set forth separately. For an evident proof of a single nature is that each is, so to speak, perfectly crowned with the natural properties which are in both; and that this equality of nature in both throughout all things, and its unassailable identity, will not admit anything at all that is alien.
B. But how could that be?
A. But if anyone should ask whether you attribute a substantial and natural sonship to the Son, or one placed solely in the will of the Father, just as, indeed, one might concede it to be in our own case, what would you answer, Hermias?
B. I would certainly call it substantial; but I would not seem to those of the contrary opinion to be speaking the truth.
A. Certainly you would. But they would add that we are raving, and have turned aside from the straight path of reason. For who, I ask, B if he does not wish to assent to sentiments of this kind, would escape the mockery of those who are so enraged with madness, and have arrived at such a degree of intemperance, that they think the Son must be considered as superadded and placed in the order of others, even though they blush at their own fabrications, and, as if practicing sorcery upon the truth which they have ill-treated, they attribute to Him an extraordinary glory, inaccessible to others, and devise for Him as much splendor as they wish to attribute to Him at their own discretion? But I would gladly ask them what the manner of that sonship might be which is conceived in both cases, or in what way they say it has come to pass. For we have been called to be sons, but we shall not say how; rather, Paul will instruct us as he writes: "And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father" (Galat. IV, 6). Therefore, since the Son has, in an ineffable manner, taken up His abode within us through His own Spirit, we say that we have been called to C spiritual sonship. Or will you not confess that this has been brought to pass in this way?
B. Most certainly. For I shall also remember that which the most wise John proclaims to us concerning God: "But as many as received Him, He gave them power to become the children of God" (Joan. I, 12).
A. Observe then, my friend, where our discourse concerning the Only-Begotten will finally end, if He is to be ranked equally among the number of those who have been called to sonship. For that which has been made will not obtain the place of sonship in any other way than through the Son in the Spirit. And this will be made manifest by the testimony of Paul, who says: "And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father." D In what, then, is He to be a Son...
A also? For they would not, I think, say that He is in Himself and through Himself, although He is numbered among those who are sons by adoption, if indeed He were to depart, according to them, from that which is by nature and in truth.
B. But if they say that we, indeed, receive the Son, but He Himself receives the Father within Him, what answer could you give to this?
A. I will certainly say this: if they define the divine nature for us according to their own judgment, and rashly impose upon it whatever laws they wish, the discourse of those who have once entered into this [way of thinking] will prove to be very slight, or rather, altogether non-existent, B since they belch out things from their own heart, but speak nothing from the mouth of the Lord. But if they think they must define the way of pure knowledge of God, they ought to confirm what they know to conceive with arguments sealed by the voices of divine Scripture.
B. So be it, they say. For the Son said to Philip: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"
A. Does the Father, then, sanctify the Son by existing in Him?
B. They will surely concede this.
A. Is He holy according to nature, and does He have from Himself both the sanctification and the power to sanctify those in whom He might happen to be, or has He obtained this property from another?
B. Being holy, evidently, according to nature Himself.
A. C Therefore, O miserable men, and inclined to every absurdity, the Son is deprived of natural holiness, and has not obtained a nature free or altogether immune from sinning, at least as far as that nature is concerned. If, therefore, they should concede that it is helped in some way by the fact that it has been sanctified by the Father, and that it has received the stability and glory of those things for which we worship Him, while nothing has been added to the Son from the fact that He has been sanctified, it is vain, I think, to say that God and Father dwells and abides in Him. But what the reason for this may be, or how the matter stands, we shall best examine in this way. For the Son, as these men alone perhaps most impiously think, receives the Father within Himself, as if in need of sanctification. D But what would the Father be considered to have obtained, having the Son in Himself? If, therefore, they say that this is the manner of sanctifying that which is naturally fashioned to be sanctified, why have we not also, by receiving the Spirit, crossed over into Him, so that He indeed dwells in us, and we in turn dwell in Him? But if this excessive absurdity troubles them (for the Spirit is in us, and we are not in Him according to nature), how can they not be wandering in vain reasonings, not thinking that what is in the Father as the Son, and the Father in turn inscribed in the Son, must be attributed to the identity of substance, but rather contend and believe that the Begetter dwells in the Son like some external and accidental good? Otherwise
I suppose, it will be necessary to say: do we not through the spiritual unity working in those who desire it with the Son, become conformed to sonship, while the Son refashions us to His own glory, as it were, and impresses the characters of His own form, and in a way inscribes them upon the souls of those who receive Him? A B. Certainly. A. Would it not, then, be laid down that the power to make sons is a natural operation for the Son, and that it has its being, in my opinion, correctly and blamelessly for no other reason than that He is the Son? B. Be it so. What follows from this? A. That we shall not concede the inhabitation of the Father, if we wish to reason correctly and accurately, to be the work of another, but rather that it is accomplished in such a way as it might be understood to be also in the Son, that which is fulfilled through Him. For the Father would surely demonstrate Him to be Father, and not Son, in whom He might choose to dwell, and whom He might fashion into His own image. B B. Tell me, then, shall we concede that the divine image within us, which the nature of man is said to be enriched with (for it has been made in the image and likeness of God), is toward the likeness of the Son alone, or shall we admit the Father along with the Son in this, and say that we have been fashioned according to the whole divine nature, even though we are named sons and are ranked among children? A. Then, O dear friend, do you not think one ought to consider that the whole argument of our faith in this matter looks toward one nature of the Godhead, which exists in three individual hypostases, which are conformed and uniform to one another, and run together into one supreme beauty, toward which we too were fashioned, according to the Scriptures, and were sealed for sonship through the Son in the Spirit? For the image of the Son would be sonship, and that of the Father would be fatherhood; therefore, we are sons through sonship, but we are the image and likeness of God, having been fashioned in the beginning toward the whole nature, and it is evident that this means the supreme one. C B. You speak rightly. A. It is therefore foolish and vain to spend all one's effort in investigating things that are most absurd. But it would be advisable, I think, to despise those things and seek those which necessarily have utility conjoined to them. B. Indeed, entirely so. A. Let the talk of those men, then, be considered trifles, and let it be cast far away, as having come to the very end of evils. As for us, let us by no means suppose that God is illegitimate, and the Son recently brought into being, and that He is sanctified, or that He has been called into sonship by God, and has received acquired glory along with us, but rather that He has attained what He is by the law of nature. Nor can He have been adopted into sonship through His own Spirit. For that the Spirit is the Son’s own, just as it is, naturally, the Father’s also, anyone might learn, and that quite D easily, from His...
words: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him?" A And again: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And Paul, writing to the believers in the same manner, says: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." The Spirit, then, who adorns us mortals with the glory of sonship, since He belongs to the Son, will effect adoption in others, but will He be entirely inactive in Him whose own He is—not brought in, nor introduced from the outside, but being substantially His, and poured out through Him, by the will of the Father, upon those found worthy of Him? Does it not seem to you that these things are rightly said and reasoned? B. Entirely so. A. And when John, the minister of the divine mysteries, comes into the midst, crying out concerning God and us: "By this we know that He abides in us, because He has given us of His Spirit," is it not easily manifest to all that He is the true God, and that the Son has proceeded from the substance of God and the Father, if indeed the Spirit that dwells in us is His? And in addition to this, I ask: if the Spirit of God and the Father, in whom He vivifies and sanctifies the nature of created things, is also proper to the Son, who would ever come into such a disturbance of mind C as to think or say that He is stripped of the consubstantiality with God the Father, and to reckon Him among the number of creatures, and that He does not bestow upon the creation those things which are proper and excellent to the divine nature, moved beyond its own boundaries—so that there would now be no distinction, but the creature would be just as illustrious as that nature which holds dominion over all things? B. A slippery matter, indeed. How could it not be? A. Therefore, since it is possible to see the Only-Begotten, as manifested in the holy Scriptures, with the properties of the Father, come then, let us by other gathered reasons overthrow the weak and senseless opinion of our adversaries, and bring into the midst those things through which it may appear that He acts equally and possesses power equally with God and the Father—inasmuch as He is God, not being numbered among those who come to this through grace, nor being conspicuous by honors received from the outside, but being rather true [God], and one who in no least degree is inferior to the excellence of the Begetter, which surpasses every creature. B. Most certainly, my good fellow, or rather, I would say, this is of the greatest importance. A. Do you think, then, my friend, that it is permitted to any...
A creature to easily perform what the nature that is mistress of the universe alone could accomplish? B. To none. A. You have spoken rightly. Now, the most holy Paul attributes, as something supernatural and exceptional, and—I imagine—surpassing the bounds of everything created, the power to make the dead live to God and the Father. For he speaks as follows: "For where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written: 'I have made you a father of many nations,' in the presence of Him whom he believed, God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did." Come then, if you will, to the glory of the Son Himself. For you shall see Him again, far from being inferior to the Father, but rather crowned with an equal capacity for working. For the same Paul told us: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." For He is life, and is not otherwise in regard to Himself than as the Father Himself would be. For you heard Him somewhere saying: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, even so the Son gives life to whom He wills." Therefore, He was giving a clear manifestation of B His own nature and glory in divine fashion, by saying: "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works." For did He not claim by these things to be recognized as God by nature? Indeed, if anyone were found to possess the power to work as God does, he would in every way be equal in glory and would be nothing other than God. For reason leads us to this, I think. B. It seems so. For He would not have thought it right to boast of works equal to those of the Father, unless He were laying claim to the same glory. A. But since holy Scripture calls out to us: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning," from where, then, would you suppose that that distribution C of divine gifts is made to us? B. From God the Father, evidently. A. And yet Christ gave to the holy apostles authority and power against unclean spirits, so that they might cast them out and heal every disease and every infirmity among the people. And, what is even more superior to these things, He commanded them to be able to overcome death itself, speaking with the greatest divine authority: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons." And our divine John has confessed to us most clearly, saying: "That of His fullness we have all received."
A And will this good gift and perfect offering be anything else, in your judgment, than participation in the Holy Spirit? B. By no means. A. Observe, therefore, from this as well, my friend, that the Son pours forth from His own fullness His own Holy Spirit—inseparable and naturally inherent to Him—through whom comes every good gift. For when He had risen again, having destroyed corruption and having bidden the bonds of death to be strong no more, in order to restore us to holiness and to implant in the apostles, as in the first-fruits of the human race, the ancient beauty of our nature, He breathed into their faces, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit." B But if every perfect gift is from above and from the Father, and if the Son dispenses these things not in a ministerial manner, but rather with an authority befitting God, by what logic, then, would He cease to be, according to nature, what He who begat Him is—namely, true God—and not one who is merely painted over with artificial honors, as if on a wooden tablet? B. By no path, as I think. A. Furthermore, will not the argument of faith suffice to demonstrate most perfectly that the Son is God by nature? B. What do you mean by that? A. That we who believe in Christ draw near in this way to God, who is natural and true, and we have been delivered from the error of polytheism, having cast aside the worship of the creature, and being loosed from that crime. And indeed, for those called by grace to the acknowledgment of the truth, the wise Paul writes, in one place saying: C "Wherefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at that time you were without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." And elsewhere he says again: "But then, indeed, not knowing God, you served those who by nature are not gods; but now, having known God, or rather having been known by God, how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you wish to be in bondage again?" D If, then, those who were without Christ were without God, and have at last acknowledged God by having embraced faith and having assented to the Son who says: "He who believes in the Son is not judged, because he has believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God," how would He not be understood to be God—He who is honored not by feigned and external praises from us ourselves and from the angels, but is believed to exist substantially as that which He is, truly God, clearly, and from God by nature? For what, I pray, would you concede that Paul intended when he writes concerning Him and says: "That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. We therefore are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were exhorting through
us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. A Since, therefore, when someone comes to Christ for reconciliation, he is reconciled to God, and in Christ the world has its treaty with God—would not he be laughed at, and very deservedly, who thinks that the Word, born of Him and in Him, has slipped away from the substance of the Father? B. Entirely so. A. But as regards the necessity of ruling over all things, and the excellence B of being in superiority over every creature called into existence—to whom would you attribute this most of all among existing things, and not be mistaken in your sense of what is appropriate? B. To God, clearly. For David sings somewhere: "For all things serve thee." And further: "Come, let us worship and fall down before Him, for He Himself made us, and we did not make ourselves. We are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand." C A. Well done, my friend! For God is indeed the one being loudly and openly praised here. It is not permitted, therefore, to any creature to claim for itself, or to call created things its own, and to dare subject them to its own authority; or if someone were to do this while not crowned with the glory of the kingdom, would we not say he is liable to accusation and indictment? B. Such is the case. A. Then with what understanding did the Son—when He could have said "the Father's"—call those who believed in Him *His own* sheep? "For my sheep," He says, "hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall not perish forever, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand." D Moreover, the theologian John tells us that He came into "His own [things]," speaking of his humanity on earth and, as I think, everything that has been created as his own. He operates in us also the Father’s operation—not in any inferior way—and does not appear to possess the glory of lordship as if it were alien; rather, He makes it His own and intends to have it in this way. For, conversing somewhere with the disciples who were accompanying and following Him, He said: "The harvest is indeed plentiful, but the laborers are few. Pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that He may send laborers into His harvest." But while He referred the designation of the reapers to the Father, He immediately declared Himself the Lord of the harvest, granting the authority of teaching to the holy apostles as His own special prerogative. Furthermore, the wise John also confirmed that the threshing floor is His, saying: "Whose winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor, and He will gather the wheat into His barn." And in addition to these, Paul enrolls those who have believed in Him as to a Lord and God, saying: "Those who are Christ’s...
have crucified the flesh along with its passions and desires." A And again at another time: "But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person is not His"; even though someone—or rather, the Holy Spirit—says to God: "I am Yours; save me, for I have sought out Your justifications." Are these, therefore, in the same way in which they might be understood as distinctively the Father’s, also the Son’s, unless the substance of both is bound together into a unity?
B. Certainly not. For God is one over us, and the Lord is one. And each permeates the other substantially.
A. You speak truly. For the Father is full of lordship and, as God, is filled with His glory; and so too is the Son God, as He is Lord. B And yet, neither would the Father be God, lacking lordship, nor would the Son be truly Lord, if He were stripped of His natural and true deity. Therefore, the divine Paul, as if mingling those things which belong to both in an indivisible communion, calls the Gospel now God the Father’s, and now Christ’s. Do you wish us to explain the matter, drawing from the holy Scriptures for confirmation?
B. I would very much like that.
A. He said, therefore: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God." But transferring in a way the glory of God to the Son, who is understood as being out of Him, and in Him, and with Him, he said again: "But we have not used this authority, so that we might not give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ." C And binding together the significance of both names into one on account of the identity of substance, he says: "But I have written to you more boldly in part, as if reminding you, because of the grace that was given to me by God, that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit." The Gospel of Christ and of God is, therefore, one; and whatever would be stated regarding God as the Word, the same would also be fitting for the Son. But if anything that distinguishes the begotten from the Begetter and introduces inequality should seem to appear, then the discourse concerning both would no longer be the same. Or do you not say that this is true, Hermias?
B. I do indeed.
A. D Then those things which are set forth concerning each will differ and diverge, and what one might rightly think to hold true regarding God and the Father, it would not be fitting to understand to be the same regarding the Son. How, then, could the Gospel of both be one, and how could one and the same thing be narrated of them, unless the Son is God by nature, rather than being a fraud to him who is being instructed, and an obstacle in the knowledge of the truth?
B. Absolutely.
A. But he who [is] the mystery of God, that is, the faith in
Him, revealing to those not yet learned how he might be called a minister of Christ, and preach Christ, seeking the glory for God, and calling himself a servant of God? "For in everything," he said, "commending ourselves as servants of God." And elsewhere concerning some: "Are they servants of Christ? I am speaking as a fool, I am more." Is there, then, any word here that sets the Son apart from God and the Father in terms of created-like, physical difference? B. I cannot conceive of one. A. But it is another kind of absurdity not to think that the Son is God by nature, when the Holy Scriptures cry out that the Church is God’s, but again that it is Christ’s. For the divine Paul wrote thus to some: "Be without offense both to Jews, and to Gentiles, and to the Church of God." And again, he asserted that Christ presented the Church to Himself, B immaculate and without wrinkle. And furthermore, when God says through one of the prophets that He will dwell and walk about in us, Christ dwells [in us], and, according to what was foretold of old, He works as God. "For Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, according to what is written, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken; but Christ as a Son, over His own house, whose house we are." B. Therefore, nothing at all prevents us from thinking and truly believing that, since the Son proceeded from the very essence of God and the Father, He should not be understood as other than Him, in so far as it pertains to physical identity. A. Well done, my friend; for it seemed right to think this way, and [it seemed so] to the blessed Paul. "For if God is for us," he says, "who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?" If, then, C the Son is truly the proper [Son] of God and the Father, would He then depart into a difference of nature, and would there be devised any true and blameless reasoning that might cut [Him] into difference, and make alien that which is proper to someone, from Him whose proper [Son] He is considered and called? B. I do not think so. A. What then? Do we not say that there are ten thousand who have been called to sonship under God? B. Indeed, very many. For it is written: "I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." A. Would any man, then, after taking one or two from such an infinite multitude, dare to call them "proper sons" of God and the Father, and not pay the penalty which one would inflict upon those who wish to adulterate the beauty of the truth? B. I would say so; for you speak correctly. D A. But if I should wish to learn again why, while ten thousand are called gods and sons, the "proper" [sonship] belongs to only one, strictly and truly, what would you yourself say?
B. I would say that those have been adopted into sonship, having obtained this appellation and gift of heavenly munificence; but that He is not so, but is in very truth proper to God and the Father, inasmuch as He possesses with Him the supreme nature of all things. A
A. Is that which is proper to God by nature, therefore, not God, but rather a created thing, or who then is it?
B. Certainly there is no doubt in this. For deity is essentially the property of God, just as, for sure, a created thing is the property of a creature.
A. But if anyone thinks that a created thing or a creature is proper to God by nature, I believe it is safe to follow the reverse line of reasoning. For to say that deity is proper to a creature is not evil; but to think this, is a sin. Since, therefore, the absurdity of the arguments urges us together toward the correct view, the Son will at length be proper to God and the Father, not numbered among the adopted, but as God from God. And since those things which are joined together immutably into one genus and species do not have a reason for their existence that is different or discrepant in natural diversity (for there is one reason and definition significant of substance for all mankind), therefore God is not of a different nature from Him of whom the Son was born, but is rather true God; for1 He has been called proper to the natural and true God, differing from the adopted multitude, and tending to the glory of the one and true God. B
B. You speak rightly.
A. Therefore, holy Scripture again tells us that that substantial unity with the Father must be preserved for the Son. For it has it thus: “For the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. xi, 3); by these words signifying, I think, the truth and genuineness of the substance, and that the Son has proceeded from it in very truth.
B. What do you mean?
A. Do you think that the reason for this matter should be explained to us? I ask you to tell me what is arduous and creates difficulty.
B. They say, indeed, that this will cast the Son down from the identity with God the Father.
A. Can you tell me in what way? C
B. Entirely. For if the man is the head of the woman, they say, it is because he is of the same nature and substance with her, although he may be thought to be of a perhaps more excellent condition (for the head in the body is the most excellent part of all); but Christ is called the head of the man, since a natural relation calls Him to an affinity with creatures, just as in the case of the man and the woman: how then will He be called God and true, or how will He be able to have a natural identity with God the Father, if He is numbered among creatures and is regarded in the place of a head? For they say the Son will surpass the condition of the creature by the pre-eminence of glory. D
A O what a great inclination towards the most absurd things! How headlong the cunning and false speech of the adversaries is carried away! For they impiously and irreligiously proclaim the Son, who proceeds from God the Father, a creature. But we shall discuss this, reserving that debate for an opportune time, with mind and tongue at leisure and intent upon it. But this strikes me with the greatest wonder: that, as it seems, they who are prone to every ignorance are wandering no less far from right reason now than they were of old. For Christ is called the head of the man on account of the natural conjunction of the relation; for I shall not deny what has been rightly and truly said. But since God has been set as the head of Christ, what stands in the way, O noble sirs, might one say to them, or what prevents us from understanding that, if the Son is of the same genus as creatures, since He is called the head of the man, you are driving even the Father Himself into the order of creatures? For He is set as head to the Son, even though He is created and, according to you, existing as a product. For these things seem to our madmen to be well and blamelessly stated: but I think that the weight of impiety will bring torpor upon them, even if they have become hardened and indulge in fantasies in such necessary matters. Come, therefore; having cast these aside and sent them off to the mountain or thrown them into the waves, let us devise something more benign. For we say the man is the head of the woman, since she proceeded from him in the beginning and was fashioned in the image of man, who has God as his archetype. For so it has been made, as the Scriptures will have it; but we define Christ to be the head of the man, as the second root of the race and the first-fruits of humanity, which returns to immortality through sanctification in the Spirit. And the name "second Adam" is given to Christ, B and for no other reason than this alone. Furthermore, we shall hold and believe the Father to be the head of Christ, as consubstantial with Him and naturally joined, in so much as He is understood and is God, even if He has appeared in the flesh and has become like us. Christ is, as it were, a borderland of divinity and humanity, having in one, as it were, a conjunction of both, and a concourse into identity of things dissenting in nature, according to the unity brought about by the incarnation, which can neither be grasped by the mind nor expressed by tongue or speech. For Christ is at once God and man, having the Father, who is in heaven, as the source and root of His own subsistence—co-beginningless and co-eternal, and not prior in time, since it is necessary that he who is called a head subsist together with the head; but He is also endowed with a natural relation to us according to the flesh. When, therefore, God is understood and is the head of Christ without falsehood, how shall He not be the true God—He who has the true divinity as His root, and substantially contains the Father within Himself? For it is necessary that the head be regarded as of the same nature as the rest of the body. But if they think that the Word born of God the Father must be cast down from the borders of divinity and dragged down to the condition of creatures, let them listen clearly: "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the
tree rotten, and its fruit rotten." A
B. You have spoken excellently.
A. For it is a manifest sign of the highest stupidity and extreme madness to admire a tree, as if it were of the most excellent and noble kind, yet to attribute to it fruit of a somehow different nature. For God surely begets God; would you not say that this is so?
B. I would indeed.
A. For how could He not be God, and that truly, in whom and in whom alone you would recognize God to be by nature, and truly the Father? For thus Paul writes to the believers: "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifests the odor of his knowledge through us in every place, that we are the good odor of Christ to God." B Since therefore the odor of God and Father has appeared in Christ, and is known in Him, how then must one suppose that this is brought about? For in meadows and gardens, at certain seasons of the year, fruits and lilies grow. Would there, tell me, my friend, be naturally implanted in an apple perhaps the odor of a lily, or will a lily conversely provide its own to an apple, so that in both there will be clearly distinguished precisely what belongs to each?
B. By no means; for each will surely put forth what is its own.
A. How then could Christ be the good odor of the true knowledge of God and Father, unless He is believed to proceed from the true divinity? For it has been shown that each person, so to speak, gives forth the scent of its own nature. But how could the odor of the divineness that exists by nature come to be through a creature and a nature of a different kind, or as God has it? For just as no one would think, if he has any sense, that the odor of divinity belongs to the nature of created things—for that is a matter of the utmost foolishness—so too, no one would attribute to the unbegotten and all-surpassing divinity a Son who is of a different kind and nature, as if poured forth from it in the manner of an odor. C For the Only-Begotten has been born in an ineffable way from the substance of God and Father, revealing to us in Himself the whole fragrance of the nature of the Begetter. Wherefore the Church gathered from the nations, as in the person of the bride, addresses Him with these words: "Your name is oil poured out; therefore the maidens have loved you, they have drawn you." For through Him and in Him we have received the fragrance of the knowledge of the Father, and have been enriched by it.
B. I agree. For you seem to have spoken and discussed these things rightly.
A. There is also another way by which it is not obscure that the Son truly is God and has proceeded from God, if we consider the reason for this matter in this way. D
B. In what way, I pray?
A. Tell me, I ask, does it befit any thing to be able to bestow those things which the divine and only nature might bestow?
A B. By no means. A. Would he, then, not be in the highest eminences and in those things which reach the end of divine glory, and quite reasonably so, for whom it might be seen that the ability to accomplish these things is inherent? B. How could it be otherwise?
A. Peace, then, is a good gift from God, and a stranger from heaven, and one which has reached us exclusively from divine beckonings. We shall make the prophet Isaiah a witness for the argument, crying out and saying: “O Lord our God, give us peace; for thou hast given to us all things. O Lord, besides thee we know no other; we call upon thy name.” B It is, I suppose, because in having obtained peace, one can enjoy every good thing, at least in the opinion of those who have altogether embraced [or "chosen"] it. B. For it is indeed shared.
A. Peace is, therefore, a fruit of the power from above, and truly a gift, as I said just now, not from any created being, but from God alone, who is so by nature. Therefore, he said that He alone was known as the giver of it, and no one besides Him. B. It is true.
A. Consider, therefore, the grantor and at the same time the steward of those things which God the Father might bestow upon us, the Word having appeared from Him. C For He said somewhere to the holy disciples: “My peace I give to you, my peace I leave to you.” He says that peace is His own good, for it is a thing bestowed by God, and [it is] not otherwise. And in addition to this, the divine Paul says: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” But He who is the co-grantor and giver with God and the Father, and who proceeds with the same, undistinguished generosity and magnificence at once, how, tell me, could He fall short of divine glory, and not rather be situated in every respect as equal and similar to the One who begat Him? B. That is correct.
A. But come, let us move on to that other point. B. To what do you refer? D A. Do you not acknowledge that, if we agree with the opinions of the saints, the truth will be made plain to us, and it will lead us back to what is pleasing to God, and to what has been inspired concerning the Son through the Holy Spirit? B. And what is that?
A. That the Son is truly and by nature God. For the wise Paul said, concerning God and the Father: “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.” Then, immediately, he does not fear to weave a crown of equal honor and glory for the Son, since he knew that He was God by nature and in truth; he writes concerning Him, spinning out the account regarding the rejection of the Jews: “For I could wish myself to be anathema from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over
everything God blessed for ever. Amen. A Shall we then place the God who is over all beneath God along with all creatures, if he is not truly God, and is placed among those adopted by grace—even though he has obtained that great and God-befitting dignity of being above all, that is to say, of being blessed, and that to be eternally and unceasingly sealed by the word Amen? Do you think the adversaries understood these things with a sound mind? B. By no means; but he rather has a sound mind who confesses that the Son is true God and has shone forth from true God, through whom and with whom is glory to God and the Father, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
DIALOGUE IV
That the Son is neither a creature, nor a thing made.
B A. Whoever, therefore, strips of the glory of being the natural Son the God who has shone forth from God by an ineffable generation, and contends that he is a creature and made, is he not guilty of the punishment which C we say hangs over those who cavil against the divine glory, the divinely inspired Scripture thus setting its vote: "A man, whoever shall curse his God, shall receive sin: he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death; let all the congregation of Israel stone him; whether he be a proselyte or a native, when he names the name of the Lord, let him die"? B. I do not think he can escape being judged in every way and by all means liable to the punishments fitting for him. A. It is best, therefore, Hermias, not to embrace the petulance of others, since it drives us into a reprobate sense, but to regard the utterances of the theologians as the straight and unperverted rule of faith. For it is better not to applaud others than to say to them themselves: "It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you." B. You have spoken most rightly. A. Therefore, they by no means think that the Only-begotten Word of God is to be worshipped as one made or created, but they say that he is the fruit, or offspring, co-existent and co-eternal with the substance of his Begetter, and they name him both Son and true God and eternal life. And indeed, our divine interpreter of divine mysteries, John, says: "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has
A given us an understanding, so that we may know the true God, and we are in the true God, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. A But if the Son, O good sir, is both true God and eternal life, and yet he has not escaped being a creature and a work, although he is endowed with such a glorious nature, will not that designation now be—in some way—an insult to the very substance of God the Father, with no one to prevent it?
B. In what way?
A. For is not he himself also named true God, and does he not give life to all things, being life by nature? "For in him we live and move and have our being," as the wise word also says somewhere.
B. True.
A. Let the argument of blasphemy, then, go quite to him, and let him be termed a created thing; for the unlimited—and I suppose nothing stands in the way—the true divinity having once suffered in the Son, the being numbered among created things, and the eternal life having, I know not how, been mocked of being life and, mingled with the other creatures as if by necessity, having received an existence defined by time. For that which is created is not without beginning, nor is it older than all time.
B. How terrible a matter this is, my friend, and truly an unavoidable charge of impiety!
A. It can, however, be avoided. For it is easy, if you wish, to flee the images and the deadly and pestilential doctrine of the adversaries, if you piously assign the prior roles to the opinions of the saints. For they by no means proclaimed God as the Maker of the Only-Begotten, but rather as Father in the way of generation, who have also been set as the light of the world by him who did not ignore his own nature, namely Christ. For he said to them somewhere: "You are the light of the world." Moreover, declaring them true teachers of the mysteries, C he said: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But where there is truly Father, and generation, and indeed Son, not possessing the glory of sonship by adoption but essentially and from the Father, what place will that slander about his being made have?
B. None, as I suppose.
A. For let no one at all who is concerned for orthodoxy come to such perverse reasoning as to think that we ought to remove the generation—or rather, the reality of the generation—far from the substance of God the Father, blushing in ignorance, lest it should perhaps suffer some of the things that are involuntary to itself, and having been brought low, might labor under the necessities of bodies. For some of the senseless attribute to it D divisions, and the much-talked-of flowing—who are unaware that they are casting themselves into the pits of destruction—who suppose that the ineffable nature of God, which is beyond all mind, when it appears to be begetting, also suffers something of this kind, being entirely ignorant of what an incorporeal nature is.
A For an incorporeal thing is entirely incapable of division, or of flowing away, or of being cut; but this is perhaps more fitting for a tangible and dense nature, which is liable to be caught by such things. If, therefore, the word "beget" is said of God, let every suspicion of passion be cast aside, and let reason prevail, attributing to the nature of God what is more becoming. For He will not beget as we do, but as He Himself knows and as is fitting for Him. Therefore, the fables of the heretics are trifles and old women's tales. For those who pretend to fear that the nature of the Father might perhaps suffer something in begetting, deprive it of the most manifest honors. For all right reason compels us to believe that the Father is the Genitor of the Only-Begotten rather than His Maker. For thus it will have adorned Him with greater glory, and will justly establish concerning Him what is owed to the most excellent natures; since even among us, beyond all comparison, that which is born of us far exceeds and surpasses that which is created. But if God is to be a maker, and endowed with the power of creating, yet is no longer a genitor, I shudder even to utter anything blasphemous or absurd, B yet I will say it, though I wish I did not: that the nature of God has fallen from the most excellent and supreme state of all, and that a creature which is capable of making and creating works from various arts, and at the same time is capable of begetting, which is clearly more brilliant than the other, is somehow of greater glory. B. You speak rightly. A. Therefore, He is our Son, Hermias, and truly a substantial generation, not a discovery of wisdom or a fruit of art; for we say that the whole of creation is this. B. It is so. A. Therefore, our wise John will confirm that we are not lying in the least, saying openly: "Many other signs truly Jesus did in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." And he adorns with the highest rewards of virtue him who has believed thus. For he writes again: "Who is it that overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" C And in addition to these, O friend, the Son Himself has set forth not a little the love of God and the Father toward us. "For God so loved the world," He says, "that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life." Yet why, finally, did he place for us a kind of finishing touch and summit of his own writings, that one must believe that the Word become man is truly God, if He is indeed not the Son? And how will he have overcome the whole world, who has not believed that He is not a creature and a thing made, receiving a worthy recompense for so right an opinion, because he has overcome the world? D For if it can be said that... (the text breaks off)
A it is not dangerous to say that God honors and accepts those who think perversely, and crowns some of created beings with divine gifts, I would say for my part, and very reasonably, that they are worthy of all honor and rewards, who have foolishly supposed that the Only-Begotten is not the Son, but is a creature and a thing made, even if he be said to have been begotten, and to be named Son by the Father himself and the Holy Spirit. But if it is not lawful to speak thus, and impious to think it, the contrary is surely true. For he crowns only the lovers of the truth, and those who have therefore believed in the Son truly, and not as a work of craft; for this, indeed, is a terrible malady and a madness. In this way, the divine word said that blessed among the holy Apostles was the chosen Peter. For since the Savior was inquiring in the parts of Caesarea which is called Philippi, what men say the Son of man is, and what report concerning him has spread through the country of the Jews, or the cities bordering on Judea, leaving aside the childish and absurd opinions of the common herd, he cried out B most wisely and intelligently, saying: "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." And the recompense for the true judgment concerning him, he did not long delay, Christ saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. By "rock," I suppose, speaking derivatively, he means nothing else than the unshaken and most firm faith of the disciple, upon which the Church of Christ is also firmly fixed and established without falling, and remains forever unassailable even by the gates of hell itself. And the faith of Peter regarding the Son was not rashly improvised, nor did it bubble up from human thoughts, but from an ineffable initiation from above, God and Father clearly pointing out his own Son, and infusing the assurance concerning this into the souls of the sincere. For Christ would least of all prove false in saying, "For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." If then the blessed Peter is deemed worthy of such exceeding rewards, having confessed him to be the Son of the living God, how are they not most wretched and castaways, who drag down what is thought to be, and is in truth C the fruit of the essence of God and Father, to the level of a creature, and most foolishly record the life-giving vine in the number of those who have received life from elsewhere? Are such men not altogether ignorant? B. Indeed they are. A. Furthermore, since they have formed such a lowly and petty opinion concerning the Son, they also overturn that great and exceeding wonder which surpasses all admiration, the charity of God and Father; nay, they will be found to sharpen their unbridled tongues even against the divine dignities D themselves, truly possessing as they do most readily, and insulting those who have the life-giving sprout as co-eternal, when they have it as adventitious.
A B. I pray you, tell me how: for I do not follow. A. Most gladly; for there is no difficulty in it. Did the Father give His own Son for the life of the world? B. Certainly. A. It is surely better, as everyone would agree, to offer what is begotten, rather than what one might fashion with art, if indeed the former is from us and is the fruit of the begetter’s subsistence, while the latter is a discovery of industry and a work of art, not a sprout of substance.
B. What of this, then? A. Do you not realize that there would be less cause to admire the love of God the Father, who might have sent forth to redeem the whole creation the Son—if He be a creature—as being a part of creation; and that it would be more worthy of admiration were you to hear that He had given the Son, and had not spared His own fruit, and—insofar as He became flesh and seemed to die—thirsted rather for the world’s persistence in well-being?
B. I understand. A. For my part, I think (and let no one be angry if, kindled by divine love, I speak with a little more boldness) that Christ would not be equal to the whole of creation, nor could He suffice to redeem the life of the world, nor would He have deposited His own soul in return for it, nor shed His precious blood for us, if He is not truly the Son and God from God, but a creature and a part of creation. B
B. You speak rightly.
A. I would add further that creation would have been saved without having been taken up at all by God, and without standing in need of help from above. For how or whence, if it has its redemption and firm salvation of itself and from itself? For the Son, being a part of creation, has, as they say, saved the whole creation. Why, then, do we offer hymns of thanksgiving to God? And why, indeed, instead of omitting this as superfluous, do we not pursue creation with hymns, and approach it rather with supplications, saying what is said of the Lord of all, God: "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his rewards: who propitiates all your iniquities: who heals all your infirmities: who redeems your life from destruction?" By doing this, we should without doubt display our own insanity and offend God; whereas, if we attribute the praise and glory of these things to Him, we shall be wise and true worshipers. How, then, will He be a creature together with us, He who is one and worth all, as God from God and truly Son? Or is this not the case? C
B. How could it be otherwise?
A. Come then, if you please, let us add this to what has been said, and let us say that relative names imply one another, with the one mutually producing the knowledge of the other. D
A Since then, it is easier—if indeed one has learned what is on the right—to know what is on the left, and everyone, surely, would agree that the converse is also true. The name "Father," therefore, is relative, and in the same way, the name "Son." To what, then, is this reference directed, and whither does this mutual relationship tend, in such a way that they do not transgress the logic proper to them?
B. And to whom is this obscure? For a father is understood and spoken of in relation to a son, and, indeed, a son in relation to a father.
A. Then what have those people learned, who have B distorted and corrupted their minds, that they name God "Father" for us, but insist that the Son is a creature? Is it not entirely ignorant and incongruous to say that a created thing is set alongside the Father, and yet the Father, in turn, is set alongside the created thing, according to the logic of relations?
B. Entirely so, lest we call the Father himself a creature, already having acquired a natural relative relationship to some created things, as far as logic allows.
A. Therefore, let them hear Christ himself crying out: "You know neither me, nor my Father; if you had known me, you would have known my Father also." But to those asking the reason for this rebuke, he answers, saying: "He who denies the Father, denies also the Son; and he who denies the Son, has not the Father." And this is right, indeed, and very true. For if one is not a Father, because he has naturally begotten, no one would grant that a Son exists either. For he is a Son, because he has been begotten; and if he is not a Son as one begotten, there would not be a Father either, if we reason according to the logic that is fitting and follows from these concepts—a Father, in that he has begotten. Therefore, it is true that both subsist together and perish together C reciprocally, and if one exists, that for which it is named and is what it is, surely exists as well. But what of Christ saying to the stiff-necked and rebellious crowd of the Jews: "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me"? Although Christ did not at all name himself Father, but Son, and from the Father. How then does he say that he has eventually come to us in the name of the Father? Is it not manifest that "in the name" must be understood as "in the glory and praise" of the Father? For the divine Scripture sometimes calls a clear-sounding praise and that which is notable in honor a "name," D just as, for instance, that which is celebrated in the book of Proverbs: "A good name is more desirable than great riches." Has the discourse of the Savior, therefore, failed in being wise and true, when he openly and clearly declares that he has come to us in the name of the Father?
B. Indeed, it can rightly be said that the truth does not stray from the true.
A. If, therefore, the statement is true, either God and Father must be brought down into the number of creatures, lest he appear
to surpass the Son in glory, or the Son must at last be recalled to that dignity which is worthy of God, and to the nature of sonship, understood substantially. For he would not be in the least inferior to God and the Father in any way A if things were so. The wise John will support us in this, saying: "He who comes from above is above all." And that "from above" signifies an exalted and supreme nature, the disciple of the Savior will demonstrate by saying: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." The Son therefore comes to us from the Father, as from a fountain, and as one having blossomed forth from the supreme root, he manifests in himself the radiance from which he sprang, and has obtained being "above all," just as, indeed, the Father also has. But we say that he is above all in this respect especially: not that he surpasses the creation in glory alone, or in B excellences of nobility, but that he is exalted above and transcends all things together with the Father who begat him, by the supreme eminence of his substance. If he is above all things, how will he be numbered among all things? For if he is truly a creature, he will be ranked with other creatures. How then is he "other than all" and "above all," unless he naturally avoids being numbered with all? Otherwise, by assigning the incorporeal nature of the Son to local elevations, would we not be triflers and in error? B. What do you mean? A. Do you wish us to interpret "from above" in terms of place, as being the opposite of "below," and defined by intervals of space? B. And then what shall we do with the Son, if he is in a place of such a kind? For that is the C property of bodies. A. We say, therefore, quite rightly, that "from above" signifies "from the Father." And for that reason he is known by the Father alone, and he alone knows his own Father and God. For it is an incomprehensible thing, and known to none of those who exist, what the supreme nature is in and of itself. Indeed, we believe that God exists and is, but it is absurd to inquire into what he is according to nature, since he cannot be grasped. For the nature of God surpasses every mind. How then, if he is created and made, would he alone know the Father, and he alone in turn be known by the Father alone? D For no created thing can clearly know the nature of God; but to know what a created thing is does not exceed the capacity of every intellect, even if it transcends the human condition to some degree. If, therefore, he alone knows the Father, and in turn is known by the Father alone, it follows that he should not be thought or argued to be a created thing. For only the supreme and ineffable nature knows itself, and it is entirely untrodden by things brought into being. B. Untrodden indeed and inaccessible, since God surpasses every mind by far. A. But how, then, could the Son be called "created" by us at all, although the most wise
A Paul A cries out: "I say, however, that as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, but is under tutors and stewards until the time appointed by the father: even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Thus, since we were still laboring under ignorance and held guilty of the crimes of ancient insanity, we were subject to the elements of the world, serving the creature, when worship should have been referred to the true and only God by nature. But after the Son shone upon us, then indeed, then, with childish ignorance vanquished and overcome, and having been brought to the light of the truth, we were set free, B in my judgment—nor will you deny it, I know—from that subjection and subjection to the elements of the world. For this the holy discourse B showed us a little while ago, which those who care for what is right will confess to be both wise and true; for he speaks of the mysteries in Christ.
B. They will indeed confess it.
A. Is it then, Hermias, the case that everything which we say has been brought into existence by the nod of the Creator is to be numbered among the elements of the world, or will it be placed as a part of the world together with the universe?
B. Certainly.
A. And have we been set free, having been brought to the perfection of mind and understanding, and as if rejecting the spurious desire to be subject to the elements of the world?
B. So I think.
A. Is it by receiving faith in the Son, as in a Son truly, or how?
B. In that way.
A. Therefore, the Only-Begotten will not be a created being, C so that He might not even appear to be numbered among other elements as a creature, while we are children, and devoid of the perfect gifts of the mind, and deluded by vain thoughts rather than being enriched with firm hope and knowledge of the Son. For what, in sum, would the Only-Begotten have benefited us, even though He became man for our sake, unless we had been released from the worship of the creature? But by embracing faith in Him as in a Son, tell me, have we not been disappointed in vain?
B. It seems so, if He is indeed begotten.
A. What then? Is not the education through Christ much better than that of Moses, if faith is truly in something created? But I would say that the saints speak vanity, who always D postpone the old commandment to the evangelical oracles. How indeed did the law bring nothing to perfection, but the just shall live by faith? For while that faith in the Son indeed destroys those who have received it, the law [benefited] those of old...
A if we were to accept the words of the perverted. B. Explain how, if you can. A. Most readily and eagerly. Suppose that these things were set before me to be spoken. B. What is it that you say? A. For those among the ancients, the law, through the all-wise Moses, proclaimed: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." 48 And furthermore: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath." 49 And, further, calling them to better fruit, and leading them away even from the very elements of the world, it says: "Take heed to yourself, lest, looking up to heaven and seeing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the host of heaven, you be led astray and worship them." 50 The law therefore called them to the one truly and naturally existing God, leading them entirely away from error and evil; for it decreed that the creature should in no wise be worshipped above the Creator, and it confirmed those who were called to this by [the threat of] capital punishment for those who despised it. But that law [is past]; let us further relate in what state we ourselves stand. The law, which was proclaimed in shadows and figures, has indeed passed away, and the light of truth has shone forth, since we have accepted faith in the Son, even if—as they would have it—He is a created and made thing. Are we not truly most miserable, even though we seem to have obtained a better lot, while those who were taught by the law to worship the one and natural God are far superior? And what is more absurd is that they, not yet endowed with the light of truth, acknowledged the true and natural God; while we, empty—who boast that we have received the truth which was not given to our ancestors—have fallen into error through it, and we miserable ones continue to live, having been darkened by the divine light B rather than illuminated. B. How sharp the argument is! A. If you were to learn that, I think you would marvel even more. B. What is that? A. "The law was a paidagogos for us unto Christ." 51 For you have surely heard that the blessed Paul wrote thus. B. I have heard it. A. We must therefore examine for what reason and in what manner the law was a paidagogos leading us to Christ—that is, to the doctrine and knowledge of Christ. Or was it as to a superior [state] and one that excelled that which was in the law, which was still buried in types, or was it toward one that was more abject and lowly? B. Toward a superior and more brilliant [state]. A. Well said, my dear fellow; for any sensible and wise man would agree and say that it is so. Therefore, if the law was a paidagogos, while proclaiming one and natural God, it did not [lead us] to the mystery of Christ as to...
in Christ; the Son would rather be uncreated, so that the law might not be seen to have wronged us, nor indeed, by positing the knowledge of a creature as more excellent than the knowledge of God, might it be found to be a snare and a devilish trap, even though it was spoken through angels and given to us as an aid. For as one of the saints said, He gave the law for an aid. And if Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, how could the word of the divinely-inspired Scripture be sacred? For the conclusion thereof would end, as it were, in the deception of the entire body of knowledge, locking us into a created and not an uncreated nature. B
B. You have spoken most correctly. Nevertheless, I think an adversary would ask something of this sort: what would the name "firstborn" wish to signify?
A. For one brother among others to take precedence, and to have entered into this light before the rest.
B. But how then, they say, is the Son named the "firstborn of all creation," unless he has creation as a sister, as it were, as being congeneric and connate with it?
A. Then, so it seems, that name "Son" will finally appear empty and entirely useless in His case, and the generation a deception, and the discourse concerning the Father which has come to us a vain rumor.
B. By no means, they say. For He has been called Father of the Son abusively—just as it is also said concerning the sons of Israel: "I have begotten and exalted sons." C
A. Is it then the case, if the Only-Begotten is a creature for the sake of adoption along with us, and the generation is only an inclination of the will, that the truth in His case is that He has been made?
B. That is so, they say.
A. Yet why on earth do they abandon the truth as if it were of no profit, hurrying to look past it, and almost speak that prophetic word: "We have made a lie our hope, and with a lie we shall be protected"? For since it was said when and in what respects the Word became firstborn, I think it is necessary to learn this, and that too before all other things, and only then at last to hasten to direct the heart toward the uprightness of concepts which is most becoming to the mysteries. For times and the differences of persons would show very easily that the discourse of the Holy Scriptures is free from error and fraud, and that it proceeds straightforwardly. D Or, if what I say is not true, and the times and moments are not to be examined—those in which the Word of God was still without flesh and [those in which He was] incarnate—let no one be terrified, even if all things are perhaps spoken of Him indiscriminately, and let the crime of blasphemy be excluded. And if anyone truly thought that He had died, although the Word, who is from the Father, is life by nature, let him bid us to applaud him and arrogate to himself the praises of truth; but whoever says that He Himself died in the flesh, he certainly lies wrongly. For already in some way everything concerning Him appears indiscriminate.
B. That would be correct, if the matter were thought of in this way: yet it is not free from scandal and blame.
A A. Not at all, Hermia; and indeed our disputation would surely push them into another absurdity. B. To what do you refer? A. Some collect tribute, in accordance with the commandment of the Mosaic law, requiring one didrachmon for two heads. They come to Peter to ask whether Christ Himself also should be reckoned among the number of others, and whether tribute should be exacted from Him, or whether He Himself would deny that He was bound by it. The divine disciple immediately went to the Lord, wishing to know what was to be done in this matter: but Jesus, forestalling him, said: "The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive tribute or tax? From their sons, or from strangers?" And when Peter said, "From strangers," He added: "Therefore the sons are free. But lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the fish that first comes up; and when you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater; take that, and give it to them for Me and for you." B Do you understand, therefore, that by that testimony He confirmed the freedom of His nature? But this surpasses the creature. For everything that has been produced serves the Creator. Thus also our divine David cried out to the Lord of all, to God: "All things serve You." Therefore the Son is in no way of servile condition, nor is He counted among the subjects, but is in the divine and supreme nature, which transcends all creatures. B. It is absolutely so. C A. Shall we, therefore, O Hermia, subject Him who is conspicuous in such august majesty to the yoke of servitude, even if He is said to have descended in the form of a servant? But how would that not be inept? For if He was made in the form of a servant, it follows, I think, that before the form of a servant He lived certainly in a free and untrammeled nature. For He would not be what He was, but if He cast aside those things in which He was, He would have rightly and deservedly migrated to something else. Therefore, the Son came to us, not from servants into a servant, but from a free nature into the form of a servant. But if there is no distinction, if time is nothing, if the discussion of persons helps nothing here, and if the Word should be understood as naked and still without flesh, then He should not indeed be called free, but a servant, and be numbered among the subjects. D B. But how can it be that those things should not teem with every kind of absurdity? A. Therefore let the adversaries hear: Since you do not allow the times and persons to be scrutinized, where are you heading? What are you doing, O you who are oppressed and driven by every evil spirit? Why do you mix what cannot be mixed, having rejected the time, the persons, and the reasons, by which the contemplation of those things which are spoken concerning the Son might be clear and very distinct? For where the Word of God, begotten of the Father, was not yet incarnate, there consider the divine majesty, the still unmixed, sincere, and unconfused glory, the supreme freedom, equal with
A the Father in power. For through him all things that at one time were not, were brought into existence. Moreover, the communion of will, the equality in working, and the all-embracing likeness are recorded by Moses. For he introduced God saying—clearly, of course, to the Word who co-exists in him and with him—"Let us make man in our image and after our likeness." For the "Let us make," being not of one, would better befit those who are more than one or two.
Since, however, out of pity and love for us, moved as it were by his innate and God-befitting gentleness, B "being in the form of God and the Father, he did not count equality with God a prize to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself"—what argument will persuade us (who are concerned to think rightly about him) to presume to censure and demean the state of his emptying, that is, him who for our sake and on our behalf laid aside his own supremacy unto emptiness? For it is then that the Only-Begotten began to be called the firstborn, and is reckoned among many brethren, the one and only [Son] as Son from the Father. For he descended to humiliation, and appeared as we are, not that he might suffer any of the things commonly associated with wrongdoing—by casting aside his being God and truly Son—but that he might transfer what is by nature servile and created, namely ourselves, to the glory that resides in him and the Lord alone, having rendered us sons of God.
When, therefore, he is ranked with us by being called "firstborn," we shall not go so far as to force him into a condition contrary to his nature—far from it. Rather, he himself shall lift us up, so that we are forced into a condition above our nature. For to say that he has been enslaved to the creature, how is this not altogether senseless? Thus, having become as we are, he will not happen to be as we are in any respect by having cast aside what is his own; rather, we, through him, are raised above ourselves, by the grace of him who honors us, beyond the condition of our own nature, and translated to a higher and surpassing state.
B. How do you mean? A. For are we not called born of the Spirit and children of God? B. Yes. A. Therefore we are also commanded to call no one on earth father, but to assign our service to God as to a Father, because of the firstborn who was born among us, and for no other reason than that we also, through him, might be sons. For in this way the goal of the incarnate economy will be sound. For where would the mystery of Christ still be wise, if, before all others, he had injured his own nature while bringing no benefit to our condition? For he descended into being "firstborn" in order that he might be ranked with many, C even though he possesses no common ground with those among whom he might be ranked, according to their way of thinking, as if he were another and inferior by nature.
B. But he is called the firstborn of all creation,
A and by incomparable excellences surpasses those things which are joined [to creation].
A. And where is that "incomparable in glory," or what will be the magnitude of the excellence, as long as it is said that he, along with all other things, was created in a like manner with him? But our discourse for the present does not busy itself with what it is that surpasses or is surpassed in rank and glory, but rather with what is by nature created and produced, and what is above and beyond this, and whether the Only-Begotten possesses a nature distinct from others, which leaves behind it by a long interval all that is believed to have been created. For if anyone, desiring to learn what the sun is by nature, or what a horse is, were to ask, "Are these things generated and created from things that were not, or is there something else besides this?" what would you yourself say?
B. I would say that they are created.
A. But if he were further to inquire and press the matter by saying, "What then is to be preferred over the other in both of these, as regards glory?" would he not provoke our laughter by bringing into question a matter so easy to state and so manifest, and ready to be answered by those who wish?
B. Indeed, very much so.
A. Such things are nonsense, I believe. For how or whence could a horse compete in glory with the sun? It is distant by an immense interval; but if by chance anyone were to weigh the rationale of the essence in both, and consider what each of these things is, they will not differ from one another in the aspect of being created, although the sun excels it so much in glory. When, therefore, the argument is tested concerning the Son, and it is set before us to contemplate what he is by nature, it is truly a cold and hollow boast to think he should be preferred and excel others in glory if he is inscribed into the number of creatures and is reckoned among us as one who is created. For some adorn him with external prerogatives, while in the meantime they strike him with a kind of lethal wound, and pretend to embellish with the splendor of certain petty glories and praises the foulness of the blasphemy which they pour forth against him. For whoever is ranked substantially among creatures and exists among generated things, he will not surely be God by nature, nor indeed the true Son and Lord, but in a certain way, he is one who is distinguished among servants and is conspicuous only by a bare and naked glory among those who are subject to the yoke.
B. You speak rightly.
A. But this, too, suddenly comes to me to wonder at.
B. What is that?
A. Since they are unwilling to acknowledge and believe that the Only-Begotten is always, they talk nonsense, setting up that term "firstborn" against simpler people. And yet, how would it not be a truthful statement if anyone were to choose to say this: "If the name 'firstborn' assigns the Son to the order of creatures, as if among many brothers, and for this reason he is 'firstborn,' then the term 'only-begotten' will entirely show him to be of neither the same order nor the same nature." For as if there were no other besides him by nature, so would he be only-begotten. But if he is to be not "firstborn" because he is "only-begotten," yet neither, on the other hand, can he be "only-begotten" because of
A that which is firstborn, it follows that one should think that the Son does not exist at all. For they are opposed to each other, and in a way they perish together in their mutual collision, and by the force and reason of the things signified, "firstborn" and "only-begotten" are contrary to one another. For how could both be predicated of one and the same person, and both be understood as true?
B. He could not be, I suppose, unless the dispensation of the incarnation is admitted at the same time.
A. Yet know that you think nothing other than what has seemed right to the holy and God-speaking Fathers, who both handed down to us and explained the doctrine concerning these things. For the divine John called the Word from God both only-begotten and God, and furthermore also testified to his having no beginning in time, as being God. But our Paul, who also abounds in Christ and is full of the Holy Spirit, that most excellent interpreter of mysteries: "When, however," he says, "he introduces the Firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him," B assigning the time, I suppose, that is suitable for the firstborn, that of the incarnation. For thus he was brought into the world, although he was in it of old and always, and was not recognized by it. And thus he has been shown at last as the mediator of God and men, possessing as his own and peculiar the fact that he was only-begotten. For he was God from God, one from one, and ineffably begotten. But when he became man like us, then indeed, then he is also ranked among brothers by being called firstborn. For where is that emptying, if it is not in the fact that he was made firstborn from being only-begotten, and in the fact that he is among creatures with us as a man, he who surpasses all creation? And where at all did he become poor, being rich, if he is not seen to have assumed what was alien, through which he also became poor? But if it is only in being emptied, and in the time of his humiliation, that he is found to be a generated being and ranked among creatures; would it not be most unbecoming for the generated one [who is not emptied] not to be emptied, but to surpass creation and to run beyond the glory of having been made?
B. Certainly it would be.
A. And if the term "firstborn" is very aptly introduced in view of his choosing to suffer for our sake that proverbial poverty, for he became poor with us, being rich, it would be firm and true, I suppose, to think that when he was not suffering poverty, he was only-begotten. For I think it necessary by all means that there should be no falsehood attributed to him in either of the names. And in the same one is both only-begotten and firstborn, as Son in truth, and not a creature.
B. But, they say, the name "Son" is applied even to those who are confessedly creatures: "For I have said," he says, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High."
A. Then what, I ask, would injure the glory of the true and natural God and Son, who has appeared from the very substance of God and the Father, or indeed the very reason by which he is understood to exist, if we ourselves also, although of earthly nature...
have been called sons and gods by adoption? Or rather, would not the consideration of our own case be of some moderate benefit to those who are more teachable in matters concerning the Son B. In what way? A. A I would say, my good friend, that the power of terms used catachrestically—that is, improperly—neither drags down into a lower state those that have been allotted a supreme and sublime nature, nor, on the other hand, does it raise what is lesser and inferior to their splendor into a supernatural state, merely by being adorned with, as it were, hyperbolic names. Do you understand what I am saying, and do you grasp it clearly? B. Not altogether. A. Listen then. Since there is one God above us who is worshipped by nature, we ourselves have also been called gods by grace, and furthermore, we have been enriched with the glory of sonship. But is this not what you were just pointing out to us? B. Yes. A. What then, my dear friend? Since we have been called gods and sons, is it possible that we ourselves should be gods by nature, and truly sons of the One who is set above and rises above all things, not having an acquired splendor in this regard, but being believed to be the fruits of the supreme nature? B. By no means. For how could that which is created by nature be God by nature? A. Well said, my friend; for each thing remains in its own nature, not being raised up by the inflation of a word, nor indeed being brought low and subsiding through the humility of speech, even if some of the more lowly terms C are used concerning it. Therefore, come now, let us say that if the term "firstborn" is used of the Son, as being created for our sake when he appeared as we are, he would not lose his being God and Son by nature and in truth. For just as the fact that we have been called gods did not raise us to a supernatural state, so I think he would in no way be brought down to a state contrary to nature by being ranked among creatures on account of his human state.
But if some should refuse to accept that locutions in the divinely inspired Scriptures are used freely and improperly, I think both we and they would be bereft of every argument, if someone were to inquire more curiously and press as to why the divinely inspired Scriptures reduce the nature that surpasses all things—the nature that is above body and form, that is without quantity and magnitude, that cannot be touched, and that lacks matter—to bodily forms, by naming for us the face of the Lord, and his hands, and his feet? D Yet we should most easily and vigorously refute their objections by acutely answering that this license of words, which is necessarily devised for the benefit of those who hear, does nothing to hinder that which is superior to body from being what it is. Does this reasoning not seem probable and correct to you? B. Certainly. A. But since, puffed up by an excessive persuasion of their own wisdom, they foolishly maintain that the term "firstborn" is an unassailable argument against the Only-Begotten, saying...
A that he must needs be numbered among the creatures, as having been allotted a nature that is sister and kin to all other things, according to the principle of being created; are you willing that we bring forward something else that is not useless for the sake of benefit?
B. You will be saying it most gladly, as far as I am concerned.
A. Have we not, through the Son, been called to adoption, we who have received faith in him, and have been formed unto him, as images unto an archetype?
B. We have indeed been called and formed unto the Son. For it is written that, "As many as received him, to them he gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name."
A. You have spoken most excellently. But then, regarding what is necessary in this matter, I know that you could also state it very correctly. We have been called to B adoption; but is it substantial and natural? And if it is not, does it follow that the brotherhood and kinship we have been allotted has not happened, or how is it?
B. It is not substantial in any way, but adventitious and by grace.
A. How then is the Word still a creature through being the "firstborn"? And in what way will he be ranked substantially among brethren because of the similarity with them, when the brotherhood with him is not something we possess naturally, but rather something external and defined by time, and not for those who preceded the advent in the flesh, but for those [who lived] when he became as we are? For they would not say, I think, even if they are accustomed to talking utter nonsense, C that the ancients were called into brotherhood with the Son by the legal Scripture. For there was in that, a spirit of slavery. Whence it is very clear that the Word of God is not among us as a slave, since he did not take upon himself the servile state in order to attain brotherhood. But now, we must proceed wisely and undistractedly to that point.
B. What is that?
A. That which belongs by nature to some existing things, Hermias, could not be sharable through the passage of time, nor could it be assumed from elsewhere as if it were something foreign, but it is always seen to be inherent, and it accompanies the very existence [of the thing]. For example, a human being is rational from the beginning and by nature, but he is nonetheless not necessarily wealthy. Will he therefore receive D wealth as something adventitious and external? Yet he relies upon natural laws to be and to be called rational. Is it not true, then, that no one, I think, would be considered to receive, in the course of time, that which he possesses from the very moment that he progresses into being?
B. It is true.
A. If, therefore, the Son was always a brother and numbered among the creatures, as being of the same nature as they, and was for this reason the "firstborn," why did he bestow as a gift what is naturally inherent in us, I mean brotherhood, as if we did not possess it? And why did he give it only to those who have believed, even though it belongs to all, even if they have not yet believed? For what is it that still intervenes and separates in their union, according to the principle of being created, the thing created from the thing created; does...?
facto? Do you now perceive where the reasoning of the adversaries is heading? B. I do. A. Therefore, setting aside these foolish reasonings, let us pass on, I pray, to that which is beyond reproach, rightly holding that He is the Firstborn for our sake, when He became like unto us, and in turn the Only-begotten, as being reckoned among no others, since He alone was begotten from the very substance of God and the Father. B B. But if they also should see fit to say that He is the Only-begotten, inasmuch as He alone was begotten from the Father alone, what could you say to this? A. I would surely think, and not unjustly, that they are devoid of sense and have fallen away from the noble and vigorous contemplation of things. Furthermore, I would say that they fall quite short of an accurate knowledge of words, passing over their true meaning and inconsiderately distorting it according to their own whim and caprice. For "Only-begotten" signifies that which is by nature begotten from something, not that which is crafted by art; or certainly let them come forward to answer where they have read that term applied to any artificial object. We will not indeed concede to their madness those things they want to establish, by perverting the force of the things signified into something depraved. For if a carpenter should build one ship and only one, will it be called his "only-begotten," given that it is a construct and a work of art? Is that not ridiculous? Or does it seem wise to you? C B. Not at all. A. But the fact that the adversaries argue in such a vain and most foolish manner—namely, that the Son is begotten from the Father alone, and that therefore He has obtained a highly exalted nature and has reached the highest pinnacle of glory—will show them to be sinning in two ways and acting like fools. B. Tell me how. A. First, because by a necessary and inevitable logical consequence, they will ascribe to the Father a cessation upon the Son being begotten, and they will be forced, even against their will, to acknowledge that that Nature which is moved with perennial motion has ceased from Its own works and desisted from creation, and after Him has touched nothing at all, but has in some way handed over to the power and nature of the Son those things that were to be achieved and done, through which alone the Supreme Nature can be recognized. D And while the fruits of the begotten substance are those things proper to the Godhead, God and Father, it seems, will boast in one and only one creature, namely the Son; whereas the latter [the Son] will surely boast in so many more, and will think more highly of Himself, being rendered equal to Him in power, from the fact that He possesses the power of creating and of bringing into existence things that never were; and He will be superior, I imagine, in goodness, if indeed it is the mark of the good to lead from non-existence to existence, and to bring it about that things which have not yet received the grace of existence should be. Therefore to the absurd
A the discourse slips, rendering idle the ever-moving nature, to which alone it would be fitting to distribute existence to things that are not; for do the wretches not stop the very source and generation of kindness at the creation of the Son, according to their own imaginings, having leaped down into their own reasonings as they pleased? And yet why did the blessed Moses, although God and the Father chose to remain idle and inactive in other respects, compose for us words and empty deceits, or accordingly, as they would have it, record them by saying, "And God said: Let us make man after our image and likeness"? For the word "Let us make," while indicating that He is not in the least reluctant to create, but rather is prepared to work with the Son and the Spirit in forming, and has indeed functioned, he has clearly made known. "For God created," he says, "man; in the image of God He created him." But the divine Moses, being an interpreter of divine things and well crowned by a decree from above, would not be seen as a liar. And the Word, who has shone forth from the Father, will further persuade us, proclaiming the nature of the Father to be ever-moving and active. For Christ said somewhere, rebuking the Jews—for some seemed to be stirred to anger if He did anything on the Sabbath—"My Father works until now, and I work." And elsewhere: "The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from myself; but the Father who remains in me, He does the works." Is it not absurd, Hermias, I would say, and most dangerous, for us to oppose the words of the Savior, and when the divinely inspired Scripture shows the Father as being, together with the Son, the Creator of the universe, to dare to say that He nonetheless remains idle regarding creation?
B. Most dangerous.
A. I think it is also very foolish.
B. What is that?
A. For if the Son obtained an exceptional manner of creation, and one far more excellent for this one and only reason, that He alone was begotten from the Father alone, let them tell me—as I wish to learn—whether the Father envies the creatures that are posterior to the Son and made through Him, by not allowing them to arrive at the fullness of happiness in that He is unwilling to create them Himself? Or will they say that He is free from all envy and idleness?
B. They will say so, as I suppose.
A. Thinking correctly, my friend, at least in this regard. For they will not appear worse than the wise men among the Greeks, one of whom spoke B concerning God—this was Plato—"He was good, and there is no envy regarding anything in the good." Since, therefore, the Father is good, or rather is goodness itself, and since the creatures have it to attain to a most happy state through his will and operation alone, why should the matter not be in common, without envy, to all as something proposed, so that He is praised as good, but...
A he handed over the task of creation to another, depriving the creature of the one who incomparably excels?
B. But, they say, the Father does not cease altogether; for He works together with the Son, and together with Him constitutes the rest.
A. What, then, is the contribution the Son has in this regard? Is it that His operation is better than His own, and for that reason is usefully, or rather necessarily, adopted for His movements? Or is it that it is lesser and inferior, and was not necessarily accepted? If, indeed, it is as better and useful, this is empty talk, or rather, it is already a blasphemy. For the Son will surely surpass Him from whom He has come forth, and will excel the nature of God and the Father, filling His place, and perfecting that which is better. But if it is because it is inferior and not necessarily adopted, but makes the creation in a way baser, what is it, I ask, that compels Him to work together with the Son? Or will not someone immediately say that the Father, I know not how, has neglected the better part and snatched at the worse, having rejected or certainly neglected the crafting of the creature, by which alone and only it could have been branded with pure beauty, but having adopted the Son, so that it might not happily obtain a pure creation, free from the inferior, and a production?
B. But, they say, the created nature was not capable of that simple act of creating; C and it is not credible that such a supernatural and supreme majesty should have descended even to the meanest things.
A. Certainly these are the dregs of an adulterous and nefarious mind. For is it reasonable for a wise man to think that, if the created and produced nature could scarcely, or rather could not at all obtain that it be created by the Father Himself, this should be easy and obvious to the Son alone, even though, as they wish, He has been allotted a nature equal to the creatures? For that which does not fall at all upon created things, could not have fallen upon even one of them, although it may seem to excel and to be far superior to the rest. But to assert rashly that it does not befit the Father’s majesty to descend to those meanest things holds a double blasphemy. For they will D injure the Son, and they will vilify the Father Himself, although they think they are honoring Him.
B. What, by thinking or saying this?
A. For while they lower the Son from the preeminence that is understood in the Father, yet, I suppose, they would not take away from Him the reaching of the highest summit of preeminence and glory, even if some should be of the most discordant sort. Is it then, since the Son is possessed of such a nature, and has reached such a height of honor and majesty, that it would befit Him, I ask, to create Principalities and Thrones and Dominions, and things even superior to these, and yet a small sparrow, and that which is still viler than another
we should attribute to the powers of some other A being? Would we find ourselves to be in our right minds if we thought this?
B. By no means. "For all things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing," as it is written.
A. But how would it not be something mean and lowly for the nature of the Son to have fashioned a sparrow? And why, when He is the image and likeness of God and the Father, did He not also preserve this likeness in Himself? I mean, by refusing to grant to things so ignoble the life-giving and productive power that brings them into being? Or, as some, while marveling at the supreme majesty of God and the Father, say that the creation of angels is a small thing for Him, might they not also aptly say, while measuring the Son as well, that the production of a reptile, the coming into being of a sparrow, and the variegated diversity of the wildflowers of the fields, would fall far short of the dignity befitting Him? Yet why, then, does the Psalmist adorn the Maker of these very things with praises greater than any speech, saying: B "He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of men"? Either, then, they must introduce to us other makers who correspond in some proportion to the nature of created things, or they will quite obviously cast disgrace upon the Only-Begotten, by establishing Him as the author of such highly trifling things.
B. No small danger hangs over them from this argument.
A. And how could they not compose a tapestry of arrogance and ignorance regarding the Father, if they say that He deigns C to be the God of those whom He would be, and is, the God of, while yet claiming that He disdains to create them? And yet I hear Christ speaking, and marveling at the providence of God and the Father: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall upon the ground without your Father who is in heaven?" He who extends the scope of His own providence even to a sparrow, how would He disdain to create angels, and to establish the heaven, and to fix the earth, and to produce the sun and moon and stars, for which He is also admired by the holy angels, who praise Him as a master workman? For He said: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." Do I not seem to you to have reasoned the likely conclusion and to speak correctly?
B. Perfectly so.
A. Tell me, would you say that whatever is created, whether it be small or great, is not the work of divine power?
B. By no means.
A. Then how is it not ignorant and stupid to call those things which were made through the Son "divine works," and yet not to believe that He is God Himself, but rather to enroll Him among created things, as if He were of the same nature as them? For that which is created is not God; but neither would created things manifest the substantial D eminence of the Creator unless they were inferior.
A
B. What then if they say that the divinity and eternal power of the Father are manifested through the magnificence of created things?
A. They will be accusing their own doctrine, and they will quite easily be shown to be in conflict with their own set opinions.
B. How do you mean?
A. That measuring and defining the creative operation of the Father by the production of the Son, they say that He is perceived from the creation of the world, although Holy Scripture attributes the creation of the world to the Son. For it is written: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth.” B Therefore the world proclaims to us the Word as Creator, and displays His power and divinity as manifest. For when we perceive the creature, we do not admire the Word, the Maker of the creature, as a creature; but with a far more sublime thought we piously worship Him, believing the Only-Begotten to be God by nature, and to have shone forth from God. For thus, freed from the charge of error, we may avert from our own head the punishments which the divine Paul has also denounced to us in these words: “For this cause God gave them up into the lusts of their own hearts, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies C between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Therefore, if some teach that the truth has been falsified by a lie and most impiously adulterated, as they serve created things before God by nature, surely a reprobate mind is in us also, and we have in some way been cast into error, and we wander with the impious, worshipping a created nature—to wit, the Son (for He has been "made" according to their opinion), otherwise that which is created is not that which is made.
B. Why not?
A. See then, Hermias, into what great folly their minds are falling. For the divine and sacred D Scriptures say somewhere that the nations have acknowledged the living and true God, having been brought by faith to the acknowledgment of the Son; but these miserable ones come to such a pitch of madness that they do not
throw upon Him the littleness that comes from having been created. And yet it is written [1 Thess. 1, 9] regarding those who had been chosen to be holy apostles: "For they themselves," he says, "report of us what manner of entry we had unto you, and how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God." If then it is a disgrace of Hellenic worship to offer adoration to the creature, but the nations were turned unto the living and true God, having acknowledged Christ as Lord, and have been brought unto the adoration of the Son—which is, after all, joined with the Father—how could He still be thought of as created? And is there not a necessity to think that faith is empty, and the opinion concerning God among us ourselves is false, even though we are said to have escaped the blame of our ancient error according to the scripture?
B. Yes, they say: for the nations were turned unto the living and true God, the Father, clearly.
A. And what would be the standard of our conversion to God? Or how could any, very rightly and without error, proceed unto the living and true Lord, having cast off as stale the worship of the creature?
B. By faith, I suppose. For this is "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God" [1 Pet. 3, 21].
A. The saying is true; but answer this: is faith not in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
B. I agree.
A. But those who have determined to preserve their faith unshaken B and blameless, and free from every stain, would they believe in God and at the same time in a creature, or rather, simply in God, introducing the Son as of one nature with the Father?
B. Into one God, clearly, or into one nature of divinity; or assuredly let them know that they will not keep their foot from the crime of binding the natural God to the creature.
A. It is established, therefore, that faith is also in the Son, as in the living and true God. And this will be made clear to you without difficulty if you hear the Son saying: "Ye believe in God, believe also in me" [John 14, 1]—not as into a creature and God, far be it! But rather, because of the identity of substance C and changeless equality, into one nature of divinity. And so He said again: "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me" [John 12, 44]. For believing in the Son does not estrange one from the Father, but brings back the true and genuine adorer to the begetting Father through the begotten. And that the multitude of those who once worshipped idols acknowledged and worshipped Christ as the true God, you may learn more easily from Paul saying thus: "Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh, made by hands, that ye were at that time separate from Christ, D alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in
A the world. You understand, therefore, that while they were separate from Christ, the nations were also distant from God by nature and were alienated from the truth; for they were indeed without God in the world. But when they acknowledged the Son through faith, they appeared within the sphere of a good hope, and both fled from and washed away the disgrace of impiety. B. You speak rightly. A. The Son, therefore, is truly God. For in this way, that which we have believed to be renewed in ourselves through holy baptism remains unassailed and unadulterated. B. But what is that? For I do not sufficiently understand. A. Is it not, O dear soul, that we have been born by a spiritual generation into the Son, being configured and conformed through the Spirit to His divine and super-mundane beauty, and are rendered partakers of the divine nature, having obtained a participation in the Son, as God? B B. Entirely so. A. How then will He be created? Furthermore, will that mystery which is in us be a fraud, and an empty hope, and as it seems, one possessing (if one may say) only a reputation in mere words and a deception in truth and a mere appearance, if He is not that which we have been persuaded He is? For being partakers of the divine nature, how or whence are we, or what sort of character of God is imprinted upon us, if we have been conformed to the Son, inasmuch as He is not God, as though He were made? It is time to think of the Father also as not being unbegotten... the character. But answer this: I will ask you: since you have considered what the divine nature is, will you not say that the thing is completely incomparable and not to be compared to a creature, and that it is in no way similar to any created thing? C B. Assuredly so. For how will the nature of God not surpass everything that has been made? A. Therefore, no one who is of sounder mind would admit the uncreated and unbegotten nature to be the archetype of a created thing; for one would not perceive in that which is always and in the same way, the nature which at one time was not and came into being. B. That is how it is. A. But I think the converse is also true. For we would not behold that which is always and in the same way, in that which at one time was not. B. It is true. A. What, then, is there in us worthy of admiration, from the fact that we have been conformed to the Son? Where has the divine beauty shone into the hearts of the believers as something D unusual and external, when for every created thing toward a created thing, insofar as they are understood as created, the identity of form is not a thing added, but rather the law of nature imprints it? Therefore, if the rest of creation is, as they claim, always conformed to the Son, what sort of beauty is being imprinted upon our souls through the Spirit?
A vain and superfluous claim, as it seems, will thus appear, since it adds in vain that which, even if one were unwilling, nature happens to attain, and possesses of itself, not having received it from another. But, I think, any man endowed with a right and unerring mind would mock these people. For we who believe are partakers of the divine nature through the relation to the Son by the Spirit, not in mere opinion, but in truth; and we have been conformed to God, being refashioned toward the beauty that is above creation. For Christ is formed in us ineffably, not as a created being among created beings, but as uncreated and as God in a created and made nature, transforming it into His own image through the Spirit, and transferring B the creature—that is, us—to a dignity superior to creation.
B. There is nothing, therefore, that repels or excludes the Only-Begotten from true sonship; nay, we will rather concede it to be begotten, not made.
A. It is so, provided that we truly receive Him as God, and believe that He must be honored with the adoration due from us and from the holy angels, and grant that He be crowned with the prerogatives and glories of the Godhead, lest, passing by the Creator and overleaping the nature that is truly queen of all, we worship the creature, and by bestowing the glory of the Unbegotten upon the begotten, we justly hear the words: "Behold, a foolish and heartless people."
B. For indeed even they would not say that He is both Son and God.
A. And how is it not utterly senseless and ridiculous, while painting Him C as with colors in an image and a picture with mere names and superior titles, to despoil Him of divine glory by placing Him among created things? Or is it not very unseemly to say that He was made, if He is God—as He is, and worthy of adoration?
B. You speak rightly.
A. If, therefore, they cast aside those benign words with which they charm us, and push the Son as far as possible from the true Godhead, let them speak this with open voice and blaspheme publicly. For they will immediately hear from us and from the holy angels in opposition: "Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled." For we shall D turn to the straight path, believing that to be true God—the Word who has come forth from God by ineffable generation. But if, applying a mind that is not overly unteachable or stupid, they will not indeed deny it, suppressing, I suppose, the blasphemy, but while resolving with themselves to confess Him to be God, yet make Him inferior to the substance of God the Father, and say that He is in some way more excellent than the creature, setting Him as it were in a middle ground between the unbegotten and the generated nature—let them hear how the nature of the Godhead can be understood as different; for God compared to God cannot differ in respect to His being God, just as in our own case anyone can observe. For we say that there is one
A nature of humanity, and the definition of substance is one in all, and not different in individuals. Either, therefore, let those who believe that God exists exempt Him altogether from the number of creatures; or if they are unwilling to be of this opinion, let them not even confess that God exists at all. For we shall then break out into laughter and say: "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matt. XII, 33). For, my friend, would we not clearly and unerringly know what each of the things that exist is as to its nature, from those things which it is truly believed to be? B. Certainly. A. Come then, let us examine what the nature of the Son finally is, considering this in addition: if He is not God by nature, but is rather created and brought into existence with us, as those who are intoxicated and delirious imagine, how, then, did the world slip away from Him, and how was the creature separated? By intervals of place and distances? But is this not mere quibbling? For where, or how, will an incorporeal thing be at a distance, and what kind of place will encompass it? Indeed, the blessed John has testified, saying, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him" (John I, 10). Shall we, therefore, Hermias, if we hold the right view, B grant that there is no other mode of interval and interjected space than this, that the world did not recognize the Creator who was perpetually with it? B. For who can deny it? A. The world, therefore, was a fugitive when it shunned His fellowship, not recognizing the Creator as superior to the creature, and casting away that spiritual relation by turning toward vice. For at the same time that human nature was brought into existence by the ineffable nods of the Artificer, it was adorned by its connection with the Spirit. For He "breathed into his face the breath of life" (Gen. II, 7), since, I believe, the living being would not have the splendor of sanctification and familiarity with God perpetually in any other way than by being adorned with the participation of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, when the Only-Begotten found human nature stripped of that ancient and primitive blessing, He set out to reform it again into its pristine state, as if pouring from the fountain of His own fullness C and saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John XX, 22), D clearly sketching the nature of the Spirit by means of a bodily and external breath. For to be renewed to the pristine state will be the same as to be produced in the beginning; and the nature of the created being endured that mode of separation, not by intervals of places—far from it—but rather by a repulse from God, and by being displaced from its spiritual connection with Him. Whence, if it wishes, it recurs to its first state, having obtained spiritual reformation and having been called to the participation of His divine nature through the Spirit. If, therefore, the Son is to be counted among creatures, as they wish: by what means, then, has the creature fallen away from Him and been separated
For that which is akin is always attractive A to its own kind, and a created being would not be separated from a created being, at least insofar as both are created. For alienation is usually perceived in things that are of a different genus or species, and not in those that have been allotted one and the same definition of nature. How, then, does He indwell the creature through the Spirit? What does He add or bestow, or to what spiritual height does He translate it, or what better thing does He imprint upon it? And how, if He did not excel us (for He was made with us, as they at least claim), is He said to have emptied Himself, or what sort of condescension was needed so that, lowering Himself as from those heights above the creature, He might be joined to the world and become a part of the world, unless He is above the world and the creature? B. I believe they will be at a loss to answer this. A. But why is He alone free and a liberator, although the whole creation submits its neck as a slave to God? We would be most foolish and delirious, my friend, if we were to place the Son, who is from God by nature and coeternal with God and the Father, in the rank of those who are sons by grace. For where, or of what kind, would our archetype be B if He Himself, toward whom we have been fashioned, should lower Himself with us to that which is by adoption and imitation? B. You seem to have discoursed on this matter to us most clearly and very plainly. However, I think that the adversaries will say: "But have not the holy scriptures long ago sung that the Son is a creature, and has not the divine and great chorus of the apostles acknowledged this?" For Solomon indeed says, depicting the person of the Son in foreshadowing: "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works." And Peter, who is preeminent among the others: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ." What, then, shall we answer if they attack us again with such words? A. And what, I pray, other than what is true to say: "But our enemies are foolish"? For a mind not illuminated by the wisdom that flows down from the Father of lights C is obscure and dark, and is not able to escape the mist of ignorance. It seems to me that the divine David, having cast off such a baneful disease from himself, prayed to God in this way: "Lighten my eyes, lest I ever sleep in death." Come then, with a keen and sober mind, let us examine the knowledge of the things set before us, and like dogs that have a keen sense of smell, let us track down the truth, which is as yet hidden and not grasped by many. For the Son indeed confesses that He was created; yet He does not say that this happened to Him without cause, but rather for His works, and as the beginning of His ways, which means the ways of God and the Father. Therefore, "to create" in these passages does not signify to produce from nothing those things which do not exist, but rather to lead Him who is and subsists to the doing of such things: just as indeed D of the heights that are above the creature, He might be joined to the world and
A to things destined to happen. Just as, for instance, an overseer of works, by a mere nod, compels a weaver, or perhaps a blacksmith, whether they are standing idle or busy, to do those things which are incumbent upon each by his craft, even though it would not enter anyone’s mind to say that he brought them into being. If, therefore, the Son had said nothing more than, “The Lord created me,” it would have been not altogether improbable for one to suspect that which they preach. But since He does not say that He is created simply or without addition, but “for works and as the beginning of His ways,” why, letting go of the absurd, do they not seize upon what is right, calling to mind that it is written concerning God: “And the Lord became my refuge”? B Would you then concede that God is a created thing, if it be signaled to anyone that He became a refuge? B. By no means. A. What then, tell me: why do these perverted ones hold a mind that is changeable and wayward, and, equipped with various deceptions as if with some sort of armor, do they shock the mind, when they ought above all things to direct it toward the truth, even regarding that which does not seem to be said in a manner highly worthy of God, on account of the humanity of the Son and that likeness which He has with us? Otherwise, since He says He is created (for I believe this too must be said), He also adds that He is begotten. “Before all the hills, He begets me,” C He says. Therefore, we must either do away with the begetting because He says He is created, or, putting aside the creation, we must acknowledge that He is begotten. For these expressions are set against each other in their meanings, yet the word of God has truth in both. Thus, the same One is indeed begotten of the Father as God, but He is created according to the flesh. And the sacred word persuades us of this: “Behold,” it says, “the Virgin shall have in her womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is translated, God with us.” For how would the Word, being God, be with us? Is it by proximity and a local habit, and the law of bodies? But how is this not absurd? Therefore, when He accepted the condition of forming D Himself according to us, and the lowliness of servitude, and He who is uncreated descended to be with us among created beings, then He became with us, even though He is as far removed and exalted as the nature of the divinity is judged to be when compared to a creature and a thing made. Wherefore the divine David also called the Only-Begotten who came forth from God, who is exalted above us by infinite and incomparable types of eminence and endowed with ineffable glory, to accept our likeness, chanting and saying: “Why, O Lord, have you stood afar off, and do you despise us in times of opportunity, in tribulations?” For He who is separated by the law of nature, and has obtained an identity and eminence unlike and inaccessible to all other things, became with us when He underwent for our sake the voluntary emptying. But if they say it is not thus, I think nothing thereafter will prevent us from asserting firmly that the Scripture has gossiped in vain
A of the Son, saying he was "made" when he became man. For when was he not with us, if he is indeed created?
B. You speak well.
A. But if he be said to have been made Christ and Lord, you will reflect that he emptied himself, having submitted to the rank of a servant on account of the likeness to us. And it was, I suppose, wise and necessary, that the divine nature should not be overcome by our conditions, nor by the ignominy of the flesh, as though it possessed the accusation of servitude as something ineffaceable, and an acquired ignominy, but rather that the smallness of status arising from servitude should yield to the glory of the Godhead. Since, therefore, he has been reckoned among servants for our sake, but has returned again to the lordship that resides in him and cannot be removed, and which is established by the laws of nature, he is said to be called Lord, and to have been made with us on account of his humanity. But if we, neglecting true contemplation, intend to attribute to the Word all the things of the flesh, or the things done and said on account of the flesh, we shall offend B not a little. For he was "under the law," and indeed visible and tangible, and "a little lower than the angels," and "was numbered with the transgressors," and "as a sheep he was led to the slaughter," and he endured such a miserable death. Must we then attribute to the nature of the Word—even if he be understood as without flesh—even these most vile things, and those joined with much ignominy? What follows from this? The beloved and the co-assessor with the Father would surely lose everything, I think, that raises him to divine glory, or rather, even that which makes him equal to the holy angels. Why then C is he honored here in divine seats, and sits with the Father, while they stand around in a circle, not disdaining the measure of servitude under him? And he is, and is called, Lord Sabaoth, while they celebrate him with praises of lordship, and say heaven and earth are full of his glory? Is it not, therefore, a disease of a vain and foolish mind, and one utterly cold and delirious, to say that he—so marveled at and possessing the summit of glory—was made?
B. Entirely so; for my argument bears in this direction. But they say, nevertheless, that the Son was set forth for the works of the Father, not only when he underwent our form, but from the moment he shone forth, so that through him he might perform D all things, attributing to him an instrumental ministry in the creatures, as if he brought his own motion into them.
A. Oh, the so terrible and unadulterated insolence! For what words would they still spare, who dare to chatter such follies even against God the Father himself, saying that he is a vain creator, and not possessing sufficient creative power to accomplish anything, but at the same time is both departing from what is fitting and thus deprived of the highest power?
B. In what way?
A. Do you not reflect, firstly, that if it were better for the creator God and Father to be provided with an instrumental [agency] for his own motions...
and for him to be considered a creator and by nature disposed in this way, and [to expect] whatever he might wish to accomplish—or rather, not to escape censure—that [it is] written, if he who acts toward works in another manner has not wronged the Son, by not bringing [things] into existence through an instrument and the mediation of another, but by bestowing upon Him, naked and alone, the ministry of His own power? And while other creatures, which they say are lesser than the glory of the Son, have been allotted the most excellent and superior mode of creation, yet He, although adorned with such superior prerogatives, [was given] a meaner and more ignoble one. But, perhaps some will say, it was better that He should be created by the Maker Himself, and the Son was allotted this mode. But what, I ask, compelled that most sublime and altogether marvelous will of the Father so that B He did not prefer the better mode to the worse in creating, but deviated from that which was most fitting, while without cause He showed Himself negligent in performing what was required?
B. Was it then necessary, they say, for the Father of all to set about creating things immediately?
A. Why not, my friend? Was it not better for Him [the Son] to receive instrumental and ministerial aid? For from this, a great crowd of absurd arguments will arise and emerge for us. For what need is there of a helper for God and the Father, and what use is there of an instrument and mediator, I do not see. For if in truth He knows the concurrence of a co-creator to be necessary for Himself, and for this purpose usefully employed Him who is called Son—and yet He is counted among creatures, as they wish—how will He have C the perfect power to create, since through an instrument He barely collects in Himself the perfect faculty of doing that for which He is said to be naturally adapted—not to mention anything else blasphemous! For the plenitude of divinity has appeared as a created thing, and has been taken in place of a ministry [as] a most useful aid to the creative power of the Father. But how, I pray you, did He suffice for creating the Son immediately, since He is created, albeit by far and incomparably superior? With such deceptive honors they cunningly beguile Him, [while] blushing, I think, at the foulness of their blasphemy. But He who, having employed no one's help, sufficed alone for such an excellent and supereminent thing, how would He have grown weak in crafting inferior things while destitute of a helper? Are those who do not fear to even consider such D things not to be mourned?
B. Why surely? But hear something further. For they say that it is a small thing for God and the Father that He Himself creates all things by Himself.
A. Away with such blasphemy, O man! But you would speak rightly, having kept your own soul as far as possible from a crime of this sort: "Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth, and a door for my lips, that my heart may not incline to words of evil, to seek excuses in sins, with men"
A working iniquity. For he who says that it is a small thing for God and Father to create all things by Himself, claims that He is not free from vanity and arrogance, and assigns this pair of the most loathsome and detestable passions to Him. He would be ignorant in another way too, not even considering where his argument is heading. I would, however, like to ask you. B. What is that? A. Do they not say that the Son is created? B. Yes, but what of it? A. If, then, we were to look, as far as is possible for us, at whatever the nature that governs all things is, would not everything made by it appear small? B. Small, undoubtedly. A. Did He then wish the Son B to create alone and uniquely; but being, as it were, ashamed of the fact, does He immediately abandon it and assign to the power of another the bringing of things that were once non-existent into being? And yet the most excellent and supreme portion of divine glory and praise is the ability to create, since through it, who and how great God is becomes known to us. "For from the greatness and beauty of created things, their creator is proportionally seen," as it is written. But if He considers those things through which He is known to be small and worthless, He disgraces His own nature, acknowledging it, as is likely, to be utilizing a most lowly condition. And yet it is highly glorious for every man and for every angel to possess perfectly those things through which each is seen to be what he is by nature, and no one would be ashamed of his lot if he wished to be known as what he is by nature. Why then would God be ashamed of His own works, or deem it a reproach to Himself that things exist through which He is understood to be God? But if it is small and not worthy of notice to Him to have made the Seraphim C and to have brought forth the angels, when He weighs the magnitude and the most excellent superiority of His own nature, would it not in the same way be small to wish to be worshipped and glorified by them? For of whom He does not deem Himself the creator, how could He wish to be considered God? Yet why does He demand honor and worship from us, if He does not even deem us worthy of being brought into existence? And how would He not be damaging His own glory if He considers that through which He is glorified to be small? B. How then, they say, did the Father create all things through the Son? A. As through the Word, and wisdom, and the power that resides in Him. For the Son is all these things to the Father. But let us examine this in such a way, walking on the royal road and keeping to the straight path of truth. For would you not agree, and very readily, that if we say the Father is the creator, it will necessarily follow that one must understand that He does not create without power and wisdom, nor indeed without the Word? B. It will certainly follow. For the Psalmist indeed says: "Thou hast made all things in wisdom." But the D...
prophet Jeremiah, explaining more clearly the creation of the universe, cried out saying: "The Lord who made the earth in his power, who established the world in his wisdom, and in his understanding stretched out the heaven." A A. What then? Does not Jeremiah clearly write to us that all things were created with the wisdom, power, and prudence of God? And the wise John says that all things were made through the Son: "For all things," he said, "were made through him, and without him was nothing made." B. Yes. What then does this portend? A. It implies, of course, that the Son, since he is the wisdom and power of the Father, has been made manifest to us. B. How, indeed, or whence is this a matter of dispute? A. Come then, tell me: shall we assume that the Son was brought into existence in the wisdom, understanding, and power of the Father, or that he was brought into existence without wisdom, without understanding, and without strength? For they say he is a created being. B. That is clearly altogether ignorant. For there has never been a time when the Father was without wisdom and power. A. You speak rightly. I shall commend you, for you have chosen to think what is right and just. But what would those who count the Son among the number of created things say to this? For if he did not always exist, but was brought into existence in time by the law of creation—even though he is the wisdom, power, and understanding of the Father—they will have to confess that the Father was without power, wisdom, and understanding before him; and they would be forced to concede that the Son was made without wisdom and power, C although he is surrounded by wondrous gifts, and is placed not in the condition of a creature, but in incomparable superiority. But if, every man of sound mind finding them ridiculous, they thrust away this putrid blasphemy and think that he too was produced in the wisdom and power of the Father, it must necessarily be confessed that he is older than himself, and further, that he is his own creator. For the Son founded himself, if indeed, being himself the whole wisdom and power of the Father, he was made in his own power and wisdom. Do you understand, therefore, how the argument in every way collapses into the absurd? B. Most certainly. A. It will also be shown, without much exertion, that their doctrine is most foolish in another way. For come, my friend, let us analyze, as far as our mind can grasp, the nature of God—that is, what it is, how great it is, and what befits it. Do we believe that God creates by granting to created things the cause of their coming into existence, merely willing that they should be, and by this nod alone causing things that once were not to exist, and thus permeating the whole of creation; or [is it] by having an instrumental ministry and taking, as if a necessary subsidy, the help of a mediator, just as if one were to say that stones are at hand for a stonemason, through which he is able to carve stones and work from his own art? B. But who, I ask you, would deny that he creates solely
A by his nod, as though carrying much of the divine majesty?
A. You have spoken most rightly. For the divine Moses showed God creating for us in this way, and no other. "For He said," he remarks, "God: Let there be a firmament, and it was so." For the perfection of the works exists simultaneously with the utterance of the words, and there is no delay such as would show the mediator and minister—as they desire—to be working and moving instrumentally. For the Word was as it were the subsistence of the work, and the bare nod was the fixing of that which had no existence, and the generation of things that were being made consisted in the mere willing. Since, therefore, it is most excellent and most becoming to God and the Father to create in this way, why do they—I know not how, or rather, foolishly—bestow upon Him an invented aid of a mediator and minister, saying that the Son was made most useful so that He [the Father] might use His ministry for the rest of the creatures? For they are ignorant, as it seems, that although they assert Him to be made, and count the Son among the number of creatures, they prove Him to be more excellent and B more worthy than the Father.
B. In what way?
A. If the Father necessarily acts through a mediator, while the Son accomplishes whatever He wishes by mere will and nods—saying to a leper with authority, "I will, be thou clean," raising those already held by death to life, and bestowing the desired and unusual light upon the blind—would one not then gaze upon the mediator and minister, or rather the natural Creator, being endowed with such illustrious glory, and would the instrument not thus surpass the craftsman?
B. It certainly would.
A. But why at all do they treat the intention and will to think rightly as something stale and reject them, and rashly rush toward the worse, and obey only their own impulse, not even taking into their mind that the work of a man would surely not perform those things of which he himself is the maker, nor would that which is crafted by anyone’s art possess in itself, in the same exact way, that which is proper to the craftsman?
B. For who can deny this? Since the reverse is also true. For a builder, or, let us say, a coppersmith, would never become the works of the art, that is to say, of the coppersmith’s or the builder’s craft.
A. You speak rightly; and I admire you and praise you for your very great keenness of mind. In what way then, if the Son is created, will He work identically C with God and the Father? And, having obtained in His own nature that which is proper and singular to the highest substance of all, does He call those things that are not as though they were, and bring them forth to existence with such great strength and without labor, so that the creation is completed in the mere willing? Or would the Father not have created in this way, when He has His own nature sufficient for this, and D
A entirely without need of support from the energy of created things?
B. It is so.
A. Just as things made by the hand and art of man cannot do and perform the things that are man’s, in the same manner and by the same reasoning, I think, the works of the divine hand could not perform the things of God. Since, however, the Son has created and performed, He will not be a handiwork of divine hand mixed in with all other things, nor is He an artificer produced from non-existence, but rather has He obtained the reality substantially, and no less than the Father Himself has.
B. But since He is an effect from the Father, they say, He performs those things which relate to the creation. For He Himself once said somewhere: “The words that I speak unto you, I speak not from myself; but the Father abiding in me, He does the works.” And again: “The works that I do are not mine, but His who sent me.”
A. These things, I know, our adversaries will urge against us; for they will never cease to adulterate the truth, and to corrupt B by the greatest impiety those things through which the right sense would be provided to them if they were to turn toward the dispensation of the incarnation. If then, being childishly neglectful and altogether rejecting the mystery of Christ, they were to push aside the dispensation of the Word’s incarnation, they would fabricate whatever words they wished to satisfy their own caprice. But if they agree with those who think rightly—namely, that the Word, being God, became flesh and was called man—why do they take offense at the wise disposition of the incarnation, and adapt expressions most appropriate to it to their own caprice, and as much as in them lies, push them toward a sense C contrary to the nature and glory of the Only-Begotten? For the unhappy Jews, when they ought to have admired and followed with praises Christ—shining more brightly than the legal institutions and Mosaic narrowness, and further, with miracles greater than any speech can express—and to have glorified Him as God, they did not do this; but they flared up into rage, and out of envy, like those pulling at a rope, they lapsed impiously into calumny. And so they used to say, sometimes: “This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul the prince of the demons”; and at other times: D “Whence has this man this wisdom and these powers?” Yet it would have been somewhat harsh, and most alien to that wise counsel, for Him to speak openly and clearly to men thus disposed, saying that He is indeed truly God from God, and that He has appeared for our sake like us and has been made man—namely: “I am indeed the wisdom of the good, and the virtue; I am the performer of wonderful works, possessed not of an acquired power, nor shining with alien honors, but with my own, properly and peculiarly.” For they would not have endured these things being said by Him, they who gnashed their teeth even at such moderate words, and like dogs rushing in, dared to bark at anything human.
A in excess of measure was uttered. B Therefore, retrenching much of their folly, and bringing them by degrees to a better consideration, and wittily turning them away from the opinion that the Lord and God of all worked in Beelzebul, he attributed the brilliance of the deeds to the ineffable power of the Father, and ascribed them to the divine nature, to which they are most fitting. But as he himself exists in the Father, and has his own Begetter within himself, by reason of the unchangeable and substantial identity, he said that the Father remaining in him performs the works. For surely no one of sound mind, if he has any sense, would think that the work which is becoming to God and is specifically His own, is a work of flesh or of humanity, if it be conceived as something alone and by itself. B And I do not think that what we have said is devoid of truth and necessary meaning. B. By no means; for it stands correctly. A. I would say that they also fight against their own arguments if they think the Word acts as something brought into existence, and furthermore that they would be sinning impiously against the Father Himself. B. Tell me how; for I do not understand. A. Is it not the case, my friend, that what is given to anyone by someone can also be taken away, even if it perhaps is not taken away, since no one has yet thought to take away from him who has the power to do it? But that which is not established by the laws of nature, but is adventitious and external, can it not depart from some, in that it can suffer loss, even if perhaps it has not suffered it? B. By all means. A. See, therefore, how great this impiety is against the Only-Begotten. For if He acts because He is acted upon, and the power to create has been given to Him by the Father, what then would prevent Him from saying with us: "By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace which was in me did not prove vain;" C and, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," how could the most wise Paul still proclaim this, if he chose not to speak falsely? For how could he who possesses grace in himself be a co-bestower of grace with the Father? And it would not be at all alien to true and right reason, I think, if one were to consider that the power of creating is something superfluous for the Only-Begotten and Son, and were to say that He will cease from it, if the Father should wish to take back what was given and to remove the operation from the nature of the Son, by which, according to them, being moved, He has been shown to be a maker. For that which is moved by something would cease, if it were not perchance moved, since motion is by no means for it a product of its own nature. B. It is true. A. And in addition to this, that terrible and bitter sophistry of theirs will prove to be stale. B. Which one, I pray? A. Did you not just now hear them speaking grandly to us about the Father, and D elevating their speech, as they thought, above mere simple and lowly discourse?
A For they claimed that the Son was brought into existence usefully and necessarily, so that, since it is unbecoming for the Father to create all things by Himself—as He is the unadorned [cause] directed toward the whole—the One who is in some way subordinate to Him, that is, the Son, might accomplish the rest. B. I heard it. A. Where, then, does their wise fabrication go, if the Father has altogether performed the work of creation through the Son? For to work through the intervention of something that possesses no movement of its own—neither spontaneous nor specialized—but which stands in the place of an instrument, I would certainly say is, beyond any doubt, to work by Himself. Furthermore, it is foolish to say that what is unworthy of God and the Father to attend to because it is "small," is not likewise unworthy of the Son. For what is there among created things that is not small when compared to the nature of God? Otherwise, let them acknowledge that they are measuring the immense nature, while they define certain things as "small" if referred to B it, while they babble that this [the Son] is "great" and "supernatural," and not very far removed from it. B. You have spoken most excellently. A. Let us, then, leave aside, Hermias, these empty arguments and magnificent trifles, and move on to the truth itself, pure and simple, and let us confess that there is a God, and that the Only-Begotten has shone forth from God the Father according to nature. And if the nature that is without beginning, most ancient, and uncreated truly exists, then let calumny and deception be cast aside. For how could we ever accept that the Word of God, who truly is, was late-born and made, and would not any sane person, I think, say that we have lapsed from the best reasoning? Or tell me this (for I will ask you): will you not confess that what I say is true? If someone names the "Son of God," he does not, I think, understand "another"—even though there are countless numbers who have been adopted into sonship—but the minds of the hearers are carried with a swift and certain course C to that one who is truly and naturally [the Son]. Or does this matter not seem true to you? B. It does. A. As, therefore, when there is in us one natural and true God, if someone were to name God simply, we would not, indeed, embrace in our mind the signification of any other, even though so many have obtained the name of "god" both in heaven and on earth, as it is written; so, too, will the mind of the pious most sharply discern that one who is truly the Son, if someone simply names the "Son of God," and adds this to what has already been said. B. What is it that you say? A. Would you not, my good man, concede that that which is D truly existent is one thing, and not many? And this is God, or rather the nature of God. B. I would indeed concede it.
A A. Are then the things that have been made and produced through Him beings? B. They are indeed; for why not? Yet they subsist only by imitating the truly Being. A. I agree with you, as you judge the truth most excellently. For that which imitates the truly Being somehow furtively borrows the appearance of being by nature. The truly Being, therefore, is one. In the same manner, I think, even if many are called gods and sons, there is yet one natural and true Son and God, having as it were a root of His ineffable generation, the nature of the Father. And accordingly, He would be rightly confessed by us and by the holy angels as coeternal, and not as having been produced creatively along with the creatures, as it seemed right to think to those B who are perverted, who have ignored the true Truth, that is to say Christ, through whom and with whom to God and Father be glory, with the holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.
DIALOGUE V.
That the things proper to the Godhead and the glory are naturally in the Son as they are in the Father.
A. Well; from all this, as it seems, it will follow from a persuasive and necessary argument that the Son is not, indeed, late-begotten, and does not bear in Himself the mark of having been created, but that one must admit He was instead born from the very substance of the Father, true God of true God, possessed of a high and supernatural glory, and by C incomparable eminences transcending the nature of every originated thing, surpassing it just as much as the Father Himself is considered to do. B. I agree; for you think correctly. But, if you like, I will say something again. A. And indeed, friend, I would be most pleased and eager to resist with manly spirit those arguments by which the truth is assailed. For let him who is meek be also a fighter, as the sacred word has proclaimed to us; but you, proceed with what you intend, keeping in mind what is written: "Milk the milk, and it shall be butter." B. Know then, that if they should hear you naming the Son true God and consubstantial with the Father, they will immediately ask you, my good man, saying: How is it proper D for one who is of such a kind, as you wish, to boast rather of his own goods, than to shine with external ones? For God is
A truly of himself complete, perfect, and, I think, entirely lacking nothing of the things naturally inherent in such a nature.
A. What are you saying? How audacious the argument is, and how it has rushed headlong toward insult! Tell me, however, openly in what way that rude swarm of wicked blasphemies has concocted such a rash multitude.
B. If, they say, the Son is true God and consubstantial with the Father, he should have from himself the things through which he is God, and should boast rather in his own prerogatives than in those from the Father. For what he is seen to possess is from the Father and divinely given. For he said that he lives through the Father; and he is glorified and sanctified by him; and on the third day he rose again by the power of the Father; and he possesses the very name of divinity by participation; and he worships with us and is subjected to the Father; and he receives a kingdom and power: for the holy and divine Scriptures have handed these things down to us.
A. Oh, Hermias! What a vast and terrible B array of blasphemies encompasses the truth and barks at it impiously! But it is time, it seems, for us to wrap ourselves in the armor of God and to draw forth manfully the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, fearing nothing, even if they attack us with still more filthy and savage words. However, if the discussion proceeds for us promiscuously and without order, our discourse will easily leap from this to that, and back again from that to this, rendering the knowledge dim and deformed. But truth and sincerity will certainly be made manifest C if one examines each blasphemy distinctly and separately. Come, therefore, let us speak distinctly, one by one, and in order. But first I would like to ask you this: do they consider the sentences of the theologians to be true and correct, or do they most foolishly reject them and hold them for nothing?
B. They will say they are true, I suppose.
A. The most holy and most excellent Paul, therefore, writes regarding the Only-Begotten: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, D though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
B. What of this, then? Speak.
A. For does he not distribute the narrative into two times, my friend? For he establishes one time, namely, that first and original one, in which the Word was in the form and equality
A of the Father: and a second and later one, wherein, as if he had laid aside being in the form and equality of the Father, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and undergoing even the death of the cross. For then indeed, even that which he possessed by nature and substantially, he was thought to have received from another source as a matter of grace and gift, namely, the name which is above every name, and the being adored both by us ourselves and by the holy angels.
B. It is so.
A. The entire expression, then, of inspired Scripture looks to both. For at one time, it teaches that the Son has not yet come to the emptying, but is in the sublimity of the Godhead and in the glory of the Father; at another time, however, it clearly demonstrates that he, by his own spontaneous movement and our mercy, was confined within the emptying and descended from heaven into the ignobility of flesh. Tell me, then, should they be considered wise and sharp-witted who admit a twofold and double reasoning in these matters, and who assign the explanation of the mysteries to their proper times, or those who seem to introduce a certain confusion and mixing of things and times together, so that they assign indiscriminately those things which are of the flesh, and those which are because of the flesh, to the Word born of the Father, and refer those things which are proper and peculiar to the Begotten One to the flesh and the time of the incarnation? B
B. And how could there be any doubt that it is surely better to confess Christ as one and the Son, according to the Scriptures, yet—as regards the mode of conceiving and speaking—that so long as the Begotten One was not united with the flesh, he was conspicuous with the honors of the Godhead as his own and natural ones; but after he was united to the flesh and became man, then indeed, then he received also those things which are joined with the emptying? C
A. That twofold reasoning is therefore necessary, if one is to examine what is appropriate to each time.
B. Indeed it is.
A. But to allow both to be confused and mixed is utter foolishness. For obscurity and disorder will snatch away right knowledge.
B. That is true.
A. That being so, sometimes as Word and Begotten from the Father, and sometimes as man, and that this one is the firstborn and among many brothers—does he not most appropriately and skillfully adopt both modes of discourse, both that which moves toward the highest majesty, and that which lowers itself and settles down to the lower things and to us, if indeed it was his will and purpose to persuade those on earth that he is truly God from God, and that he descended to our level for our sake, and that he does not disdain the condition of emptying; or else will he not condemn himself of lack of wisdom and of not having taken counsel well, in that he does not shrink from becoming like us, yet is ashamed of the terminology by which the condition of humanity, on the contrary, would in no way blush? D For what need was there, I ask,
and very reasonably so, to descend to a nature whose ignobility and lowliness it was burdensome and intolerable for God—to speak once for all—begotten of God, to undergo? And if it was necessary and fitting to reject the words that befit us, in order to be able to preserve the beauty of divinity uninjured and incorrupt, how much more was it not also necessary, before that [rejection], to be united to flesh, and to endure such an extremely unsightly humiliation? But I do not think anyone would ever reach such a pitch of folly as not to admire exceedingly the Only-Begotten, who, for our sake, did not snatch at that supreme and exceptional glory which is in the form and equality of the Father, but chose to suffer the emptying in the flesh, and with it the words that befit it and are akin to it, and to count the matter as nothing, provided that we are restored to safety, our nature returned to its original state, and renewed in Him unto newness of life, through sanctification in the Spirit. B Paul therefore explains the cause of the incarnation, saying that the Word of God in no way took hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham, "whence He ought to be made like His brothers in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God." And again: "Since therefore the children shared in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." And why do I say this? For anyone who wishes may hear Christ openly crying out to the Father God who is in the heavens: "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire: burnt offerings and sin offerings Thou didst not require, then I said, Behold I come, O God, to do Thy will." And what then was that wise and saving will of the Father toward us? To abolish death in the death of Christ, and furthermore, to abolish sin and the author and first artificer of sin, and to redeem everyone through the blood of Christ. C And so the divine Paul writes again in this manner concerning the Son: "And for this reason He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by death interceding for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the first [testament], those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For a testament is confirmed upon the dead, otherwise it has no validity while the testator lives." If then it was necessary for the Son to die for the fulfillment of the economy, and it was not useless to undergo death, how was it not also necessary and useful for Him to descend even to the nature that was capable of death, the very terminology of which—however humble and abject—should not have been rejected by Him who had once determined to suffer it? Do you think that what we have said has in it any rashness or vanity or impudence?
B. Not at all.
A. For the Word was and is, even when incarnate, whatever He was before the flesh: but those things which He is seen to have assumed on account of the flesh were not in the beginning.
A B. Tell me what that might be; for the matter is sublime and not easily grasped.
A. Is it not so, my friend, that the Word was God, and the Word was with God? And was He not the true light, which lightens every man coming into the world? And was He not the Only-Begotten, and in the bosom of the Father? Does He not come from above and is He not over all things? And does He not say of Himself: "I am not of this world?"
B. Yes, for you set before us what the divine Scripture also says.
A. Do you then think that the emptying B brought to the Word a loss of those things that were natural and proper to Him from the beginning, so that He came to experience a turning and a change into what is injurious?
B. I would by no means think so. For we know and believe the Son to be void of change, since Paul wrote to us: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever."
A. Rightly, my friend, and very clearly. For if He were to admit into His own glory and nature that which is injurious and wrongful through a turning, how could we still conceive of Him as the same? It must be established that the Only-Begotten remains perpetually in His own inherent goodness, even though He became flesh and dwelt among us.
B. It must needs be so.
C A. We must proceed, therefore, to those things that pertain to the flesh, or rather, that are on account of the flesh. He who cannot be handled became handleable; and because of this, Thomas, applying his hand and fingers to the marks of the nails, said: "My Lord and my God." He who cannot be seen became visible, and concerning this the divine David uttered a tuneful song, saying: "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. From the rising of the sun to the setting thereof, out of Zion is the beauty of His comeliness: God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not keep silence." For when or where, and in what manner, has God come to us manifestly—He who has called the whole earth—if not when the Only-Begotten became man? He who is seen by none of the creatures was manifested because of the flesh, and He grew weary from the journey when He was passing through the city of the Samaritans, and He stood in need of bodily food, although He gives strength to those who are hungry, D according to the voice of the prophet? He in whom we live, and move, and are, is said to be with us, and in the death of the flesh. Would you then, my friend, ascribe these things to the Only-Begotten even before the flesh, and would you not foolishly destroy the sound and pious doctrine concerning Him?
B. We are in danger of doing so.
A. Let us therefore strip away the charge of impiety and the accusations of irreverence, assigning to the Son, on the one hand, whatever is more fitting to the divinity and surpasses our nature, [attributing them to Him] not yet made man; and on the other hand, turning those things which have a more lowly and human interpretation toward the economy, and, according to the Scriptures, taking captive every thought into the obedience...
of Christ. A For we certainly do not dream of anything alien to mind and reason when Christ says: "And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man," that we should thence deduce the flesh itself to be from heaven, even though the prophet clearly shows us the holy Virgin and openly cries out: "Behold, the virgin shall have in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." Nor, again, shall we think that the Word of God, who is from God, had the beginning and foundation of his existence in a corporeal womb, since Paul calls him the brightness of his glory and the image of his substance, signifying to us in concepts surpassing reason an incorporeal and ineffable generation. B. Quite so. A. Therefore, one must understand together with the sacred Scriptures those things that are appropriate to both. For in this way we shall follow the straight path of truth; we shall neither turn the sublimity of the Word to something inglorious because of the flesh and its properties, B nor, because of the incarnation, take away from his humanity those things that are of the flesh and because of the flesh; but rather, preserving immutability for the Only-Begotten, we shall recognize him to be the same, both before he was united to flesh and when he became flesh, even if some things that are very lowly and humble are said about him because of his humanity. B. But if, they say, you wish to transfer everything according to your own judgment to the incarnation, by what means then shall we discover what the nature of the Word is? A. Truly, good sir, I would answer you in turn: if you wish to transfer everything to explaining what the nature of the Word is, how or whence will you know that he became man? For you will not attain knowledge of human things through the properties of divinity. But that which is incomparably superior, and is believed without doubt to be distant in its whole nature, how, I ask you, would it impart knowledge of such infinite things? To recognize and very clearly perceive that the Word is God, yet not that he also became man, does not bring sufficient utility; but if to the first there is added faith in the second, nothing will be lacking to the understanding of those who believe. Whence the wise and God-inspired John says: D "Who is it who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" For that name, Jesus, is a new name for the Word, and it accompanies the birth of the flesh. A prophetic oracle will again support us, saying: "And they shall call his name new, which the Lord shall name it." For did not, O dear head, Gabriel declare to the Virgin the will of God and the Father in this matter, saying: "Do not fear, Mary, for behold, you shall conceive in the womb, and shall call his name Jesus"?
B. It is true.
A. Why then (for I would gladly hear from you) should we abandon the right path and, having rejected the wise and learned knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, slip easily like those on slippery planks into that which always casts us down, when the blessed Paul has cried out in such a way: “My brethren, be steadfast and immovable”? For God is mightily indignant with those who are very fickle and dissolute, and punishes such a malady with aversion. For he said thus concerning some: “They loved to move their feet, and did not spare, and God was not well pleased with them.” For that which is firmly and unswervingly established is safe and inviolate for every purpose of profit. B
B. How then, pray, should we refute the words of those men, if they assert that the things which befit God are in the Son by participation?
A. Not without effort, my good friend; for the matter is difficult to explain, yet through necessary lines of reasoning it will be very possible to track down the truth. For first, if they have decided to think in this way, they surely strip from Him, even before all other things, the glory of divinity, and they would confess Him to be many [other] things rather than the Son, imitating the headstrong Jews and once again stoning Him in their utter impiety. And if one were to inquire the reasons for such a precipitous and grave fury, and say: “Many good works I have shown you from my Father; for which of them do you stone me?”—would they not, with no regard for God, cry out: “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a creature, make yourself the Son of God”? But we must pay heed, not to those who have fallen into such a state of C of stupefaction, nor to those whose spirit is so sickly and weak and whose mind is corrupt and whose reason wasted, but to those in whom Christ Himself dwells through the Spirit, pouring in the sincere knowledge of the mystery. The God-inspired Paul called the Only-Begotten the Son to us, and indeed the image and likeness of the Father, and receives Him in the order of a "character," perhaps, I think, because of the absolute beauty and the most exact and precise resemblance. But what sort of conformity can there be of the corporeal to the incorporeal, and how, pray, is this same likeness to be conceived—is it not worth our while to consider? For that which lacks a body does not take on shapes and forms; how could it receive the properties of bodies? Just as, in what seems to me a correct judgment, you would never find the properties of incorporeal things in bodies that are touched and perceived by the senses, so too would the things that happen to sensible bodies be entirely incapable of being received by those that lack sensation and are of an incorporeal nature. Or can you yourself think of or say anything else beyond this?
B. I could not; for how could that be?
A A. Come then, since the Father is incorporeal, by means of concepts that transcend the creature, let us delineate as best we can his ineffable and most perfect nature, and let us accurately weigh the opinions of the ancients. For it will not be difficult in this way to eventually arrive at his own image, which is similar in all respects—I speak, of course, of the Son. B. Let us proceed; for you have spoken rightly.
B A. Therefore, he did indeed descend in the form of fire onto Mount Sinai to instruct the Jews first, and with the shrill and massive sound of trumpets raised on high, he struck intolerable fear into those who heard. But since they thought of God in a rather coarse way, and measure heaven with a span, and comprehend the glory of God only through typical representations, they thought within themselves that they had seen the very nature of God, as if it were nothing else than fire, and that they had taken into their ears his voice, specifically an organic one. And so, because they also thought highly of Moses, they judged that Christ’s teaching was to be mocked, and they said: "That divine Moses showed us the divine nature through the senses of the eyes, and granted us to hear the voice from on high; how then does Christ convict us of being ignorant and straying far from the straight and true path?" "Amen, amen, I say to you," he says, "you have neither heard his voice at any time, nor have you seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because whom he sent, him you do not believe." For although it was possible to contemplate the nature of the Father in the Son of God, the wretches did not do this, but dared to attribute the form of the Godhead to fire, and darkness, and smoke. Therefore, gradually instructing them toward a better state of mind, and joining that which is human with that which befits the divine majesty, the Savior said: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me. And he who sees me, sees him who sent me." For he shows that faith is not simply in a man, but in the nature of God, even though the Word was in flesh, from the fact that faith is not directed at him. But that he is the same as God and the Father, by natural likeness and identity of substance, he declared by saying: "He who sees me, sees him who sent me."
C Since, however, the Father is seen and known clearly and incommutably in the Son, all things are in a way common to them—or rather, those things which are in both are rightly considered proper to the one Godhead. And for that reason, he said to his own Father and God: "All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine." For between the image and the true archetype, and conversely, between the archetype and the most similar image, there is no difference, at least insofar as it relates to likeness and identity of form. D Whence, when Philip, one of the disciples, asked not with sufficient consideration: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us," rebuking the question, he said: "Have I been so long with you, and have you not known me, Philip? He who sees me, sees also the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? I and the Father are one."
A For that the Son is, as it were, the countenance of God and Father, the Psalmist might easily instruct us, at one time saying: "Whither shall I go from your Spirit, and whither shall I flee from your countenance?" and at another, as if from the person of those who have believed in him: "The light of your countenance, O Lord, has been marked upon us." For we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the effigy and likeness of the countenance of the Father, that is to say, of the Son. And Paul will bear witness, writing: "But we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
B. But, they say, even if the Son were called by us the countenance, image, and likeness of the Father, this will not in the least harm the arguments presented by us. For we do not say that he is the image and likeness of the substance of the Father, but of his will. Therefore, if anyone should see the Son from the fact that he is the same in will, he has already, in a sense, beheld the Father.
A. How exceedingly foolish, and filled with the utmost absurdity, is this line of reasoning of theirs; and it is effortless to see that they utter this in a puerile manner. For do they say that the Father is will, and that whatever will may happen to be, this is what they insist he must be conceived as; or do they place him in his own proper existence, and then, onto that, add to him his will?
B. But how, they say, would the Divinity be simple, if it were understood as being in existence, and separately in will? For it would finally be composite, C as if from parts that had run together into one perfect whole.
A. Therefore, since the Divinity is simple, and you deem it better than to be composite (and you deem rightly), his will can be nothing other than himself. Yet if one should speak of "the will," he has signified the very nature of God and Father.
B. So it is indeed.
A. But will is in a subject, just as the ideas of artisans are. For to will something, or not, does it cling to the will itself, or rather to another in whom the will resides, or how is it?
B. Absolutely.
A. Therefore, the being of the Father is in another, and to exist has happened to him as an accident; and he is composed for you now in a manner more coarse and more unsightly than before. For he is what he is in another, not in himself, since my will is mine, but the will of someone else belongs to him and is in him.
B. How, then, could things among simple and incomposite beings be other than the [beings] themselves?
A. Just as, for instance, if a will were conceived as being from a mind, having as its source the mind that wells up, and as a root, as it were, lying underneath, the [mind] in which it revolves intellectually.
A For the mind is the starting point of the movements and concepts within it; but the quality of the movements, and the will in each and every case—being something manifold—is colored, as it were, by the qualities and differences of things, moving at one time in one way and at another time in a different way, and sometimes even in a way contrary to the things it contains. For we do not desire evil with the same faculty with which we desire good; nor is the choice by which one wishes to be wise the very same as its contrary. I therefore deem it utterly senseless to say that the will is the existence of the Father. B. Indeed. B A. Therefore, if the will consists in such great variety within itself, and if no person of sound mind would imagine the nature of God to be such, then the Father is not the will. Rather, since He is understood in His own proper existence, He has His own Son as, so to speak, a connatural and coeternal will, not being composite—as those [critics] suppose—but subsisting in such a way as things are conceived to exist in a simple and wise nature. And let idle curiosity cease henceforth. For the Divinity is superior to every mind and word, my good sir. Is this not how matters stand? B. I heartily agree. But since you have named the Son of the Father as His purpose and will, can you also demonstrate this from the holy Scriptures? A. Why should I not? And I believe that David will be quite sufficient to persuade us of this, and provide us with enough assurance when he sings to God and the Father: "In thy will thou didst guide me." Furthermore, the truth will be made clear by other arguments. For were not all things made through the Son, and without him was made nothing, according to the voice of John? B. It is so. A. David sings somewhere, marveling at the Father and God, the Maker of all, and says: "How great are thy works, O Lord! In wisdom thou hast made them all," calling the Son wisdom, I imagine. B. What then does this signify? C A. That, my friend, if the will of the Father is not other than Himself, and is not without wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, how then would the Father be considered to exist in His own hypostasis? For He has already in a way passed over into the Son, and, as if having let go of being what He is, has become wisdom, since it is a will that is possessed of wisdom not by participation, but is the thing itself and wisdom in every respect. I would add that the Son has shone forth as the image and likeness of Him whose Son he is, if he himself is wisdom and will, and is also the image of the Father, even though the Father is named as will and wisdom. B. Away with such absurdity of reasoning! D A. It is truly abominable and very wicked. Therefore, let us acknowledge the Son to be the accurate image and likeness of the substance of God and the Father, and not merely attributing to him the identity of will, [but] as eminent above...
reckoning him to be in the most similar form of God and the Father, referring naturally to Him everything that belongs to Him. But if, because He is a fellow-willer, they say for this reason He exists as the image of the Father,—and [since] He is endowed with nature and measures in this way, He did not fear to say: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. I and the Father are one,"—I do not think it is unreasonable, I suppose, to see that David might have assumed such a supernatural and truly high-sounding utterance, one fitting only for the Son, as a kind of crown, and to have boasted of himself, saying clearly: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. He who has seen me has seen the Father," and, "I and the Father are one." For would we not recognize that man as having become a fellow-willer with God? For He says somewhere concerning him to the blessed Samuel: "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man according to my heart, who will do all my will."
B. The argument is plausible, but not secure.
A. It is entirely implausible, my friend, and a demonstration of an absurd sophistry, the upholders of which I know not how they are not ashamed. For not even the fact of his fellow-willing alone and desiring the same things as the Father would produce His image and natural likeness; but this would be provided only by the likeness of nature, and the resemblance to His substance proceeding through all things. B
B. By the divine image, then, how could we ourselves be formed?
A. As having the Son dwelling in us, and having received and been enriched within ourselves with the divine character. For we have been formed through Him toward God. But that species which is above all things, and most supreme—namely, the Son—is imprinted upon our souls through the Spirit. And indeed, Paul writes to the Galatians, who had slipped from lightness toward something less seemly: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ is formed in you."
B. You have spoken most excellently.
A. It is also foolish and very thoughtless, in another way, to say that the Son is not the image of the substance of the Father, but of His deliberation and wills. For Philip, [saying] "Show us the Father," did not speak of the will of the Father. And the Son, presenting Himself as the image of the Father, says: "He who has seen me," not, he who has seen the will of the Father, but rather, "has seen the Father himself." C Yet, surely, He who is accustomed to truth, or rather, He who has no guile in His mouth, ought, according to their way of thinking, not to have said this, if He were not so. But He who alone knows the Father, and is known by the Father alone, declared Himself to be the image not of a bare and non-existent will, but rather the character of the substance of the One who begat Him, saying: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." D
B
B. But if, as you say, we are persuaded by reason and the very truth itself, we have indeed entered upon the right path; yet you should know that those same men will say: "What, my good sirs, is a 'character'? Surely it is not something that subsists in a hypostasis of its own, nor does it have its own existence; rather, it is thought to be in a subject and among the accidents, even if it happens to exist inseparably—just as, for instance, forms exist in bodies. Therefore, the Son does not exist hypostatically, if He is, as you hold, merely a character in the Father."
A. It is, I think, a vain and putrid thing to believe that one is following right and sound doctrine among such perverse men; for among them, stupidity is held in honor, and nothing is to be compared to their folly, while rectitude of soul is counted as a vice. Otherwise, would it not be better to consider that we are utterly incapable of comprehending in our minds what the nature of the Son is, and that it is far greater than can be expressed in words? For "the glory of the Lord conceals the discourse," as it is written. C By means of many contemplations, however, we gather knowledge as if in a mirror, not without sweat and difficulty; rather, contemplating it in our minds as in a riddle through very subtle and refined perceptions of thought, we obtain stability in faith. But since in creatures, and in whatsoever is subject to generation and corruption, nothing is formed accurately and absolutely in the likeness of that supreme nature and glory, we scarcely recognize it; we snatch helpfully from individual things whatever contributes to its demonstration, and as if measuring the heaven with a span, provided as we are with narrow minds, we do not fear to lift our eyes to things greater than any mind, and we call the Son light, and life, and wisdom, and other such things besides. For He is so named in the divinely inspired Scripture; but we do not shut up His ineffable nature within individual terms, nor do we say that He is composed of diverse parts and that He somehow coalesces into one perfect and absolute whole. For He is simple and uniform, but from the many things that substantially belong to Him, we attain, as it were, faint rays of contemplation and a vision accommodated to our minds. If, therefore, He is called the character of the substance of the Father, understand Him as coexisting inseparably and intimately, and as the form of the Begetter Himself. D When, however, He is also called the effulgence, conceive in your mind an emission, as it were, of a light that has gone forth and shone out from the Father, not entirely separated from the hypostasis whence it came, nor yet entirely contracted and contained within it, but extending itself, as it were, toward its own hypostasis and individual existence. For the Son dwells in the nature of the Father, having it almost as a root, and admitting no section whatsoever; yet He subsists individually, and He is the Son in truth, not a character lacking hypostatic existence, nor one added from elsewhere, nor an adventitious thing, as a form is in a body. For since He is life by nature, how could He be considered...
A not to subsist? Or have you not heard Him saying: "I am who I am; this is my name, and my eternal memorial unto generations of generations"?
B. You speak well. You rightly said that the Son is existing and is life, as being in every way the character and exact likeness of the Father who is and lives. But why then, they say, if this is so, does He receive life from the Father? For He Himself said: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." And indeed elsewhere, having commenced with nothing, He says: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, and he who eats me, he also shall live because of me." And to us Paul says: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, and when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved, and raised us up, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." And altogether through the entire divine Scripture, so to speak, He is seen to be vivified by the Father and a partaker of life. In what manner, then, shall we oppose the truth to those who hold the contrary view? I would most gladly hear from you.
A. Indeed, I think you spoke well and not without purpose when you said that the Son is to be understood not as a character of the Father's will, but of His substance and hypostasis, and that this does not conflict with divine Scripture.
B
A is the image insulted, if it is not that of which it is the image? For it will happen, if things are not so, that as far as the Son is concerned—who is the image of the Father—He is no longer life, but rather in need of life, possessing it from another, and that the Father Himself is thereby somehow brought into suspicion. Or how could the thing brought to life be an exact image of the One who gives life, if the One who possesses life abundantly leaves in need the very thing that is, as it were, unable to suffice for others or even for its own nature?
B. You speak rightly.
A. But as for those who foolishly prattle that the Son is a participant in life and is not Himself life by nature, I cannot imagine where they could locate His nature so that it would be different from the life that is in Him. Or is it not necessary that a thing believed to be a participant in something should be of a different nature from that which it participates in, lest it be said and seen to be a participant in itself, if indeed it is of the same nature?
B. It is necessary.
A. Therefore, if the Son is not life by nature, He must certainly be in His own nature, as a participant in life—as if it were something different from Himself. Let those who support such perverse dogmas answer, then: under what genus shall He be placed by us? For the Word has already shown us that He is not created.
B. Life, they say, was made by the Father. For John says: "What was made in Him was life." Therefore, the Word is life.
A. Having therefore joined both together, and combined into one both the life and the Son, you say that it is not something other than the life that is in Him, so that by diverse names the nature of one subject is signified to us—whether it be called Son or whether it be called life?
B. I agree.
A. Then will they suppose that the life was made by the Father without branding themselves with the mark of madness and guilt? For otherwise, would they not, even against their will, be compelled to say that what was made was brought forth from non-existence, and that what began to be is not more ancient and prior to having received existence? But this is not life, my good sirs; it is very far from it. For life is not that which has been brought into life, but rather it is proper to it always to be, and to have an existence devoid of beginning and end. And if they think they are speaking considerately and wisely, while asserting that the Son is a participant in life even though He is considered to be life, let them hear that "life" is used to describe that which gives life, not that which is brought to life—just as, indeed, light, wisdom, and power are not what is in need of light and what has need of wisdom and craves the power of another, but rather that which illuminates, makes others wise, and strengthens others. Or does it not seem to you that I am pursuing a straight path, and one commended by the Law? "For you shall go by the royal road," it says.
B. Precisely so.
A. A But as for that which scarcely obtains its existence by a non-natural habit, and which is hardly even that which it is, how could it ever be on an equality with Him who grants it participation and deigns to let it share in the things believed to be proper to Himself? For I hear the Son saying: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills." And most reasonably so. For the nature of the Father and the nature of the Son will work in equality, and not in any way differently. For the Father is Life, and the Son is Life, no less than the Father.
B. But they might say, I suppose: "You are lying, good man; your mind is in vain and strays from the right sense, while you adulterate and lower the superiority of the Father in that He is Life. For how or whence will He be equal to the Son, even if He is named Life?" B
A. When we have dwelt a little upon these points, we shall think it right to be silent. But those who support their own dogmas will proceed to try to persuade us that the Father who gives life is more excellent than the Son, and the Son is lesser than He, even though He is Life by nature. But this they will not be able to do, I know, but they will divine; and according to their own desire, they will easily establish whatever they wish against the Son, subjecting even the nature that is queen of all things to their own laws. And then they think they are honoring the Father, while they render the Son, who is begotten from Him by nature, inferior—not without wrong—even though He says clearly: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me," and, "He who sees me, sees Him who sent me." For in what way could we behold the Father C as being Life by nature in the Son, if the Son is not also understood to be Life by nature? And why should we not also believe Him who says: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"? By saying that He Himself is the Life singularly and solely, would He not exclude the Father and God from being Life, unless we grant that both are of one nature, and that the thing itself flows down to us equally through both, not indeed from two, but from one God who gives life to all things?
B. That is how it is.
A. D "Or is it not in Him that we live and move and have our being?"
B. Entirely so, if we have granted the most holy Paul to be truthful.
A. Truthful, indeed—for how could he not be? For Christ, who is the Truth, lives and speaks in him. Observe, then, my friend, how we live and move and have our being in God the Father. And the dispenser of being and life would be none other than the Son, who is begotten from Him, who is resplendent with the properties of the Father, and who, being the life-giving sprout of life by nature, bestows life as His own good upon those who are in need of it, and holds together all creation in its being. And so, speaking to the Jews, He says: "Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives..."
you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." A Then, explaining His own nature to us: "Amen, amen," He says, "I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life." If, then, the Son is internally and without change active within us, in that He is life, and the Father is not less so, how would those who rightly think of Him and consider these things not place Him on an equal level of substance? B But, they say, we will follow what the Son Himself said. For He said openly: "Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself." A Add what is missing, or else know that you are doing an injustice to the truth. B What is that? A That which is necessarily and usefully subjoined to what you have cited: "And He gave Him authority also to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man." B You seem, I suppose, to want to show that the Son receives life from the Father, not inasmuch as He is understood to be and is God, but inasmuch as He has become man, possessing by nature not that which is life, but being instead a participant in the life that is from God. A But why do you rashly attribute these things to me rather than to yourself? For did you not hear from me that the Father gave to the Son to have life in Himself, and the authority to judge, because He is the Son of man? B I heard it; but the word "gave," they say, is placed only in regard to the judgment. For since the law attributes judgment as a peculiar office to God (for it says that the judgment is God’s), He received the office of God, as man. A But to give life, O good sirs, does it befit another more than God? For Paul, the most wise, writing to Timothy, says: "I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things." B Be it so: let this also befit God, they say: what then? A But that which befits God and is substantially attributed to Him, is it something given to human nature and adventitious? B That is also true. A But is Christ a man just like us, even if He is understood as God, inasmuch as He has manifested Himself from God? B Yes; for why not? A Was, therefore, a work proper and exceptional to the divine nature, namely life, a thing given, just as it is to man? B Certainly, the Father is said to have given life to the Son. A Add the time, and the question will be solved. For when He appeared as one of us, then He is also said to be made alive, although He Himself is life by nature, as being from God and life. And indeed, when the Father is said to have given life to the Son as though He did not have it, it is most easily apparent that the Son...
one would perceive, and that with the greatest ease, that he is the dispenser of life in himself; and we do not say this in the sense in which he is considered as God, nor where he has appeared as man, A to whom life is something given and introduced from without. For the blessed Paul said: “But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.” And our Lord Jesus Christ, bestowing the thing not by the powers of another, but by his own energies, says to the Jews concerning his own body: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
B. How then did the Father work life in the Son, if Christ rose again by his own powers and energies?
A. Namely, that since the Father is life, the Son has truly and by nature proceeded from him as life, B expressing the substance of the one who begat him, and existing wholly in the Father, and again bearing the Father entirely in himself. For this reason we say that the work of the Father is also that of the Son, and whatever the Son might work, this is the work of the Father. And accordingly, showing that the operation which is from the Father is his own, and setting forth to the lovers of learning a manifest token of the consubstantiality which he has with him by his working in all things, he says: “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works.” And again: “But the Father who dwells in me, he does the works.” For he was not thinking that things done in a God-befitting manner should be attributed to the measures of humanity, but he ascribed them to the ineffable and transcendent nature. C For this reason he says: “Even if you do not believe me, believe my works.” For things done in a God-befitting manner and above reason do not allow us to think that the glory and faith regarding him are contained within the measures of the kenosis, but he is raised up as it were on high, and he is known not as a mere man, but as God and from God. Or is what I say not true?
B. It is entirely true.
A. But this also nearly escaped me.
B. What do you mean?
A. The passage from Paul that I mentioned just now, in which the teaching was also very clear, how that through the holy Spirit the vivification from the Father is accomplished D both in Christ himself and in us. For he said: “But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.” Therefore, the Father is the life-giver through the Spirit, not as though he were vivifying the creation through a creature, but as one transforming into his own life that which does not have life in its own nature, by the participation of his own nature. For they would likely say, as I am well aware, that to live is something given to the creation.
B. Indeed they would say so; for we ourselves also say: “For what do you have that you did not receive?”
A. The holy Spirit, therefore, is life-giving, of whose deed
A of participation in the one and true God, as if it were life, we become partakers.
B. I assent. For you rightly judge, since the Spirit indeed fills the participation in God and the presence of God within us ourselves. For I shall remember John writing in this way: “By this we know that he is in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.”
A. Behold then, my friend, that the Son who has appeared from God is the bestower and giver of the divine and life-giving Spirit. For He breathed on His disciples, saying: “Receive the holy Spirit.” But would it not be most absurd for the one who is not life to be the bestower of life, as they, I know not how, think? For why, I pray you, if He is not life, does He send forth the Spirit as His own proper good, and by breathing upon them declare Himself the bestower of life? Therefore, when the Son is called a partaker of life, or that He is made alive by the Father, immediately think of the whole divine nature as understood in the Father, B in whom and from whom is the Son, and the Spirit who gives life, who have life inherently, and who work the life-giving effect, not as an instrument of the ineffable nature, but as in a way bestowing the whole quality of His nature through Himself upon creation, and transforming that which is by nature subject to corruption to long-lasting life. Being instructed by the contemplation of this thing, you will find the life-giving work in Christ performed in that alone which can by its nature be given life, that is, the human. For He who truly is from the Father and is the Only-begotten, through His own Spirit repelled the corruption of His own flesh, and rendered His own temple stronger than death. For inasmuch as He is God and proceeded from the natural life itself, that is, the Father, the divine John will be for us a rich and true witness that He is also life by nature. For thus he writes concerning Him: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life, and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and we bear witness, and we announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and appeared to us.” And making clearer what that is which is called by Him life, he again says: “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and the eternal life.” For how could He be understood to exist in the beginning and to be the true God, unless He possessed existence and immutability prior to that advent of His into the world? For to be life according to nature is then, indeed, rightfully recognized. For it is fitting for the true God to be such, and the contrary would be repugnant, since His name is “He who is”: For “I am,” He said, “He who is; this is My name, and a memorial eternal for generations of generations.” C And He contends the reverse, and indeed [there is] a name for Him; a name, and an eternal memorial for generations of generations.
B. But if, he says, you grant the operation of the Father to the Son, and this without any difference, do you say that they are of equal strength, where does the lesser...
standing still remain for him, even though he says clearly: "My Father is greater than I"; and again: "I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God"? For he knew that his Father was his God.
A A. Therefore, if they do not believe the Son to be truly and by nature God, he must be a creature, and nothing else besides this. But regarding those who have chosen to think in this way, I think it is fitting to say: "Who will give to my head water, and to my eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep for this people day and night?" But let every lover of God and pious person cry out to them: "You have been alienated from B Christ, you have fallen from grace." And God is no longer a portion to you, and far from it; but your portion is some bastard and falsely so-called, having a feigned glory of divinity. They have truly worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and therefore they have believed the Son to be in a lesser state or in conditions other than the Father, and to have a borrowed life, or rather, to be a creature that does not possess its own life. Then why have they decided to worship him, while at the same time they demean his greatness by binding him within the measures of the creation and disparaging his essential superiority over all things? Even though John says clearly: "He who comes from above is above all." For the Son will not possess being "above all" by comparisons; but since in saying "all" a manifestation of every created thing is introduced, he will soar above all things, not having it from any source to belong among creatures as his own; because he is not among all things, but is removed above all things, so that he arrives at the highest limit, beyond which there is absolutely nothing. Is not God the name that is above every name, as our divine Paul also said to us?
B. Certainly.
A. But this was the Son: "For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
B. What then shall we answer if they say that it is written concerning the Father that he gave him the name which is above every name?
A. But if they would add to us, Hermias, the desire to learn where and how the Son possesses his being God as a borrowed thing—even though he received by nature the dignity that accompanies his very being—at once, I think, they would cast away that spirit of contention, as if recovering from a stupor of the body, and they would cease slandering the ineffable substance of the Son, and I do not doubt that they would gladly embrace the correct opinion with us. But they, as is to be expected, will stand fast, maintaining their own opinion and fighting for a lie, and defending it stoutly, with no less ardor, I think, than some who arm themselves for war and battle for the sake of their children and wives. But for us, who have determined to argue precisely, it is worthwhile to read back the hidden things and
reveal the truth which is not A easy for the more unlearned to grasp.
B. You speak rightly.
A. The divine Paul therefore says to us concerning the Only-Begotten: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Was that time, then, of the Incarnation of the Word—if it were possible for it to speak—not also crying out openly and clearly to those who hold such opinions that the Word did not, insofar as He is understood to be God, but insofar as He appeared as man, return to the glory of His divinity; and that He is said to be exalted only then, when He was in the flesh, and when He emptied and humbled Himself? B But instruct me, I beseech you, for I desire to inquire of you.
B. What is it that you say?
A. The Only-Begotten emptied Himself, descending into the form of a servant, and endured the cross, despising the shame, and became obedient unto death. “Therefore,” they say, “God gave Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” Was it then, in the order of things such as pertains to us, that He acquired the being called God and the necessity to be worshipped by the holy angels themselves, and by us who dwell on earth, and by those who have already departed from this life, as a reward for good deeds, as a gift for obedience, and as a crown for courage?
B. It would seem so.
A. Therefore (for I will say something regardless of how little it may seem to comport with present appearances, because necessity so demands), may the Only-Begotten have the greatest grace because of the falls of men and our sins. For one must know that the sins of humanity were the occasion for that deifying glory for Him. C For if we had not sinned, He would not have become like us; and if He had not become like us, He would not have endured the cross; and if He had not died, He would not have acquired the necessity to be worshipped by us ourselves and by the holy angels.
B. The statement is indeed bold, but it has plausibility.
A. But if He were also in the equality and form of the Father, being free from the condition of emptying, what glory would have been added to Him by receiving the name that is above every name at the time of the emptying? Do you understand to what point their argument would fall if it were examined more subtly?
B. I understand. D
A. Do you wish, therefore, having left aside for the present the excessively
long discourse we have already consumed on this matter, that we proceed to the point that the Only-Begotten was in the beginning, and in the form and equality of the Father? B. I certainly do. A. Therefore, through the voice of Isaiah, God and Father says: “I am the Lord God, from the beginning.” A One may also hear the holy fathers themselves crying out to Him: “Art Thou not from the beginning, O Lord our God, and we shall not die?” Behold, He is named God from the beginning, and He truly is God and Father. But the divine John, when he was speaking to us about the Son, said: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.” He addressed some, saying: “I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him who is from the beginning.” And who this is, he said again: “Thus saith He who is, and who was, and who is to come.” B B. But that He was before the creation, they too would admit; but that He was God, they say, is not yet clearly discerned. For He receives, as though He did not have it, naturally. A. Then is it not for that very reason appropriate that we, showing our indignation toward those who put forward this abominable argument, should reply: “Ye deaf, hear; and ye blind, look up to see”? For since the theologian and evangelist clearly wrote not that the Word was simply, but that the Word was God, they, behaving like drunkards and those intoxicated who rush headlong into any absurdity whatsoever, mock the truth. Let us then, come, and by other arguments recognize the Son as God by nature. For would it not be fitting for Him who is truly God by nature C to assign laws to each, and to crown with praises those who live according to the rule of the law, and have cultivated an honorable and glorious life, but to punish those who have sinned as arrogant and insolent, and those who easily insult the divine laws? B. It would indeed be fitting. A. And what of the ability to fill all things, and to pass through all, and to be in all—would you attribute this to any other nature than the divine? B. Not I; for how could that be? A. And in God to live and have one's being, and to glory in God—would you not say, friend, that this is most fitting for the saints? B. Certainly. A. Come then, tell me this. B. What? A. Is it not true that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,” and that the word of wisdom is the most precious thing of all? B. I agree; for so the holy Scripture speaks. A. Consider therefore the distributor and dispenser of the good things that come down to us from above and from the Father, and
A know that the Son exists in this by authority and power. B For Paul said: "Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." And indeed, elsewhere, when God spoke to Moses, the most holy, saying: "Who hath given a mouth to man? Or who hath made the dumb and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? Have not I the Lord God? Now therefore go, and I will open thy mouth;" C again, our Lord Jesus Christ, addressing the holy apostles, says: "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Now since the blessed David sings that God is judge, and it is certain that it belongs to Him to distribute to each one the rewards of those things they may have done, and whomsoever He wills to justify—"for it is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth?" according as it is written—we shall see the Son bestowing both not in a ministerial manner, but with power befitting God. For He Himself said: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." And He addressed one of those who were sick: "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." By which those impious Pharisees, more maddened than can be said, dared to bind with the accusation of blasphemy Him who uttered that sentence with such majesty and liberty, and indeed were saying: "This man blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?" He, therefore, who is Lord of the law and of justice, and the distributor of rewards, and the dispenser of righteousness, and who forgives sins—while it is permitted to no one of those who are enumerated among creatures to do this—how would He not be God by nature? Do I seem to you to reason these things aright? B. Most skillfully and seriously. D A. But since God is in all things, and departs from no one, but by divine virtue fills all things, and for this reason says to Israel: "Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?" referring the matter, and most rightly, to the Word who proceeded from God the Father, the divine Paul writes to us: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." And again, in addition to these: "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." Is it then greater to fill all things, and to pervade everything, and to be in all, than the condition of a creature allows? B. Who would deny this?
A. A Since every saint lays aside the worldly and carnal life, and consecrates his own soul to God as it were, and has determined to glory in no one besides Him, Paul writes again: "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God," it being manifest that he means to the Son, and through Him, to the Father. This will also be clear to you, and beyond dispute, if you listen to what he adds: "For one died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again." And furthermore, besides these: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," although every saint may say: "I will rejoice in God my Savior; the Lord God is my strength."
B. B And yet, my noble friend, we have a wealth of such arguments. For we have shown by a long discourse that the Son is by no means God in name only, but is rather truly God. Therefore, leaving this aside, tell me, I pray, how one ought to understand that saying: "I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." And for what reason does He call the Father His God? Do not doubt at all that they will ask this as well.
A. A The knowledge of these questions is not at all difficult, nor hard to grasp, if one has a right and sound mind. For it is written: "All are plain to them that understand, and right to them that find knowledge." But if anyone should choose to leave the straight path and foolishly take up a crooked and devious way, and having forsaken the beaten path of doctrine, prefers to turn to another, he will fall into thorns and pits and all the obstacles that lie in the way. Whence I think the law, B enigmatically signifying this, says: "You shall go by the royal road, and you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left." When, therefore, such things as are less than the glory of God, yet do not exceed the nature of a creature, are said concerning the Son, do not immediately think of the ineffable nature that is exclusively from the Father, but, to whatever point the object of your contemplation tends, direct your mind thither; neither ascribing the properties of the divinity to the condition of humanity, nor assigning the lowliness of humanity to the nature that is supreme over all things, as if it inherently belonged to it, but having determined to make a very precise and suitable distinction in each case. For thus, and in no other way, D can you attain the most certain knowledge.
B. Give an example.
A. The blessed Paul said of the Only-begotten that He is the brightness of the glory and the character of the substance of God and the Father. Pause here therefore, and permit your mind to be carried beyond all that has been made, and let it contemplate the divine beauty itself, and consider His ineffable generation, and beholding the mode of His existence as in a mirror, pursue it with praise and glory. But if he writes of Him: "Who in the days of His flesh, with strong crying and tears, offered up prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save Him from death," along with…
A His petitions—go down a little and consider the measure of His humanity. For the express image of the Father would not have died. Since, however, the petition was made in the days of His flesh, it must be the fear of the flesh, and the dread of death in a peculiar sense belonging to the humanity. Therefore, even if it is said that He received the name which is above every name, do not thrust the Son away from the bounds of the Godhead, in so far as He is the Word, and has appeared from God the Father. For He was by nature and in truth God even before the times of the emptying. Will you not, I ask, confess this? B. Certainly. A. But since He has appeared as man, having brought Himself down into an emptying and into the form of a servant, He has become with us and under God, not having lost what He was, nor having cast off the condition of humanity. For He became poor with us, although He was rich, in that He is God. Wherefore He was reckoned both under the law, and indeed also among servants, and with the wicked, and He endured the very death of the flesh. But it was necessary for Him who is by nature and in truth God, and who does not have B any acquired glory regarding this, not to remain in the condition of the emptying, but to return to the glory that is above and from the beginning and which inherently belongs to Him, with the form that had been assumed. He hears, therefore, as man, although He is God by nature and the Son: "Today have I begotten Thee," and: "Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." C For since He has altogether become man, and has brought Himself down into an emptying, and has thus also become under God, He very necessarily and becomingly conforms Himself to the measures of the emptying, and acknowledges God with us, whom He knows as His natural and true Father, but as our God. For this reason we ourselves also, although we are subject to God by natural servitude, call God Father, having this privilege through our conformity to the Son. For the Son indeed dwells and abides in us through His own Father, in whom and through whom we cry: "Abba, Father." D And that there is an evident argument and, as it were, a sign of divine adoption in us, the Spirit who is in us, through whom we have been conformed to the Son, will declare, as Paul writes: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." B. You speak rightly. A. I believe, indeed, that my opponents will be slower at last in refuting, and will cease from attacking the doctrine of the truth, as if it were a hateful thing. But if they do not do this, but persist, and further say that God is truly the Father of the Son, not having assumed the dispensation on account of which He called God His Father,
A is it not necessary to say that we should by no means accept them as legislators and definers of what they might choose to think or say, but that it would be more fitting for us to attribute the truth to the words of the Savior? He said, therefore: "I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." Let them argue, then, that we also are sons with Him by nature, if He is himself with us under God by nature. "I am going," He says, "to my Father and your Father." Now the name Son signifies that He is substantially begotten of the Father. Therefore, there are very many sons by nature—or rather, they are beyond number—and, to pass over the breadth of this blasphemy, if all are sons by nature, then they are also gods. But I suppose they will surely say, and that very quickly, that the name of sonship is a kindness of God that is strange to us; for being earth-born in our nature, we have not been born of God, at least not in the true manner of begetting, but the duty of calling God Father has been added to us from the outside. What then, might we also say to them—O you who venture everything so easily—why do you not steer yourselves by the same reasoning toward what is right and blameless, and why are you not B ashamed to talk such great nonsense? For how is it not better to consider wisely that, since He is by nature of God, that is, of the substance of the Father, it is unbecoming for Him to be numbered with creatures, and that it is more fitting that He be God? And since He has appeared as man, would it not be entirely appropriate for Him, along with the flesh and the measures of humanity, to be under God, as He who is from Him?
B. But if, they say, there is no difference in the Son, but He is God just as the Father is also thought to be God, you will surely say that He is equal and in no respect whatsoever inferior. Why then did He Himself say, "The Father is greater than I"?
A. But tell me, I beg you, if that [statement] is understood of God by God, both naturally and truly, what difference would anyone see, or what is it that intervenes in terms of them being otherwise? Since we have maintained that the Son is the character of the Father, fashioned—if I may say so—beyond all speech and thought into a natural likeness, how could He, if He were truly inferior to the Father and less perfect in the things in which the Father is, signify in Himself the One who is better and superior to Himself, according to them? For a thing to which C anything is lacking would certainly not be the image and true likeness of a perfect thing; nor could one God surpass another, or one be understood as inferior to the other in that which He is as God, since not even man differs from man according to the definition of humanity. For one man is sometimes said to differ from another in strength and prudence, in the glory of virtues, in the size and smallness of the body, and in deformity, beauty, and variety of color. But if anyone wishes to perceive clearly what the definition of substance may be for Peter and for Paul, he will find the same thing in both and entirely similar: to be [considered] less, however, is foolish...
I think, and no sound-minded person could think it out in this way. Since, therefore, they say the Father is greater, let them demonstrate what precisely it is that excels in Him and by which the "greater" has entered in. B. Has the Son then fallen short of the truth, saying: "For the Father is greater than I"? A. And how could He have lied, saying, "I am the truth"? But let it be passed over for the present [to consider] how the voice of the Savior ought to be understood. For it shall be said in its own time. But define what I am saying: is there one nature of the Godhead, the artificer of all things, and Creator of the universe, and is the Lord one, or is the law not true? B. It is true. A. And since the Divine is simple and uniform, is it believed and known in the holy Trinity—in the Father, I say, and in the Son and in the holy Spirit? Do you say anything different from this, or can you teach [otherwise]? B. Nothing at all. A. Therefore, by binding all the aforementioned things into one and the same nature, and joining them into an identity, with each subsisting hypostatically, we shall adore one God, and we shall worship one God of all. But if we divide and sever [them] into a natural diversity, and place each one separately in a certain proper nature, we shall—even if unwillingly—confess three gods. And what reason will have freed us from error if we determine matters in this way? Indeed, who would not be devoid of reason and sense who would proclaim to us three gods instead of one? But I think that, fearing to appear plainly and openly insane, they will say that the Father is indeed God and true, but pouring out upon the Son the blasphemy that is worthy of and habitual to them, they will assert that He is made and created, smearing upon Him, so to speak, a shadow of the glory of the Godhead, and believing that He is adorned with empty names, they will impudently cast Him down from the true and natural Godhead. C Now, who among those who propose to think correctly is so slow and dull that he would not vehemently reject the definitions of such adversaries, and laughing at their excessive quibbles, say: "If the Son is not God by nature, but this name is adventitious to Him, as you wish, what reason is there for you to compare Him to God and the Father, and to investigate 'less' and 'greater' in both? And yet, every wise and necessary argument, I think, assigns comparisons to be made by mutual reference, and therefore especially between those things which are of the same nature and seem to be the same according to substance, or at any rate do not differ in any way. For an angel and a man are both rational beings: yet there is a certain difference in both, and they do not in every respect agree with one another. When, therefore, you approach the task of weighing the nobility and excellence of angels, an angel is to be compared to an angel, to see whether, for instance,
this one excels that one; and Peter, in turn, someone else among people of his own kind. But God, who is of all and over all, a thing incomparable and excelling beyond measure, since He is supreme over all things and reaches the very pinnacle, being unapproachable and inaccessible to created beings—what could there be that is akin to Him, close at hand, nearby, and in any way approaching Him, so as to dare to contend with Him, or for it to remain a matter of doubt which is the lesser? Does it not seem to you worthy of laughter, and the mark of one bereft of sound mind, if any of those counted among creatures should dare to say: "The God and Father of all is greater than I"? To which of existing things, I ask you, could you apply such a bold and perilous utterance? To Angels, then, and Archangels, A or Powers, Thrones, and Dominions? For how, or whence, could that which is made contend with its own Creator? Most ignorantly, therefore, do they compare a thing that is totally and utterly distinct by nature—if they imagine that the Son is not in truth God, but rather was produced out of nothing into existence by the Creator—to the Father, and weigh equality or inferiority between the two. B
B. It seems so. They say, then, that the Son is a lesser God, and the Father a greater one.
A. Then where would we discern the "greater" in the Father and, furthermore, the "lesser" in the Son, if we were to contemplate the nature of God, whatever it may be? Or will they not say that the Divine is something incorporeal and intangible, without dimensive quantity and without increase, prior to all time, eternally existing, and holding itself in the same way, being in itself and from itself completely perfect? C
B. I think so.
A. In what way, then, would God surpass and transcend God? Is it not necessary that that which is in any way at all inferior should fall away from the definition of Godhead, if it neither reaches the summit of the goods of the Godhead, and is found to have fallen into a dearth of absolute perfection?
B. Necessary.
A. For they would not, I suppose, say that the "greater" in the Father exists by reason of measurable quantity; for an incorporeal being is devoid of quantity. D Nor, again, that the Son is posterior to the One who begat Him. For, since the Father always is, and there is nothing that summons Him to change or alteration into anything else, that which is from Him, being by all means eternally with Him, co-eternal and co-existent with the substance of the Begetter, is the God who always is and who holds Himself in the same way.
B. The Son, they say, is "lesser," not by a quantity of body—for how could that be?—but because He is not possessed of the same things as the Father.
A. Come then, let us diligently weigh the attributes of the Godhead, and strive to see if these things are appropriate to the Father alone, yet by no means to the Son in the same manner, or as if, forsooth, they were also [appropriate] to the Father Himself. But first of all [this] I ask: if the Father excels and surpasses the nature of the Son, does it not follow that he who...
holds the superior position must necessarily possess pre-eminence, not in one way only, but in every single respect that is proper to the Godhead? B B. Most certainly.
A. But if the Son were seen to be equal in all things, would he not ward off quite effectively the slander of being in any way in a state of inferiority? For let it be granted that even that which is transcendent may, of its own will, sometimes lower its own glory to the humility of subordinate things; yet how could that which is minor and inferior transcend its own nature and be lifted up beyond the condition of its own nature, and contend in glory with that which is far superior?
B. You speak rightly.
A. How, therefore, does the Son of God, setting Himself before us as a sort of most perfect type and image of the substance of the Father, and, in order to demonstrate His begetter, clearly bringing forward His own nature, say: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one"? If, therefore, He is not possessed of the same things as the Father, what reason is there for Him to depict Himself in His own nature, and claim that He is one with the Most Perfect, while He is [actually] less and inferior?
B. Such is not the case, in my judgment.
A. Therefore (for I will turn to the task of contemplating, as far as is permitted, those things which adorn the divine and most high nature), come now, let us examine whether the beauty of the Godhead is more conspicuous in the Father, or whether it is less so in the Son, less than is proper?
B. You seem to me to have examined these matters most excellently.
A. The divine Psalmist, therefore, makes everything that is reckoned in the number of creatures subject to the scepters of the Godhead and binds them with the yoke of servitude, doing so very piously and most rightly. For he says somewhere to the Creator and Parent of all things: "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment, and like a mantle you will roll them up, and they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not end, for all things serve you." Moreover, he commands the very heavens of heavens to praise Him, as well as the sun and the moon, and the stars, and the water that is above the heavens. And to men he says: "Come, let us worship and fall down before Him, and let us weep before the Lord who made us, for He is our Lord God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand." And of the angels and those who have a more eminent ministry: "Bless the Lord, all you His angels, you ministers of His who do His will. Bless the Lord, all His works." Do you understand, therefore, how, by binding all things under the yoke of servitude, He named men the sheep of His hand, while He presents the angels as singers and ministers ready at hand?
A B. I understand.
A. Observe, then, that the Son says the sheep belong to the hand of God and the Father, and that He lays upon us the yoke of servitude. For He said: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." We are, therefore, the sheep of God and the Father, yet we are nonetheless also called and are the sheep of the Son. Furthermore, you may easily learn from the holy Scriptures that the angels also minister to Him. For the wise Matthew said that when Satan, who had tempted the fasting Christ, had fled and departed in vain, "Behold, angels came and ministered to him." B Indeed, the Seraphim also stand around His sublime and exalted throne, glorifying Him, and calling Him holy, and, what is more, naming Him the Lord of hosts, and saying that heaven and earth are full of His glory. If, then, He who rules equally over all things is endued with the same hand and power as the Father, and has no less glory (for all things are full of His glory), and since He declares that He possesses a natural identity with the Lord of all—how then would He not possess equality? Or can you conceive or express anything by which the glory of the Father would transcend, while that of the Son would fall short, being unable to attain it and refusing to be borne together with it, because of a lack of equality?
B. I would not be able to conceive of it.
A. What, then, does the hand of the Father signify to us—whether the power that produces all things, or strength? For whatever is said of God surely transcends human sense.
B. Both can fittingly be said, I think, for nothing stands in the way.
A. You speak rightly; but if it be believed that what is less—or, so to say, inferior—is that which excels, how, then, could it ever be considered and called endowed with an equal operation and the same power? How, C indeed, would the Son have glory equal to the Father, and be the image of unity with Him, expressed by the most perfect likeness? For He says, "I and the Father are one," even though He has testified that He Himself holds the highest summit. For He said, "My Father is greater than all."
B. He would not have it, of course; it is far from it. For if He is less, even in some part at least, all His possessions would be submitted along with Him.
A. Therefore, the Son would in no way attain to the majesty of the Father if He were less, and not equal, nor, in my opinion, would He have said to Him with confidence, "All things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine." Come then, if you please, let us grant that pre-eminence must be attributed to the Father, and let us say that the Son is lesser; what great skill, I pray, D would all—
A of these things show, which would attribute to the Son all things belonging to the Father, and in turn to the Father those things belonging to the Son, yet suppose that in everything said to be in the Father, there is a certain being above and being superior? Then how will this be proper to the Son, although he has received the lesser? And if the lesser is proper to the Son, how could it also belong to the Father, who has received the superior? I am at a loss, but you should demonstrate to us how this could be. B. I could not. For the matter of this thought is truly difficult to escape. A. Let the discourse then flow on a second course, and let it take the path before us; I will ask something also necessary: "Will it not lie in the power of the Father alone to set free from faults, and to wipe away our B heavy sin?" B. I say it is. A. And how is it not very dangerous to dare to restrain the Son, since he shines forth with equal works, and to say recklessly that he is in a lesser state or place than the Father? For if he wills, he himself also relaxes sins. Advancing, therefore, the exhortation to accept the oblivion of injuries, and teaching that one ought to be set free from it, he says: "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly C Father will also forgive you." But attributing to the Father the ability to forgive sins by authority whomever he might choose, he claims for himself the realization of this same thing, saying: "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then, he says, to the paralytic): Arise, take up your bed, and go into your house." That which is therefore equal in power and the same in operation, how could it be inferior, and yet placed in the second rank? B. It could not be; for the reasoning is clear. A. The divine Paul, witnessing to us, would also testify to the things said, exclaiming: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies: who is he that condemns?" Then, transferring the magnificence of this deed to the Son, and assigning to him also the power of justifying those who have believed, he writes again thus: "Being justified therefore by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." For faith D joins us to God and Father, and sets us near through the Son; but he justifies us, as we are truly and soundly taught, not separately indeed and God and Father alone, nor separately and the Son alone, but the justification which is thought to be from the Father is itself also of the Son, and that which the Son bestows, this must be confessed to be of the Father. For just as the things which were brought into being were produced by him through whom all things exist, and have no other maker than him through whom they were brought into the light: so through him are preserved those things which fell from that first happiness, and receive their previous state, and return to the primitive beauty of each of their natures.
A
B. I agree.
A. For this reason the divine Moses said that Israel obtained mercy from heaven and from the Father, however intractable and stubborn he was. For he writes: "As an eagle covers her young, so she spread her wings, took them, and bore them on her shoulders." D The Son himself confirms that he performed this very act, saying: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate." And indeed, we shall not be so foolish as to reject the Father as if he were idle, nor to say that the Son arrogates to himself alone the glory of this deed. But because in both there is total equality and substantial identity, and because God is uniform and simple, he has ordered us to understand that the Father is the agent through the Son, with all thought of a ministering subjection being far removed, and with nothing preventing the Word, who proceeded from God the Father, from being endowed with equal glory with the Father. For the Father works, using the Son as his own power—which is indeed living and not diverse from him, in so far as he is God from God, and naturally in God, although each is considered to exist in his own proper hypostasis. B C
B. You speak rightly.
A. That the Son will not be seen as inferior to the Father in divine nature, power, and efficacy in any respect whatsoever, you may also easily learn from these words, I think, as well. For through the voice of Isaiah, God and Father said: "Turn to me, and you shall be saved, you who are from the ends of the earth. I am God, and there is no other. I swear by myself, if righteousness will not go forth from my mouth, my words shall not turn back." Now, would you attribute to another besides him that brilliant boast of the Father—that he is able to call and save those from the ends of the earth, to speak righteousness, and to use a most powerful and irrevocable word? D
B. Not I; for those things which are peculiar to him and to him alone are fitting only for God.
A. But if the nature of the Son is also adorned with equal boasts, and possesses this glory in equal portion, would it then still be fitting, my good sir, to ascribe to him any inferiority at all in any respect?
B. By no means.
A. Then you shall hear him crying out openly: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you." Is this not the same as saying, "I am God, and there is no other"? For all things are subjected to the divine yoke, and are oppressed by the condition of servitude; but of his own...
A words, he speaks thus: "Amen I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law, until all be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Do you understand, then, how the words of the Son are immutable, just as are those of the Father? B. I understand. A. Furthermore, to be able to provide for things, in such a way that nothing at all escapes his hand, belongs not to any other, but solely and deservedly to God, the Lord of the universe. Do I not seem to you to speak and think correctly on this? B. Indeed, most correctly. A. We shall find, moreover, that the Father and the Son provide equally for the universe. B. How do you mean that? A. For regarding God and the Father, the Son himself was saying: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall upon the earth without your Father who is in heaven?" But it is possible to see that he himself, too, bestows that immense, all-encompassing care even upon the most vile things, and those which are not B held in much esteem. For after he had left the borders of Judea and had migrated into the land of the Gergesenes, he was casting out evil demons from men; and they, obeying divine nods, were doing out of necessity what was commanded, and thus they sought from him authority over the swine. Then he, having all things subject to his feet, willingly yields and bids them go. They suddenly invade the herds of swine, and by submerging the herd in the waters, they choke them. Therefore, I ask, did Christ voluntarily grant this favor to such execrable and impure spirits, who desire nothing good, and permit them to do whatever they wished? But it is not probable that we should harbor any such thought. But it was necessary that the Son, no less than the Father, should exercise care for all things; and he shows this to us by the clearest facts, so that the glory of an C all-encompassing equality might be made manifest, clear and pure, in both. B. And how, they ask, can this come to pass? For where will equality be seen in both, if the Son be subject and inferior—he of whom the divine Paul says: "And when all things shall be subjected to him (except, indeed, him who subjected all things to him), then the Son himself also shall be subject to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all"? A. Why then will they say that the Son is subject to the Father, or how would they take away from him who was naturally generated from him the equality with the Father? And if we should ponder the reason of nature, why is this [notion] of subjection most foolishly introduced, when it is not placed among the D reasons of essence
B. Because, they say, from the fact that He is subjected, the quality of His substance is clearly understood. A
A. And yet, dear heart, you will perceive with no great effort that this reasoning is rotten and full of ignorance. For the spirits of the prophets are subjected to the prophets, as it is written, B and the son of a certain man, for example, to his own begetter; just as, to be sure, one might say that Isaac was subjected to Abraham, and in turn his own son to him. But neither did the spirits of the prophets, because of the subjection that took place between them, establish a dissimilar nature for them, nor was the blessed Isaac of a different nature, because, being overcome by reverence for his father, he was subjected to him and offered up obedience to his progenitor as a noble gift of sonship. If, therefore, that which is subjected always and in every way causes those in whom it occurs to be seen as being of different substances, and violates the laws of nature, let this be firmly established and remain true in the case of the Son. But if it does not in the least offend the principles of substance, but is, as I think, a certain manner of honor and obedience of the Son toward the Father, and a refined inclination of the wills of those who cultivate duty and propriety (a thing which does not, even in us, surpass the laws of nature), why do these wretched men foolishly allege it, and why do they oppose it as a kind of unassailable argument against Him who is God by nature from God? For did not Luke write, regarding Christ Himself, the holy Virgin, and him who was thought to be His father according to the flesh, "And He was subject to them"? C
B. Yes, he has indeed written that.
A. Should we then, my good man, have to suppose that He is also inferior in the nature of man, even though He has appeared as God from God and was ineffably begotten, since He subjected Himself even to them, and was subject to His mother according to the flesh, and, led by reverence toward Joseph, showed him honor as to a father?
B. By no means; yet the subjection causes great disturbance, and it is enough to cast a suspicion that He is lesser.
A. But it will not cast even the slightest scruple into those who are firmly established in the faith, and who, having embraced the sincere and incorrupt doctrine in their souls, do not admit the deceptive and base opinions of the heretics, but remember rather blessed Paul, who writes: "Destroying counsels and every height lifting itself up against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding to the obedience of Christ." For the discourse of the adversaries does indeed at times rage and swell against the glory of the Only-Begotten, and from the very sacred Scriptures D they construct an accusation against us, such as that grave and celebrated utterance, as they think it: "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son Himself also be subject unto Him that put all things under Him." But those who are stirred up in their sobriety of mind toward a pure and sound understanding, if they notice that any saying does violence to the truth, do not
merely interpret it by itself (for it is written correctly), but, since it has been pushed aside by the twists of those who hold the opposite view so as to appear to have been said incorrectly, then, at that point, being fortified by the weapons of truth, they "destroy every lofty thing" A of the foolish reasonings and, drawing back the saying that was already rushing in a way toward apostasy, they forcibly direct it into the obedience of Christ, that is, into the economy of the incarnation. For the very name and reality of "obedience" signifies for us the time of service, when He who is God became man, and though He did not have His authority over all things as something acquired, but as God from God, He was called a servant, and being in the form and equality of the Father, He humbled Himself, voluntarily submitting to an emptying. Therefore, and quite reasonably, being believed to have become among us, He accepted this common nature of all with its shortcomings; and the shortcoming of created nature when compared to God is the necessity of being subject. However, the essence of things does not consist in this subjection, as they frequently suppose and ignorantly teach; but since they are and subsist according to their own nature, and as nature allows for each, they receive a voluntary subjection, and this is a matter of mind and will. B. Indeed, that is quite clear. A. Subjection, therefore, consists solely in the inclination of the wills, B and conversely; but it does not express the meaning of the substance. B. You speak rightly. A. What then? Is it not worth our while to see this as well? B. What is it that you say? A. The holy Paul writes to us concerning Christ: "But now we do not yet see all things subject to Him." So, if He will be subject at that time to the Father, when all things shall have been subjected to Him, there will be some time, as it seems, appropriate to the matter. Yet, for the present, the Son is not subject, since the time has not yet arrived when He Himself will also be subject. B. I agree; for the word is clear. A. But if anyone should imagine that he says He is not now subject to God and the Father, but that this will happen to Him at some time, and because of this subjection should openly ascribe an inequality of substance to Him—as it seems, he is asserting that the Son will one day be unlike His own self in nature, and will be changed into something other than what He now is and is believed to be. C For if, O good sirs (for it is helpful to address the adversaries), subjection is to be placed among the definitions of substance, it will surely also have the power and rationale of the contrary of substance, that is, disobedience. And if we say that He is not now "subject" and that this is His nature, He will certainly shift, should He be subjected to the Father, into some other [nature] and entirely different one, in respect to
A a contrary nature. Therefore, the Son has become mutable and is no longer unchangeable; and the divine David will be speaking falsely when he attributes to Him that eminent glory of being stable, in short, and of remaining in the same state. “For the heavens,” he said, “shall perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall grow old as a garment, and as a covering Thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” B And Paul also falls away from the truth, writing: “Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever.” For where, at last, has He remained the same, if He is to undergo change in respect to substance? B. It is true. A. Let those excellent sophists, then, answer what sort of change, and of what kind, there will be. If it is for the worse, because He must be subjected, it will bring no profit to the Savior of all and Redeemer for the glory of His future kingdom—that is, that final time—when He shall even be subjected to the Father; and yet now He is surely in a better state, when He is said to have emptied Himself and humbled Himself. But if, leaving that aside as ignorant, they shall say the change will be into something better, why, then, do they foolishly prattle against subjection and attribute for that reason a worse state to the Son, when He extols and lifts up Him who is now in equality with the Father? “For He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, as it is written, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant.” Do I not seem to you to have said these things most aptly? B. Most correctly indeed. A. Since, then, their words are everywhere insipid and absurd, come, let us finally proceed to what is blameless, not by declaring the substance of the Only-Begotten to be lesser because of that heralded C subjection, which the divine Paul also says will come to pass in the final times, but by rather thinking of it piously. B. In what way? A. No one, I imagine, would say that the Son turns aside into some will of His own other than that of the Father, and leans toward being carried, as it were, outside of what is pleasing to Him; but rather one would reasonably judge Him to be of one mind and of the same counsel with Him, inasmuch as He exists and is perceived to be by nature out of Him and in Him. For, in order that He may appear to honor the Father—and the One from whom He has been genitally begotten—with perfect and supreme praises, He sometimes says: “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; but mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not requested. Then I said: Behold, I am coming; in the head of the book it is written of Me, that I should do Thy will, O God.” And at other times, again: “For I have come down from heaven, not that I should do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” Behold, for behold, He says D very clearly that He has come down from the heavens, and that it is for this reason, that He might freely perform what is pleasing to the Father, so that if it were possible for Him to disagree in will, He would despise His own and embrace the will of the Father.
B. Certainly not.
A. Therefore, He who even now wills and thinks the same as the Begetter—or rather, who is the deliberation and will of the Father—in what way shall He be subjected, and that at fixed times, as if He were not yet understood to be of the same will, or were not already a subject? For I myself will also use the sentiment of Paul, which in no way harms the Only-Begotten regarding the nature of His substance.
B. What, then, is that future subjection?
A. We have excellent hope, Hermias, and we firmly believe that to those who have determined to live uprightly, and have lived a holy and truly praiseworthy life, the participation in every good thing will come from God; moreover, that all thought and speech is surpassed by those things that are reserved for the heads of the saints. The distributor and dispenser of all these, however, will be the Son. All things, indeed, come to us from the Father through Him in the Spirit, not, however, as if He provides a ministerial service in this, but rather because He distributes with authority, as the Son, the things of the Father, so that God may be all in all A, namely, sanctification, and wisdom, and life, and glory also, and incorruption. B And that, when all things have been subjected to the Son, God and Father of the universe will again reign and rule together with Him is easily shown by our clinging to the opinion that the Son will be then, as always, of the very same will as the Father, and will agree with Him in all things, and through His own mediation will fulfill the hopes of the saints. And indeed, we say that the divine Paul used the term "subjection" C improperly. For he knew that he would in no way injure Him, even if he spoke in such a way. For the purpose of the Son is always to venerate the Father, because He is from Him by nature, and is equal and similar in all respects, and is inferior in no way; and through Him and with Him, to the Father be glory, with the holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
DIALOGUE VI
That the things which are proper to humanity, and which are not spoken in a manner very worthy of God concerning the Son, are appropriate to the economy of the incarnation, and not to the nature of the Word itself, insofar as it is understood to be and is God.
A A. We have, I think, spoken clearly and at sufficient length concerning equality, and that the nature of the Son is a manifestation of the substance of God the Father, and, as it were, an exact seal. For we have demonstrated that those things which are uniquely excellent to the substance of God the Father belong to the Son; or rather, we have shown that whatever is naturally called proper to the Father, this is the Son. Do you think then, Hermias, that that which is in no way naturally united to another can ever be distinguished by the properties of another as if they were its own, and be distributed as if into a foreign nature? B. What do you mean? A. Does not everything that exists bear its own specific definition of nature, while it appears to flee from all-encompassing identity with others, even if it is said to share some common thing with them? For both man and horse are animals; but in each there exists a different account, which separates it from others and prevents it from coalescing into one and the same thing—namely, in an all-encompassing identity. For there is a specific definition of man, and of ox, and B of horse. But if someone were to take away that which intervenes, and by removing the definitions of substantial difference, were to attribute the properties of human nature and all other things to others, would he not be defining the nature of man for us, and would that which is signified be anything else? B. It is true. A. Is it not then absurd, or rather entirely impossible, that something can be known by the properties of another, and yet not be that very thing which that nature is, by whose properties it is also known? B. You have spoken rightly. A. The Son of God, therefore, is in no way less than God the Father, if He is recognized as being, by nature, entirely distinguished by the properties of the Godhead. For this reason, He is also the character of the substance of the Father. For through Him and in Him we may gaze upon the nature of the Father. B. Do you wish us to bring forward something useful for our benefit, or, having now abandoned the intention of contradicting you, shall we simply pursue the opinion of our adversaries?
A A. Indeed, my friend, you may say freely whatever you wish. We are ready, and let all delay be set aside, as the time even now urges us to defend the dogmas of the truth. But the divine Peter encourages us to proceed eagerly to this, saying somewhere in this manner: “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. III, 15). For what other hope is there among us besides our Lord Jesus Christ?
B B. Therefore, know that they will certainly say that the Son is not equal or similar to God the Father according to the logic of nature, since he is also sanctified by Him, and is exalted, and is glorified, and is said to be strengthened. For we are ready to demonstrate from the very sacred Scriptures that he both worshipped with us and confessed that he was ignorant of the day of the end. And I would easily set forth, if you wish, the expressions and the proofs for each of the things mentioned, from the divinely inspired Scripture.
C A. Indeed, I thought the struggle was finished for me by now, but it is actually still at its peak, and its onslaught is still vigorous. Since, however, I have been frustrated in that hope, and we are forced to undergo other labors (for the objections of the unlearned bring themselves upon us in a mass), come, let us again oppose to each one separately the true and blameless doctrine, and let us demonstrate that they are ignorant of the mystery of Christ.
B. Indeed, my soul vehemently desires to pursue the same path with you. For it is not otherwise possible to explain and resolve each point clearly. Since, therefore, they say that the Son is a partaker of sanctification, the blessed Paul will show this, writing about him: “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: I will declare thy name unto my brethren” (Heb. II, 11). Moreover, the wise John says that he saw the Spirit descending upon him as a dove (Joan. I, 32). And in addition to these, the Son himself said, addressing the Jews: “Is it not written in your law, that I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Joan. X, 34-36). Innumerable other things of this kind can be gathered together without any trouble, through which you may learn that the Son was sanctified by the Father.
D A. But what kind of manner of sanctification is to be understood, even if it is attributed to the Only-Begotten himself, I would gladly hear from you. For a very great difference in this matter is seen in the sacred Scriptures. For some are said to be sanctified, as in the foreknowledge of God, who foresees that they, by leading a laudable and right life, will be worthy of partaking of the Holy Spirit. Such were those about whom the wise Paul writes: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
A of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called.” And God said to the most wise Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee.” Others also are indeed sanctified, even if they do not know God by nature, yet their sanctification does not signify a relationship and kinship with the holy Spirit, but rather a certain disposition and leading toward the doing of those things which God might will. Therefore, concerning Cyrus and the Medes who were about to sack Babylon, and who were moved to this by divine wrath: “Giants come,” He says, “to fulfill my anger, rejoicing at the same time and behaving insolently.” He added, “For they are sanctified, and I lead them.” And through the prophet Haggai, God says: “If a man take holy flesh,” meaning, I suppose, a sacrifice offered without blemish and brought to God for a sweet-smelling savor, calling it holy flesh. We say, however, that those who are truly sanctified through the Spirit are holy, and thus have been shown to be partakers of the divine nature. By what mode, then, will they surmise that the Son was sanctified, since it is necessary to speak of Him as having been sanctified at the same time as His being sent into this world? For thus did Christ speak: “Whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.” For the concurrence of both B is, I suppose, seen to be very useful for the correctness of thoughts. For in sending the Son, the Father is said to sanctified Him, and not before the mission. B. They say He was sanctified by the Father. A. But would the Father have sanctified Him in any other way than through the Holy Spirit? B. Truly, through the Holy Spirit; what then follows from this? A. Observe then, my friend, into what an absurdity their reasoning flows. For if, before the taking of flesh and the mission into this world, the Word was a partaker of the Spirit, according to what is conceived as correct by them, why did He receive it again even when with flesh? For that is something superfluous and vain. But no one in their right mind, I think, would believe that such a thing could fall into the ineffable nature of God. For He would not do anything without a cause, but He perceives what is right—not by any long delay of contemplation or reasoning, but from the very first movements of the counsel and wisdom inherent in Him. But if, since He has appeared among us and has been sent in the flesh into this world, He becomes wealthy in the Spirit and has attained, as it were, a new and brilliant grace for this, where has He emptied Himself, and how has He come to a lowering and humiliation, having been in a better state; unless perhaps, as they say, they care nothing for the worst evils, and [are suggesting] that He was in a worse state, having received the Spirit, and that [the Spirit], which by nature is accustomed to sanctify, pushes D those in whom It might be down toward a worse state?
A B. But they will not think this, I suppose; for they say that He was sanctified after the Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.
A. Who, then, is he who said this, having at the same time beheld the descent of the Spirit upon Him from heaven?
B. John the Baptist bore witness, saying: "I have seen the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and It remained upon Him."
A. Therefore, measure out the time of His being sanctified. For the Word of God was not sanctified before His advent, but when He became as we are—those for whom sanctification is not a product of our own nature, but is external and acquired. Or do you not know that, while the nature of man was at the beginning enriched by partaking of the divine Spirit and by likeness to God through sanctification (for it was made in the image of the Creator), yet when it violated the divine commandment and lost the gift, it was condemned to death and subjected to the yoke of sin?
B. I understand.
A. It was fitting, therefore, since God in His inherent kindness wished to reform the fallen race into its former state, that Christ should arise as a second principle, as it were, of the race, and be brought into the light through the holy Virgin, yet not suffer the taking of a carnal father, so that we all might have God as Father with Him, returning through Him and in Him to the beginnings of that glory. It was fitting that, having become man, He should receive the Spirit, so that since He was and is without knowledge of sin, the Spirit might finally dwell and rest in Him, as in the firstfruits of the race and a second root. For I believe the divine Baptist clearly signifies this somewhere, when he cries out concerning the Spirit—that he had beheld It descending from heaven in the form of a dove; and he added that It "remained upon Him," for It had not remained in us because of the transgression, but [remained] in Christ. For He was endowed with a nature into which the stain of sin cannot fall. But just as a king, although he always exists and sits on the same throne with God and the Father, is said to be "appointed" king when He became man similar to us, and the kingdom was given to Him from above; and just as, while always coexisting with the Father, He is reckoned as Son through the Spirit because He was made like B adopted sons according to the flesh, and just as He called God His Father while being conformed to us who are under God, even though He Himself is God: so also is He said to be sanctified, with the sanctification pertaining to His humanity, or residing about this flesh, because the nature of man cannot possess sanctification from itself. For this indeed resides in that nature which is truly divine and above all—of which, since the Word is the fruit, He will indeed possess, as it were, as His own in Himself, the sanctification of the nature from which He was begotten.
A
B. What absurdity is it then, that they claim to exist, in that which is said of the Son: that He is sanctified by the Father?
A. I shall repeat again what I have said. For if they say this insofar as He is man, just as any other man is said to be sanctified, the statement would be indifferent, in the sense that there is no harm in it. But if, leaving behind the truth and rejecting what is reasonable, they slip into a most absurd and utterly rash sense, saying that the Word who shone forth from God the Father is Himself sanctified, the statement would go beyond every absurdity.
B. Then show us, I pray, the grounds for the absurdity which we find in this.
A. I will do so willingly. For I shall not hesitate, hoping that Christ, the guardian of truth, will be my aid and support. Having therefore cast aside all delay, let us bring the examination of the proposed matters into the midst, and tell me this—once again.
B. What is it? B
A. Whose property shall we say the Holy Spirit is? Is He that of God and the Father alone, or also of the Son, or of each individually, or of both as one, out of the Father through the Son because of the identity of substance?
B. That is precisely what I say.
A. Correct, my friend; I admire your mental acuity, and I affirm that this opinion of yours is expressed in excellent agreement with the divinely inspired Scriptures. For God and Father is understood as subsisting in His own right, and the Son, in turn, also subsists individually; yet, even though each possessed a distinct hypostasis, they nevertheless admit no distinction [of essence]. For the Son is not separated from the Father, as one angel is separated from another, or among us, one person is separated from another—perhaps separated in such a way that the whole is C apart from the whole—nor does the line of argument drive the difference to such an extent that it posits each as entirely separate; for otherwise there would also be two gods. But since there is one and only one divinity that is being understood, we would behold the Son living and subsisting in the Father, and vice-versa, the Father in the Son; for He is the character of His substance.
B. I agree.
A. Therefore, the Spirit is also of one nature, and He proceeds as if from a fountain—the Father; yet He is not alien to the Son. For the latter is begotten, having in Himself the entire property of the Father; and since He is the fruit of the supreme divinity, how could He be thought destitute of the goods of the divinity? Now, the property of the divinity is sanctification, of which the Spirit is the manifestation [or receptacle]. For He is holy by nature, and the sanctifier of the whole creation. D
B. And what proof would there be for these things, or how might I clearly learn that the Holy Spirit is the property of the Son, just as He is, to be sure, of the Father?
A. I will not seek a witness from outside, but I will bring in Christ Himself crying out: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth.”
A “He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I unto you, that he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you.” Are these things not sufficient to create faith in the wise, seeing that He calls the Paraclete His own (for He named Him the Spirit of truth), and that there is no truth other than Him? By adding, “For he shall receive of mine,” He clearly demonstrates the substantial and natural conjunction, according to which His Spirit is one with Him. For He does not say that the Spirit will be wise from Him by participation, B nor that He will convey the words of the Son to the saints in the role of a minister; but just as if a certain flower were to say, regarding the fragrance that spreads from it and pours into the senses of those standing by, “He shall receive of mine,” it would signify the natural property, and not something separated and distinct through participation, so you should understand this regarding also the Son and the Spirit. For being the Spirit of wisdom and power, He is assuredly wisdom and power, preserving within Himself the whole efficacy of the One who sends Him forth, and showing forth, as it were, in His own nature, the nature of Him whose Spirit He is. But since He says, “He shall receive of mine,” He necessarily adds, “All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I unto you, that he shall receive of mine.” For just as He is holy by nature, because He is the Spirit of the holy Father, so too is He wise, because He is the Spirit of wisdom; and wisdom is the Son. C And we do not say in any way that the Spirit is holy and wise according to a certain relation and participation, but rather substantially, and as it were a certain natural quality of the holy and wise divinity, which is conceived as being in the Father and the Son, and in the Spirit Himself. That the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son, He Himself will teach you, saying: “But when the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness,” He says, “of me.” Do you understand, therefore, how He promises to send to us from the Father Him who is His own, and while He calls Him the Spirit of truth, He yet determined that He proceeds from the Father Himself, and has fore-announced that He will also bear witness of Him? D B. And what might be understood to be the manner of this testimony? A. For since He has worked the things of God through the hand of the saints, He has borne witness clearly that the Son is God, whose Spirit He also is, just as He is of the Father as well. B. Of such things, indeed, we have enough, my friend. For that which is clear and indubitable has no need of a defender. For the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son, and I do not think anyone at all will gainsay it. Therefore, having dismissed labor and toil on this, apply yourself now rather to those things through which it is possible to learn
A that the Son is holy by nature, and not by participation from the Father.
A. And yet, as I think, anyone who has any sense would be amazed that, while they define the Spirit as being proper to the Son, they ascribe participation in Him to Him again, and say that holiness from God the Father through the Spirit is something adventitious, and at times bestowed as if He did not have it. But why, since they do not endure to examine the harm of the absurdity that follows from this, do they rush only to what is pleasing to themselves, and do so unreflectingly? For in what way could the Son be a participant of the Spirit, as if He were brought in from outside? For He is in no way a participant of His own self. But if we wish to reason rightly and accurately, those things that belong by nature to any being will by no means be considered adventitious, or in the place of things external. How then do they say He is sanctified through the Spirit, although He says clearly concerning the Spirit: "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it to you"? And we say this, not because we believe that there is anything in the Spirit that is held by participation (for He is most perfect and in need of nothing by His own nature), but we signify rather that, since the Spirit is of the substance of God and the Father, and of the Word who shines forth from Him and in Him by nature, He assumes everything which is proper to the Godhead by nature, having Him as a fountain in a certain way, and proceeding as it were from the Father through the Son, and sanctifying the creation. But if they think that the Word Himself is also sanctified along with us, gathering foolish little arguments to prove this, let them speak, I pray.
B. Speak what?
A. When the Spirit communicates Himself to the nature of created things, He undoubtedly helps it. But how, my friend, does that happen? He makes it holy.
B. Then show this without obscurity. For I do not at all grasp it. What precisely it is to "make holy," I pray you to explain to me.
A. I will do so willingly. For He makes the rational creature superior to sin and to the turning toward malice, and transforms it toward the image of the Creator through sanctification. For the Creator of the universe is holy; therefore also He says: "Be holy, for I am holy."
B. You have spoken most correctly.
A. For we ourselves were created also to the image and likeness of God. But that which imparts the divine image to us is certainly the sanctification, that is, the participation of the Son in the Spirit. Accordingly, when the nature of man slipped toward turning away, and the beauty of the image was disfigured, we were renewed toward the beginning, recreated through the Spirit into the image of the Creator—that is, clearly, of the Son, through whom all things are from the Father. And thus the most wise Paul says: "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you." And indeed, that the mode of what is called the formation here is signified to our souls through the Holy Spirit, he himself will show, crying out: "But we all with open face..."
beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Now the Lord is that Spirit." B
B. You have spoken most excellently.
A. Therefore, sanctification is adventitious to creatures and things produced, for they do not possess it from themselves, and consequently it can be lost, and those who are endowed with it decline of their own accord into wickedness. For the nature of the angels even fell headlong, and some have not kept their own principality, as it is written. And we ourselves are also guilty of transgression. Is it not therefore the case that, if anyone were to suppose that sanctification is also adventitious to the Son himself, he must necessarily say that he too could be susceptible to transgression? For that which is capable of suffering will suffer, even if it is not yet said to suffer.
B. It is true.
A. But what, O my friend? Does not the reason compel us to admit that what is said to be sanctified is at some time not holy? For I think that that is called to sanctification which is what it was not before it is sanctified.
B. It is necessary.
A. But that which is not yet sacred and holy is not free from sin, nay rather, it is still subject to the diseases of vices, since sanctification is the cleansing and casting away of sin and depravity.
B. I agree.
A. Therefore, if they choose to think and to say that the Son is sanctified together with the creatures, it will not be difficult to find a time in which he was still weak by nature and not yet free from the capacity to sin. But if he is understood and is of this kind, how would he be the image of God and the Father? How C the brightness and character of his substance? For the character was not made in time, but this was so by nature and in the beginning. And how was that pure and sincere glory of the Father, and the character of his substance itself, not holy? Or will not an inescapable logic force us, even against our will, to say that not even the Father himself is holy?
B. Indeed, entirely so. For it will follow in every way that the things of which they are images must be viewed as identical in kind with the images.
A. But why, O beloved, does not the Son claim to be the truth himself, and is he not called the true light in the divine Scriptures?
B. Certainly.
A. And will they not then be found to be foisting the trifles of their ignorance upon us, if they say that the true light lacks natural sanctification? For if they say that the true light is sanctified, they will be asserting nothing other than this: that it, not being holy in its own nature, has at some time been made holy. D
A
B. Nothing else at all.
A. But He, when He was among sinners, admitting not even the slightest falsehood—"who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," as it is written—was He not afraid to say of Himself that He was sanctified by the Father? And to this He added nothing, but rather He gloried, and felt so magnificently and loftily concerning Himself that He audaciously said: "For their sakes I sanctify Myself."
B. By what means, then, does one recognize the truth?
A. If you would ponder it wisely, [you would know that] when He is holy in nature as God, He was sanctified with us, insofar as He is man, anointing His own temple with His own Spirit. B
B. How, then, is the Father said to have sanctified Him?
A. Because all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. And that the Son, who is holy by nature and in truth, is also being sanctified because He became man, the word of Paul has introduced to us: "For both He that sanctifieth," he says, "and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare Thy name unto My brethren." For He sanctifies indeed, being holy by nature as God; but He is sanctified with us, according to the humanity, because He underwent the likeness to us, and I say that He was sanctified even on account of this very thing, even though, being Lord of all as God, He is not ashamed to call us brethren.
B. But, they say, He would not lie in saying that He was sanctified by the Father, even setting aside the incarnation. For although He appeared as man in the last times of the age, yet the Only-Begotten was even before this a brother to those who were called into existence, and a brother to the created things, insofar as He Himself is not unbegotten in nature, but was made by the Father. He speaks the truth, therefore, both in calling us brethren and in saying that He is sanctified with us. C
A. But, O you who rush into all things rashly and with reckless reasoning, I cannot fathom where such a headlong and stupid argument will eventually lead. For that the Son is not created is to be believed not by your dreamings, but rather by the holy and divine teachers, whom Christ Himself commanded, saying: "Go, make disciples of all the nations." John, therefore, spoke clearly to us concerning the Son: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God; and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and life eternal." But the true God is not of the same kind as created things. When, therefore, according to what they most absurdly suppose, the Word, being the true God, has become a partaker of sanctification—even though He be understood in Himself and without flesh—let them come forward and demonstrate with whatever words they wish the truth of the statement that, if the Word, being true God, is sanctified [adventitia sanctificatione]. D
Or is it not true to say that, if the capacity to be sanctified is granted within the Son, who is God by nature and true God, then nothing, I suppose, would remain to prevent one from foolishly assuming that the Father, from whom He is, is also sanctified, even if He is believed to be the true God B B. We are in danger.
A. But in order that their impious audacity may be besieged from every side, I shall not be afraid to bring forward also something absurd. For is not the power to sanctify something that belongs to and is uniquely attributed to God who is God by nature, just as surely as the power to bring things into existence from nothing?
B B. It is attributed to Him.
A. Therefore, if the Son is numbered among creatures, as they absurdly and nefariously teach, and if He performs those things that are proper and peculiar to the divinity by nature and ascribes them to the glory of His own nature (for He says that He sanctified Himself), then those things which far surpass the substance of all are, it seems, brought down to the level of the creature; and it will not be absurd, I think, to say that we ourselves are also able to sanctify, according to the likeness of the Son.
B B. How do you mean this?
A. For if, although He is Himself created, He makes His own the gifts of a substance so exalted, what prevents us from being able to fulfill those things which are His, especially since we are close to Him and in no way separated from affinity with Him, provided there is for every creature a kinship and relation to every other creature, in that they are created?
B B. What you say is plausible.
A. Moreover, it would be both impious and ignorant to believe that He Himself was sanctified.
B B. In what way?
A. Does not that which is sanctified receive sanctification from someone greater and more excellent than its own nature? For they would not say it is from one who is inferior, I suppose, since to be sanctified implies leading to something useful.
B B. You have rightly said.
A. Therefore, if it is true, as they would have it, that the Son was sanctified by the Spirit, He was certainly anointed as by one who is more excellent and who possesses a nature different from His own. For nothing is partaker of itself, but one thing is partaken of in another, in relation to their essence. C
B B. That also follows.
A. Now then, how does the Son dwell in us through the Spirit? And how does that which is by nature more excellent infuse into us, through Himself, the participation of what is inferior? And if we are made partakers of the divine nature [*] by the reception of the Spirit, how will the Son be inferior to the Spirit? Or how is the Spirit more excellent than He, and not rather that He Himself is the one from whom the Spirit is, possessing the Spirit’s entire operation and producing the participation of Him? D
A And indeed the Son said: “I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you.” But since He ascended to the Father after His resurrection from the dead, He is in us through the Spirit. For His Spirit is His own, and not introduced from without, just as, to be sure, a man’s human spirit [is proper to him]. But since He made the flesh, which is separated by an infinite interval from His divine and supreme nature, His own—I mean the flesh—it is then, and only then, said to be sanctified, with the sanctification pertaining rightly and fittingly to that which is human. Indeed, He attributes the perfection or act of sanctifying, as in the person of the Father, to the nature of the Godhead, for to It alone is it proper to sanctify.
B B. I agree. For it is superfluous, and indeed far from wise, to bring forward lengthy arguments against one who speaks rightly. But if they say that the power to sanctify is seen to belong to, and should belong to, only that Being who is God by nature and in truth, and yet the Son appeared as the accomplisher of this, nothing prevents them from openly confessing that He too is God by nature. And if we grant this, yet God by nature is in need of no good thing, what reason is there why that Son of yours, who is also God, should have indicated that His own nature lacked glory, kingdom, and dominion? For He said in one place to the Father who is in heaven: “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You; as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that all that You have given Him, He should give them eternal life. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world; they were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You, because the words which You gave Me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You, and they have believed that You sent Me.” And Luke also said in the book of the Acts, as if in the person of Peter: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ.” Do you understand, therefore, that the Father everywhere gives glory and dominion to the Son, and that the Son accepts them quite gladly? But if they dare to attack us with discourses of this kind, and perhaps add others, in what way, by thinking rightly, shall we avoid and ward off the evil?
D A. “Let the warrior be gentle,” the holy and divine Scripture sings out to us. But I say that we must stand against the opinions of our opponents without being intimidated by anything. For it is God who works in us, and while the word is on our tongues, He directs the mind of those who are pious toward what is sincere. But as for the...
A point of deviating from the divine way and being carried off toward that which is ugly and worn out, that is exactly it. B. What is it that you say? A. I think it is the failure to pay attention to the words, as people regard the knowledge of the times—which are appropriate to each of the things accomplished—as useless and contributing nothing to our benefit. For if the Word did not become flesh, if He did not dwell among us, then let the observation of times be cast aside henceforth as stale, and since there is no precision in these matters, let any word at all be spoken indiscriminately concerning the Only-Begotten. Then let that splendor of the Father, He through whom all things were made, the co-enthroned and co-eternal Word with the Begetter, He who cannot be touched or seen, be said to have suffered in His own nature—the stripes upon His back, the piercing of His hands and feet with nails, the wound in His side, and the culmination of evils, I mean death. B. But they will surely say that all these things happened to His humanity; for He suffered in so far as He was man. A. What then, my dear friend, do we not say that suffering brought shame and disgrace to the Son? B. It is so. Indeed, Paul writes that He endured the cross, despising the shame. B And He Himself says somewhere through the voice of Isaiah: "For this reason I was not disgraced, but I set my face as a hard rock, and I knew that I would not be shamed, because He who justifies me is near." A. But tell me, did He raise His own temple, having conquered death and defeated corruption, after the manner of us men, or as God from God, even though He appeared with flesh? B. As God from God. A. Therefore, the reproach and the disgrace of that confusion have been wiped away by the subsequent events, and the Son has been glorified through the resurrection, even though before it He did not reject the most dishonorable and inglorious death on account of His voluntary emptying. B. But the Son is said to have received this glory from the Father. A. Correct, my friend. For I shall agree. Since He appeared as man—though He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father—having conquered death through Himself, and filling His own body with the life that is from Himself, He referred C what was being done to His own hypostasis as to a fountain. For it would not befit any other of the things that exist and have been brought into being to have the power of life-giving, and of freeing earthly flesh from corruption, even if this is understood of Christ in so far as He is called flesh, but only to the nature of the Deity. That the Son is the active agent in the resurrection of His own temple, and that even if it be said that this was given to Him by the Father, one could see quite easily, with Paul saying that the Father raised Him from the dead and gave glory to Him, while to the Jews the Son Himself says: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." For He died D as man, according to the flesh, though He is Life by nature, as God. Moreover, He came to life by an ineffable power
A and by unspeakable energies, even though He existed according to us—that is to say, according to the human. Therefore, He is glorified by the Father; not as one who is in need of glory, when He is considered apart from the flesh and believed to be God of God, but because He was man, and did not possess, as the fruit of His own nature, the ability to perform divine works, He receives this in a certain manner according to the union and that ineffable concurrence which is conceived to exist between the Word and the human. But He Himself also glorifies the Father. For He is acknowledged to be the Father of the Almighty God, even though He appeared in the flesh and lived among men with an earthly body. For this reason He says: "I have glorified Thee on the earth; I have finished the work which Thou hast given Me to do." B For You willed, O Father, He says, that I should abolish the bold and intractable power of death; but to perform this, and to prevail to fulfill it, was not of blood and flesh, but of Your divine, life-giving, and invincible nature, from which, since I have proceeded, I have accomplished what was pleasing, having become weakened in nothing that pertains to equality of operation; but although I am in flesh and blood, yet by reason of the fact that I have proceeded from Your substance, I am believed to possess an equal power. Glorify Me, therefore, also You, who as man have endured ignominy, by granting Me Your life-giving power and energy, and by showing that the temple ineffably united to Me is superior to death. And that He does not seek to be accounted worthy of an honor and glory that is strange and previously unknown to Him, is clear enough. For He said: "And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." C For the Lord of glory, who always was and is in the beginning, having suffered ignominy in the interval by reason of His descent to human things, returns to the glory that was above and naturally inherent in Him, bestowing upon the incarnation those words that befit the emptying, along with the suffering thereof. It is therefore necessary, above all else, to distinguish the times during which those things that belong to the flesh and to ignominy were still appropriate, and the times that preceded the advent, in which, while He is the Lord of glory, He is found not to have received glory, but to possess His own as God.
B. How, then, does He receive some of those from the world from the Father, concerning whom He also says to Him: "They were Yours, and You have given them to Me; they were Yours, and You have given them to Me D from the world"?
A. I shall then say something again, being compelled by the absurdity of the arguments to return to what I said at the beginning. In vain, as it seems, is He said to have been emptied, and if He has become like us, He who in the form and equality of the Father is the only-begotten Son. For if He possesses an acquired authority, and receives some from the Father, whom He did not have before,
A a new state of things is seen to have come to pass in the Son, and He is adorned with the glories derived thence, and grace, as it were, leads Him to something greater and more excellent than He was before. But whither, then, will that account of His humiliation depart? Or where will you see the very emptying of Himself, if it is clearly found that He possesses something which did not inhere in Him before, and that He obtains, as a kind of reward and remuneration, that authority over some?
B. That is how the matter stands.
A. But wise John himself will also be found to lie, as it seems, if he says of Him: "He came into His own, and His own received Him not." For how is that His own, which has scarcely, and at the last, and from another, been given? And yet, countless and altogether numberless times have passed, during which the Son was coeternal with God and the Father. But if, since He became man, He receives those from the world, and is seen to have assumed this newness of scepter, I would boldly say that the inhumanation into the Word of God is more excellent than that prior state, even if He be understood to be endowed with equality with the Father. For He transfers, as you see, to a more excellent and incomparably more glorious condition. Therefore, the Son perfected the dispensation with flesh for Himself, and attributed the mode of inhumanation to His own glory. How, then, is He said to have assumed the nature of man only for our sake, or how was He the price of redemption for the life of all, if by the death of His own flesh He procured a glory so unaccustomed and previously inaccessible?
B. You have spoken rightly indeed: but the discourse is carried off into temerity and absurdity.
A. Therefore, let them also cast aside that bitter and malignant manner of disputing. Otherwise, does not the matter seem intolerable to you, and one which forces even the unwilling into empty sophistries? For, having no care B to attribute words accommodated to fitting times, they decree to mix and confound all things upside down. But is it not better to consider that all things were indeed the property of the Word, and the nature of all produced things was subject to the glory of the Creator? But because the earthly race had fallen away from right reason, the Word, who appeared in the flesh for us, was not accepted by some; but He subjected those already persuaded by degrees, and believing, to His yoke, and receives those willing to learn better things. "For to Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father." Therefore, all things are indeed the property of the Word, in as much as He proceeded from God, and rules over all things with the Father. But He receives these according to humanity, C when He became like us, over whom the power of reigning and commanding is from God, and given to Himself.
B. Shall we say, then, that He possesses His own glory, having assumed nothing to this end from God and the Father?
A. Yes, in so much as He is understood to be God, and the Lord of glory. For so is He named in the divine Scriptures.
A And thus the disciple of the Savior, James, was of this mind: "My brethren," he says, "do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality."
B. Then what is the glory of the Son, alongside that of the Father?
A. It is not superior, my friend, nor inferior, but the same; nay rather, just as He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, so too would He be the glory, ineffably beaming forth from the substance of Him who begat Him, and signifying by Himself the nature from which He sprang, just as a ray of the sun, and the radiance of light, that bursts forth from the substance of that which emits it, and which, because of the extreme likeness and identical quality, is understood to be in all respects similar to that from which it proceeds.
B. Could you say from the sacred Scriptures what the faith in these things might be?
A. Truly, this will be accomplished with very little labor if you collect the words of the saints. For writing to the Ephesians, Paul says: "For this reason," he says, "I also, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him." You understand, then, that immediately he named God as the Father of Christ and the Father of glory, B showing Christ, I think, to be nothing else than the glory of the Father. He also said elsewhere again: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." And, "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith," who is the natural glory of the true Lord—namely, the Father—we are being reformed toward Him through sanctification in the Spirit. Peter, too, conspicuous among the disciples, cried out to those coming from the circumcision unto justification in Christ through faith, saying: "As all things for us, which belong to life and godliness, have been given by His divine power, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and virtue." If, therefore, the Son is the own glory of the Father, through whom we have also been called to the knowledge of Him, who is he that dares to say that His being what He is is something given and acquired to the glory of the Father? C For who is he that would ennoble the glory of the Father with another glory? Otherwise, is it not the same as if some should say that the Wisdom of the Father is rendered wise by someone, or that His natural virtue—that is to say, the Son—has received from another that He should be His virtue, and that He has glory and wisdom from another? Would not our adversaries, by beguiling us with such discourse, lead us into every kind of perversion? If, therefore, the things already said suffice to demonstrate clearly that the Son is the own glory of the Father, it is well, and we must be silent. But if, as I think, there is need of other testimonies as well, I will bring forward the divine Psalmist to the Father and God of all, as though speaking for those who D
A are justified by faith: "But I, in righteousness, shall appear to your countenance; I shall be satisfied when your glory appears." For who would be the person and image of the Father and the character of his substance, other than the Word who has shone forth from him, through whom he is known even to those on earth, illuminating all things as if with his own glory? Therefore, he once proclaimed to the most wise Moses: "But I live, and Living is my name, and the glory of the Lord shall fill all the earth." For all things have been filled with Christ, and he has appeared to us in him. Knowing this, the divine David said again: "The Lord shall build up Zion, and he shall be seen in his glory." B For he was seen for us in the Son, who clearly says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
B. It follows then, if the Son is truly the proper glory of God and the Father, that he must be by nature the Lord of all; and as king, he is in no other manner than the Father. But why then did he say again through the voice of the Psalmist: "But I was appointed king by him"? The wise disciple has testified to us clearly that he was made Lord and Christ by the Father.
A. Will you then, my friend, tell me without hesitation if I wish to ask you something?
B. Why certainly.
A. Is it not fitting to understand that what is called to lordship, and is brought to this in an unusual way, was not Lord at some time? For nothing that is what it is would drift back C to something else, as if to another thing.
B. Certainly not.
A. When, therefore, they say the Son was brought to lordship—he who, before he came to this, was still destitute of the glory and honor of lordship—is it not necessary, even if they are unwilling, to say this?
B. What if they were to say even before the incarnation?
A. I know well that they will say this, going easily beyond what is appropriate; but the argument of truth will withstand them. For we say that it was when he became flesh and dwelt among us that an adventitious power occurred to him, and he seemed to have received kingdom and lordship. For the divine disciple says that he was made Lord and Christ D by God and the Father—not indistinctly the Word who has shone forth from him, but Jesus who was crucified. But that the Son was Lord before the incarnation and the conjunction through union, we shall see without difficulty, considering it further in our minds.
B. What is that?
A. Is it not said that when he became man, then he also descended in the form of a servant?
B. So I say.
A. It must be understood, therefore, that before the incarnation the Word who came forth from God was not in the form of a slave, but in natural lordship and proper eminence. Out of love for us, He left these things A behind and was called a slave, so that, just as He of His own will underwent for our sake things that are contrary to His nature, we too might willingly be eager for His sake in things that are above our nature. For He descended to an emptying, not by letting the emptying overwhelm His innate and unchangeable glory, but so that that which is lowly and downcast—namely, we ourselves—might be able to rise upward through Him. For that which is inferior will never put constraint upon that which is superior; rather, that which is incomparably less will yield to the more preeminent and excellent. It is therefore most absurd to think that He was compelled by us to remain down here with us for our sake; but we shall wisely and truly think and say that humility has returned to His divine and ineffable beauty, vanquished by His supreme glory. For just as it happened that He suffered death according to the flesh because of the flesh B which was subject to death, but, being Life by nature, He brought it back to its proper state, suffering nothing in His own nature but rather shattering the power of death; so we say that it came about that He underwent slavery economically. Since He is by nature God and Lord, that which is burdensome recedes, and the ignobility of slavery is obliterated, being conquered by the superabundance of His glory. Therefore, if He remained among the dead—according to the flesh, I say—He also remains among the slaves. But if He has been roused and ascended to His original state, I mean to Life, having economically granted victory over death, then it is obvious that He will also open the way to that other state, that is, to the splendor of natural lordship, the victory having been granted to the incarnation for a brief time in the manner of slavery.
Thus, since He is endowed with equal glory and, as Son, sits upon the same throne with the Father, and as God with God, C yet He seems almost to be recalled to the beginning of such illustrious and supramundane glory, with God and Father saying to Him: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." 1 For whatever the divine and ineffable nature brings under itself and subjects, calming it into obedience, this is surely subjected to the feet of our Savior—not because He acted in a human way, nor because He is able to overcome the unbelieving simply for the reason that He became flesh, but because, raising the lowliness of humanity to the dignity of the supreme and highest nature and installing Himself upon the throne of Godhead, even with the flesh, the only-begotten Word of God will have lordship over all D things, not without the Father. For whatever is done by the Father, this is surely the work of the Son; and whatever is said to be accomplished through the Son, this is clearly the act of the Father. For all things are done equally through both, the Father indeed working, but having through the Son, and with Him in the Spirit, the operation and will in each one of the things that are done.
1 Ps. CX, 1.
A B. You speak very skillfully; for you instruct us to keep to a right and blameless path; but you would benefit us no less than before, if you were to demonstrate more clearly the lordship of the Son.
A. If, then, someone were to inquire, and were to press us thus: "Tell me, I entreat you, what do you say the lordship of the Father is? What would you define it to be?"
B. I would say: to rule over the totality of things, to be glorified by all, that all things are His, both those in heaven and those on earth.
A. And do they not say that the Son is adorned with such august and illustrious titles?
B. They would say, I suppose, that He is; yet only because the Father grants it to Him.
A. But would not that be a lying and empty fiction, when God and Father explicitly cries out: "My glory I will not give to another"? For He has not granted to any others besides Himself—insofar, I say, as concerns the essential difference—to boast with the surpassing titles of true divinity. For B where is its surpassing nature left, if the condition of created nature reaches such a point that it leaves nothing beyond its own nobility? Or is it not necessary to think that things which are made and brought into being are utterly and entirely excluded from those things which are specific and proper to God?
B. It is necessary.
A. How, then, would the Son be resplendent with the glory of the Father, if not in that very way in which He Himself is, and not in another? For blessed Daniel, describing for us divine and prophetic visions, places the Ancient of Days upon a throne, and stations around Him thousands of thousands ministering, and ten thousand times ten thousand standing by. The divine Isaiah, moreover, says that he saw the Son in no C lesser glory: "For I saw," he said, "the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the house was full of His glory. And the Seraphim stood round about Him, and each one had six wings, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew, and one cried to the other,"—a sanctification, manifold at the beginning, but ending in a unity and a single lordship. Does it seem to you that the Son possesses equality of glory? For where there is the supreme throne, and an equal eminence, and the surrounding hosts of heavenly Virtues, manifesting the servile condition of generated things and bearing witness to the glory of lordship for Him who sits upon it, who would doubt that he has reached the very depth of ignorance who thinks that the Son D is not resplendent with the natural lordship of the Father?
B. Yes indeed, this is truly a faithful statement.
A. You would admit, my friend, that neither I, nor you, nor indeed anyone else, would be deceived in saying, if we assert that to the God who is true by nature belongs power and authority over every creature, and that all things are of God, as —
A one might say, the heaven and the earth and everything contained within them.
B. I would grant that, indeed.
A. Thus, in the same way, those who lead the blessed life above in heaven—the angels and archangels, and whatever may be beyond these—would be God's and the Father's. But they would also be the Son's. And you know well that I hold this same view regarding those on earth as well.
B. You have spoken rightly. But if you were to prove individually the things we are saying, you would do a very excellent thing.
A. Therefore, the blessed Psalmist says: "Bless the Lord, all His angels, His ministers, who do His will" (Ps. CIII, 20), attributing that holy multitude of heavenly beings to the power of the Father. Yet, foretelling that He will one day come as judge, the Son Himself says: "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His holy angels" (Matth. XVI, 27). For He will come, He will come at the appointed times, to render to each according to his work. However, we do not say that He will be glorified or boast in foreign ministers, but rather that He is truly attended by the angelic guard as being properly His own.
B. I agree.
A. Again, when the divine David sings and speaks concerning God the Father: "Come, let us worship and bow down before Him, and let us weep before the Lord who made us, because He is our Lord God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand" (Ps. XCIV, 6, 7), the Son says that the rational flocks in this world are His own, at one time saying to the Father, when the Israelites had believed: "My sheep hear My voice" (John X, 27); and at another time, regarding those who had not yet believed: "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold" (ibid. 16). B Therefore, from countless passages it is easy for us to prove that the Son is said by the Father to be glorified on account of His humanity, even though He is Lord of glory and sits forever as a co-enthroned assessor with the Father. Those who attribute to Him a glory acquired from elsewhere, and say that power over all things has been brought in for Him, will not escape the charge, nor will they easily wash away the stain.
B. Therefore, if the power over all things is not from without, C nor brought in for Him, but is essentially inherent, I am unable to say what reason the divine Paul could possibly have had for asserting that His kingdom will one day cease, saying: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at His coming. Then the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He destroys every principality and every power and authority. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. For He has subjected all things under His feet. The last enemy, D death, shall be destroyed" (I Cor. XV, 22-26). For behold, behold, as one might say, the boundary line of the...
ending of His kingdom is the rendering of principalities vain and the destruction of death; for then He shall deliver up the necessity to rule to God and Father alone.
A. Away with such an old-womanish and ridiculous thought! For he who thinks and speaks these things has abandoned the paths of his own vineyard, and has wandered through the tracks of his own field; he walks through a wilderness void of water, and land placed in thirsty places, and gathers with his hands barrenness, as it is written. For the divine teacher did not say to us that the Son would one day lose the titles of kingdom and sovereignty forever. For he knew, I suppose, how to strike the spiritual lyre of the divine David, and sing to the Son in the Spirit: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom" (Ps. XLIV, 7). B What then could they possibly do, they who are carried away to any absurdity with loose reins of speech, and labor with such a rustic mind, when the blessed Gabriel, announcing Christ to the holy Virgin, says: "Fear not, Mary, the incarnation: for you have found favor with God, and behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. For He Himself shall save His people from their sins. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luc. I, 30-33)? Since therefore the holy man has predicted that the kingdom of the Son would extend to infinite ages, and indeed the voice of the angel chimes in with the truth, I believe that he who is upright and prudent will agree, and will condemn these trifles, and will pronounce those insane who wish to hold any other opinion, since the law openly proclaims: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (Deut. XVII, 6). Otherwise, is not the objection riddled with the greatest impiety? C
B. I would grant that, indeed. Nevertheless, know that they are not affected in the same way as we are by the opponents.
A. But it will certainly lie in our own power to think and learn what is best, and we shall not sit idly by, allowing their ignorance to blurt out whatever it desires; but, by repelling from every side the insolent fabrications of their minds as much as we are able, and by generously overcoming the snares of their nefarious falsehood, we shall sing among ourselves: "Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us to be caught in their teeth" (Ps. CXXIII, 6). D Since, however, as it is written in the book of Proverbs, "the impious govern deceits" (Prov. XII, 6), come, let us say something that may benefit the hearers, and by which they may be able to generously repel the onslaught of fraud. Therefore, the divine Paul writes thus to those who have been justified by faith, and who have a glorious hope in this: "Therefore, receiving an unshakable kingdom, we have grace, through which we may serve God with fear and reverence—
A. Whose kingdom, then, shall we say he wishes to be remembered here, I ask you, my friend? Observe how he indicates it is firmly established, for this is what that word "unshakable" signifies, as I believe.
B. I would not be able to explain it clearly, but I want to hear it from you.
A. It must, then, be examined, if it seems good to you, whether he speaks of the kingdom of the Son, or that which is to be given to the saints themselves. If, therefore, they say the kingdom and majesty of the Son is immutable and immovable, I think the adversaries will be covered with shame for their empty triflings. But if, leaving aside and pushing away the Son, they say the kingdom will be immovable for the saints, in the first place they will appear superior even to Christ himself, and having obtained a condition far better than his own—if he indeed possesses a kingdom that can be lost, while they are endowed with infinite and perpetual happiness and B constant glory.
B. You have spoken most excellently.
A. But to offer us such a rustic cavil, is it not completely full of stupidity and foolishness? For to rule and preside over the universe befits no one other than Christ himself, who does not possess this as something adventitious or received from elsewhere, after our fashion, but joined to him by the principles of natural lordship. "But if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him," as it is written. Therefore, He is the master of ruling, whereas we are adoptive, and honoured by a certain participation. For they will reign with the reigning Christ. But how will they have an immovable honor in Him, and be destined to reign perpetually, if the empire of Christ—of which we say they are participants—is eventually to be shaken and brought to an end? And if the bestower and distributor of the kingdom ceases from his rule, upon what, then, will their affairs rest? What foundation will they have? For where will they still be participants, if that which has called them to glory labors under weakness? Or is it not necessary that, together with those things that lift them up, that which is lifted also falls, and that those things which are founded upon them should collapse together to the very lowest foundations? Since, therefore, that basis of glory and foundation of happiness, according to them, is to be shaken, the hope of the saints will also surely collapse together into dishonor. C
B. It will surely collapse. So clear and true are the things you say.
A. But what, then, is the reason why that minister of the divine mysteries to us called the kingdom of Christ the kingdom of God? For he writes thus: "For know this, understanding that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." For I would in no way doubt that to whomever a natural dignity of majesty to rule belongs, there will surely follow for him, in every way, the necessity of being unshakable. D
A Or shall we not understand these things to be so, Hermias?
B. Most certainly. For if he is God at all, he would surely also be King.
A. If it were then to come to pass that the glory of ruling ends, he would also slip away from being God; and life or light would be no more (I pass over the absurdity). What then, pray, could be the nature of the Son, stripped of divinity and kingdom and of being light, and not possessing the power to quicken that which is deprived of life? Could you tell me, my friend?
B. I do not understand.
A. But that which compels us to fear most of all that so shameful and abominable an opinion of the adversaries, is this.
B. What is that?
A. What time is it that they claim will be revealed, at which, as they think, the Son delivers the kingdom to God and the Father?
B. They would say that we, for our part, will by no means appoint a time; but Paul himself defines it, saying: "For Christ is the firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s at His coming; then the end, when He shall deliver the kingdom to God and the Father; when He shall have put an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that is destroyed is death." B
A. Therefore, as this present age is, as it were, growing old, and the time is already tending towards its end, the Son, according to them, delivers the kingdom to God and the Father. Yet now He holds the rule over all things and is endowed with glory befitting God, while God and the Father says to Him: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." C
B. True.
A. He is, therefore, on the same throne and possesses the same glory with the Father, while the rebels have not yet submitted themselves and are casting off the mode of subjection. But He will be cast down from the thrones of divinity when they shall have placed their necks under Him, and shall have softened that mind, once stubborn and hard, and have melted it into a gentle, pliable, and tractable disposition and will? D Then what would that profit the Son? For to whom do we say they are subjected, when they have been led to this only after a long time? For if they are brought in through subjection, while He departs from the throne, what the end of the dispensation will be, I am not able to grasp. But what do you say, my friend?
B. Neither would I be able to discern.
A. But come, let us consider this too.
B. What is that, I pray?
A. Is not that time better for the Only-Begotten, in which some struggle against Him, refusing to obey, than
the time when they have already been brought under Him, the enemies having been placed beneath Him and becoming subject to Him — or according to A what necessity is there for the kingdom to be destroyed, when the enemies have been placed beneath him and those who were once known to behave like enemies have been subjugated? B. It seems so.
A. I shall not hesitate to add this to what we have said before: B the Father, it seems, would be overturning the kingdom of the Son by subjecting the enemies to Him and putting to flight those who hate Him. For thus He said through the voice of David. But the Son Himself might perhaps be convicted of not having known those things by which He could possess a long and unshaken glory. For He would not have thought it necessary to call out kindly to those who were still turning away from the straight path and did not accept the subjection understood in faith because of the stubbornness of their character: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. C Take my yoke upon you." Or would such a statement not mark the final end and limitation of His own kingdom and glory, O good sir, if He were no longer to rule over those who have been made subject?
B. That is how it is.
A. I would say that the Father Himself would also be telling a falsehood when He says to the Son who has become man: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession." For where would the inheritance of the Son be considered to be any longer, if it is being handed over to the Father? And where will the meaning of the "possession" D maintain its own proper notion, if that which was given slips away, and when it ought most of all to be established, it falls into ruin as if by a sudden accident?
B. I think that is enough and more than enough to object to the adversaries. But you would most gladly address yourself to that point which I think is still lacking in what has been said. For I am really unable to grasp what that is, the kingdom being handed over to God and the Father by the Son.
A. Will you not yourself also say, O good sir, that sin, which is difficult to overcome, has reigned, and that corruption and death have tyrannized over us, and that hell has widened its soul and opened its mouth without limit, as it is written?
B. Yes, for it is very clear to one who is in such a C state.
A. What then? Are these worldly spirits of wickedness not also present, and their leader, who has trampled the whole inhabited world under his own feet, as it were, and is himself called the god of this age, while they are called powers, and principalities, and dominions, and furthermore the rulers of the world?
B. That is true.
A. But the Son has come in order to reduce all these to nothing and to abolish them completely, so that the power of God might shine forth clearly [freeing us] from that tyranny of those who had formerly held sway over us, and might go forth over all the earth, with sin being rooted out through faith, and the principalities and powers having been triumphed over, 614
A by means of the precious cross, and death having been shaken off through his resurrection from the dead. By his own power, therefore—that is, by the Son—the Father, having permitted that all these things should be brought to pass, restored the world and brought back the captive man to his former state. Wherefore, the Son also said to him: "I have glorified you on the earth; I have accomplished the work which you gave me to do." B B. You have spoken most correctly. A. Consider, then, that in the present time, while corruption still holds sway, and sin has not yet been entirely rooted out, and the wicked and deceitful dragon still maintains an empire over the unbelieving, the power of God is in a certain way divided, and as it were hanging in the balance, since those who have not yet renounced the deception of the demons and this unholy and earthly life still shake off his yoke. But when the time draws near in which death will grow weak, and the power of sin will fall, and that tyranny of the devil will be completely destroyed, then the Son will render to God and the Father a kingdom that is pure and sincere, and in no way mixed with anything inferior. For he will reign alone through him and with him. The fulfillment, therefore, of the dispensation and the perfection of the whole mystery, that man moved by the Spirit, John, signified by the word "handing over." C For as if the kingdom of God were held by others, and having snatched it from those who had usurped it, the Son approached and handed it over to the Father, though he himself is in no way excluded from reigning; for he will certainly reign together with his own Begetter, of whom he is the living and hypostatically existing power, and he must reasonably be understood to have actively brought all these things about. But that the kingdom of Christ is incomprehensible, even if it is said to have received it according to his humanity, one may know from the things which the divine Daniel has written for us, who already in a certain way beheld the Only-Begotten in human form and appearance. He spoke thus: "And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall not be destroyed for the ages, and his kingdom shall not be left to another people. It will grind into powder and scatter all kingdoms, and it shall rise for the ages." And again: D "I was watching," he says, "in the vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of man was coming, and he reached even to the Ancient of Days, and was brought before him, and to him was given dominion, and honor, and the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve him. His authority is an eternal authority which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed." B. The faith in these things spoken is clear and beyond dispute. A. But, good man, do not weary yourself any longer over this. For it is not obscure that the Only-Begotten will remain in an unshaken state, in so far as it concerns his own kingdom and glory, and in the same way he will always continue to have...
A it without any mutation into something else. For he will suffer no harm at all, having obtained a nature that is sublime and placed beyond every passion. But since some of the perverted ones—senseless, as it seems, yet not lacking in harsh speech—are mocking us with other words, for this reason let him who draws his bow, according to the voice of the Prophet, draw it against them, and let him who is about to be girded with his sword, which are his weapons, be girded.
B. You will certainly free us from sharp anxiety if you pursue this path and apply this examination of reason. They say, therefore: Why do the divinely inspired Scriptures declare that he who, as you wish, sits on the same throne with the Father and holds a scepter befitting God, does not also possess his own power? B For you will see that the power of acting is imparted to him by the Father, and you will learn this from the very words of the Savior. For he said: "Amen, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it: for whatever he does, these things the Son also does in like manner." And again: "I do nothing of myself, but the Father remaining in me, he does the works."
A. Therefore, the bold speech of the adversaries prophecies that the Son who has clearly emerged from God the Father is truly lacking in power and is weak—a speech to which might rightly be said by us and by Christ himself: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." C For just as he is the image of the Father, and wisdom, and glory, and radiance, and character, so also he would be understood as the power through which the creator was, is, and will be of all creatures. "For all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made." For in the same way that certain skilled craftsmen in some trade, say, copper-smiths, or those skilled in stonemasonry, do not perform the works of their own art otherwise than by their own hand, fabrication, and industry: in the same manner, I think, God and Father will perform through the virtue of the Son, as through his own, the creative work that he has proposed to himself to do by his creative power. And so the divine David, knowing the Son to be the living and hypostatic D power and operation of the Father, prayed, saying: "Command, O God, thy power; confirm, O God, that which thou hast wrought in us." And Paul, most wise, clearly proclaimed Christ to be the power of God and the wisdom of God.
B. Not even they would say that the Son is weak, but neither would they say that he received power by grace in time, as the prophets and apostles did, but rather that he possesses the power to accomplish anything, implanted immediately along with his very nature.
A. Our enemies are foolish, as it is written. For they seem to be ignorant of that which is at issue. But now we are inquiring not when and how the Father gave power to the Son, but whether it is
A altogether a given thing, and not rather a property essentially inherent in Him. For it will profit the nature of the Son nothing, as far as it is concerned, for it to be upright and perfect, to say that to it also in the beginning the power was given by the Father, since a dishonourable condition is manifest in this deficiency—not indeed in that it did not receive it at the beginning, but in that it has something adventitious. For one must imagine the nature of the Son as having been formerly destitute of power, before it received it from the Father, and led to this not by its own, but rather by alien strengths. What, moreover, will they say to one asking them about this? B. What is it? A. Would they say that that which is strengthened is the same as that which gives the strength, or something else besides it? B. Something else, I suppose. A. If, therefore, as they desire, God and Father bestowed power upon the Son, He will be caught in the act of confirming His own power. Is not this, therefore, utterly ridiculous, or rather, madness? B. Quite so. A. Following, therefore, the faith of the Sacred Scriptures, and as it were walking the beaten path for the wise, let us say that the Son is the power of God and Father, B both immediately and closely, through Whom and in Whom He has an ineffable power in all things; and He compacted the heavens and what is contained in their circuit, and founded the earth, and produced those things of which He is the vehicle and nourisher, and makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire, as it is written. But when, with the Father’s consent, the Only-Begotten, Who is the strength and power of the Father, was named and became man for the salvation of men, He brought the dead back to life, and raised them from the tombs already corrupted, and drove from men the wicked spirits; and to those deprived of sight, He brought an unusual, yet nevertheless pleasant light, and accomplished other similar prodigies by divine power. B. But, they say, the Father is working in Him. A. And what the mode of the Father's working might be, they would not be able to explain, I suppose, if asked. Is it as through an instrument, and the Son as suggesting a ministerial use for the Father's wills, C or, which is better and more true, as if the Father worked through His own power? But if, having abandoned what is better—which is rightly presumed to be the correct view—these wretched men should pass over it most vainly and attribute to Him a ministerial force and operation, it must be known that His glory and grace will vanish into nothing and be finally disfigured. For it is manifest to us even from the divine Scripture itself that an instrumental ministry is nothing at all, so far as it is concerned, but that the praise for turning the instruments wherever they might wish belongs solely to the movers. For God said somewhere, an instrumental ministry...
A as worthless, mocking: "Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it?" Therefore, so far as his own nature is concerned, he would be understood as nothing, although the Word was God, having no natural operation, but appearing like inanimate instruments, and subject to the will of the mover. But since he is of such a nature (for so the adversaries gratuitously babble), why does he stir us to praise him beyond what is fitting, saying: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"? And further, he clearly and plainly adorned his own nature with the same honors, openly crying out: "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom he will." Yet how is it not easy to understand, and stripped of all deception, that he has no operation at all of his own upon his tongue, but attributes the accomplishment of all things done to God and Father alone, saying: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; by me and in me, furthermore, he quickeneth whom he will"? But he does not say this: rather, by attributing also to his own powers, as if in turn, the acting without hindrance on whatever he might B wish to accomplish, no less than the Father, he clearly demonstrated that, having sprung from the substance of God and the Father and existing in his own hypostasis, there follows naturally an all-around equality of operation in every respect. For, measuring things that are far too exalted and superior with our own condition, we shall not grant, according to his own doctrine, that the power understood in God, that is to say the Son, is non-existent. For he is, he is living and subsistent, proceeding ineffably from his own Father as from a fountain, and distinguished not from elsewhere, but rather substantially by the properties of the Godhead. B. You speak well. A. Therefore the divine Moses also said: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." And the great David, knowing that the power which is from him and in him, that is the Son, is not foreign to God, said: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the power of them by the Spirit of his mouth." Or is not the Word, I ask, who is from him and in him, considered different, I say, according to his own hypostasis, from the Father and God? B. He is certainly different. For he subsists specifically, even if he is consubstantial. A. Since, therefore, the Father produces all things into existence, and establishes the heavens, how is the Word the maker of these? B. Explain it to me, I pray, for I am eager to know. A. I shall do so gladly. But the inquiry is sharp and subtle. The nature of the one Godhead is known in the holy and consubstantial Trinity by us ourselves and by the holy angels. And it is indeed according to his own
A hypostasis that the Father is most perfect; and likewise the Son and the Spirit. But the creative will of one of these, in whatever matter it is said to be engaged, is indeed his own efficacy, yet it passes through the whole Godhead and is the effect of a substance that is above creation; it is common, as it were, yet also specifically appropriate to each person, so that it might befit each through the three hypostases, having its own complete subsistence in itself. Therefore the Father acts, but through the Son in the Spirit; the Son likewise acts, but as the power of the Father, who is understood to exist out of him and in him according to his own peculiar subsistence. The Spirit also acts; for the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, and is the maker of all things. B. Not everyone can follow what you say; nevertheless, they rest upon the foundation of the truth. A. Let us therefore lower our discourse from such subtle concepts and take another path, if you please, by gathering arguments derived from other lines of reasoning to produce faith. B. Let us go; for I shall follow gladly. B A. Well then: if the Son is not the power of the Father, but possesses power as a borrowed thing, just as the creatures do, and worked wonders on earth—tell me, how could you not reproach him, and rightly so? For he did not wish to rebuke the leper when he said: "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean," but in a way he nurtured his ignorance, immediately promising—nay, even commanding—that what he sought should come to pass. "I will," he says, "be made clean." And as for certain blind men who came rushing forward and saying: "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David," he asked: "What do you want me to do for you?" When they asked for the light C they most desired, he immediately gave it back to them. But why was it not more appropriate to say to the leper, "The Father wills it: be made clean," and to the blind men, "What do you want the Father to do for you?" Otherwise, would it not perhaps be better to say that the holy apostles acted deliberately when they removed far from themselves the opinion that they were believed to be working miracles by their own power and virtue? For they said to him who sat at the Beautiful Gate: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk." And to another: "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." And when some did not cease to marvel at what had been done, they said openly: "Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you look at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk?" For they D thought it necessary to attribute the glory to Christ, and not to themselves, since in truth Christ is the supreme fountain and root of the grace and operation with which they were endowed. For when he had preferred them to others and had given them the prerogative of the apostolate, adorning them with divine gifts and granting them the power to work miracles easily, as God, he said: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; freely you received, freely give." And so, when
they had discerned—as best they could and as well as they perceived—who the giver and master of the power within them was, they wove for him the crown of glory, always invoking over the sick: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." To whom our divine A Singer also sings, saying: "You are the glory of their strength, and in your name they shall exult all the day." Or do you not say that it is most praiseworthy of the holy apostles to choose to think great things in Christ and to count it their pride to love Him through the working that is in them?
B. Indeed, most certainly.
A. What then, Hermias, would they say to us in our questioning, if they were to object and say, why does the Son himself, having once set aside the glory of power for his own Person, make mention only of the Father, but attributes the miracles to his own intentions—declaring that he can easily make alive whomsoever he wishes, according to his co-equality with the Father and his co-equal power, and offering his will to the leper for the washing away of the disease, and bestowing light by the touch of his hand upon those whose sight had flowed away? Is it still a matter of doubt, or rather is it not B indisputable, that as he himself is the power of God and Father, he restores creation to its original state—not as something adventitious or extraneous, heaven forbid, but having as the fruit and work of his own nature a creative force, just as the Father does? For it is, I believe, a work and effect of the same power and authority to bring things created out of non-existence into being from the beginning, and to be able to reshape things that have been corrupted by sin and have endured a decline toward worse and baser conditions, back to their original state. C
B. How then did he say, without hesitation: "Amen, amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of his own accord, unless he sees the Father doing it; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise;" and in addition to this: "I do nothing of my own accord, but the Father abiding in me does the works himself?" If I could rightly understand these things, I would be no small measure grateful.
A. Recall then to memory what we said just now about the holy and consubstantial Trinity. For I said that, though there are three hypostases existing specifically yet at once together and joined to one another as in one nature of Deity, the operation of one Person would be called that of the whole substance, and of each D hypostasis specifically; for it is as if the whole is accustomed to be moved totally and specifically through each one.
B. I shall remember; for how could it be otherwise?
A. Therefore, if God and Father wills to work something concerning creation, the Son would not be inactive; nor, if the Son were to work something, would the Father be idle, since there is one God and Creator. For the one is understood in the other, and is truly so, according to the unity of nature and substance, even if they are understood as distinct in their existences and specific Persons.
A B. You have spoken correctly.
A. Since these matters have thus been most excellently contemplated by us, as is reasonable, let us examine the economy in the things set before us, and let us admire the artfulness of the Savior’s words, for He always draws toward faith by means of a miracle. And if miracles were to follow upon discourses, even those who are quite strongly inclined toward apostasy would most easily come to choose to think aright. Knowing this, Christ Himself addressed the centurion, saying: "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe."
B. I have grasped what you say. For you wish, as I suppose, to say that Christ performed miracles, offering to the Jews a certain benefit from this, and artificially contriving as it were a way toward that which is persuasive and docile for those who had impiously recoiled from the doctrine of truth.
A. I say so. For your quickness of mind, my good friend, anticipates me. How I admire having so wise a student, and one who has a ready ear, as I pipe a melody to it as if from a reed. Therefore, since He worked one of those highly marvelous deeds also on the Sabbath, the Jews were barking bitterly and severely; and opening their B pathless and unrestrained mouths against Him, and sharpening their tongue toward the most bitter reproaches, they thought they were speaking correctly, and as they clamored that the law was being broken, they said: "If this man were from God, he would not be breaking the Sabbath." Therefore, Christ was warding off the accusations, and by showing that the Father also is working on the Sabbath, He demonstrated that He did not shrink on account of the law from doing those things which are necessary for the sustaining of the life of mortals. For He said: "My Father is working until now, and I am working." And that there is one will, and one power of all things that are done, both of His own and of the Father’s, He confirmed by adding: "Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything from Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it." And He discourses somewhat more coarsely than is appropriate regarding the divine subtlety and excellence. For it was not possible for things that surpass human reason to be explained otherwise; but we understand these things subtly and sharply, and in a way that is fitting to the divine and incomprehensible nature itself. "For whatever He sees the Father doing," He says, "these things the Son also does likewise." Is it not true to say that, if He had known His own nature to be destitute of strength, He would have said, I suppose, more clearly and more appropriately: "The Son cannot do anything from Himself, unless He receives the *power* from the Father"? But since He knew Himself to be endowed with equal power and strength, He showed that, because He has one and the same essence with Him, He Himself also approaches the things to be done together with Him, moving along with His Begetter toward whatever it may be with one will, and joined together in the sameness of operation and sameness of will in all things, as if by certain common laws of divinity. Surely, therefore, the "cannot" does not signify weakness in every way and in all respects, but rather [the character of] the nature in those things on which it is founded and consists.
A It would reveal an unchangeable perseverance—just as if one were to say, for example, "God cannot sin." And light, too, might say, "I cannot not be light." Fire and water, also, if they had a voice, would cry out, "We cannot not be fire and water." Now, since the most audacious [heretics] were carping at the miracles and signs which surpassed all wonder, and hindering them from insulting Him, He attributed the working of the effects to the Father, saying: "I do nothing of myself; but the Father abiding in me, He does the works." For the Father is active through the Son, and He would never do anything apart from the power that is inherent in Him—that is, the Word who has shone forth from Him and is in Him. Therefore, He also said: "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe my works," establishing here also, I believe, the equality of power in all things for the purpose of demonstrating His consubstantiality with Him. B
B. There is nothing in such correctly stated things that I could argue against; but you will permit me to ask something small besides, or else you will think me unlearned and troublesome, and otherwise importunate.
A. Not at all, my friend. For there is nothing more eager than zeal, and it is glorious to be ready if the glory of the Savior is being maligned by anyone.
B. That One, therefore, they say, whom you believe to be consubstantial and coequal in power with the Father, worships with us. For, speaking to the Samaritan woman, He says: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews." But, O good sirs, they say, if He is numbered among those who worship, how will He still carry the glory of consubstantiality, and how will He contend about equal status with the Father who is worshiped, when one can see in another way C that He concedes a more excellent and sublime nature to the Father by admitting it? For He said: "But concerning that day or hour—it is clear that [He means] the last one—no one knows, neither the angel in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father."
A. And so, as a worshiper instead of God, and as one observing God and Father just like the things which were made through Him, the Son appears as if from a machine, suddenly ignorant. Is it not then ridiculous, and fit to be likened to stage plays? For we should not, if by such buffoonery and human arguments they come to the very goal of ignorance, submerging their mind as if in mud, lose the most fragrant knowledge of the sacred dogmas. They seem indeed to have completely forgotten—although they have often heard from us and from the divinely inspired Scripture—that the Word, being God, and in the form and equality of the Father, appeared as man, D not by the appearance of flesh alone, but also by the properties of humanity, or by whatever other name one ought to use. Now, the property of humanity joined to God, and bound with the yoke of servitude along with obedience, is worship, and
indeed also not knowing what is the will A and counsel in God. "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" And just as, since the Word has appeared among us, they would not, I think, say that he has been shaken from being the Word, having been transformed into earthly flesh; so also, if humanity was assumed, and became his own, nothing hinders us from thinking and saying that, by reason of the incarnation, those things which belong to humanity are his together with it. For the very logic of the emptying B required this. Therefore, either let them openly strip the Word of the flesh and of those things which pertain to it, and do away with the entire economy from the foundation, and they will clearly see the Son as God; or if they shudder at this as impious and repulsive, why finally do they blush at the human condition and propose to attack those things which most especially befit the incarnation? Since at any rate it must be wisely considered that, just as being God by nature, and having appeared from God, he makes human things his own; so also, having been made man, he has as his own the honor and glory fitting for divinity. For he is worshipped not on C earth alone, but also in heaven, since he does not disdain or despise being worshipped as man and as a Jew. "For when," he says, "he brings the First-born into the world, he says: 'And let all the angels of God worship him.'" If, therefore, they say that the Word who shone forth from God was born from the seed of Abraham, we are talking nonsense; let him be called a Jew, and let him be a worshipper. But if that matter is found to drive them to extreme madness, and they assert rather that when he assumed the seed of Abraham, and also according to the flesh came forth from the root of Jesse, he was called a Jew and was a worshipper D as man: why, omitting the mystery of the incarnation as if it were futile, do they return to the nature of the Word itself, and impiously force him who is consubstantial with the Father to be worshipped nakedly and openly, even if he is perhaps not understood as man, or among us, to whom, if it were proposed to worship, no one would take offense, but rather the act would be for praise and the greatest pleasure? For is it not written concerning him that he is inferior, as far as humanity is concerned, and has been made a little lower than the more excellent nature, that is, the angelic, and their glory? B. It is so. For Paul said: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death." A. Then explain, I pray, what might be the cause why, although the inhabitants of the celestial city have obtained a more excellent nature, and are endowed with the most certain and altogether indubitable knowledge of God, they have made him to be worshipped who is inferior by nature and yields to their glory? B. Indeed, this is now your part.
A. Therefore, if he is the same and at once inferior and incomparably excellent, we shall readily assign to the humanity that which is lower, which fittingly belongs to it (for the nature of man differs greatly from the angels); but we shall assign to the deity, which surpasses all things, the state of being supreme and raised above created things, and of substantially transcending every rational substance and every name that is named. But if one should suppose that the Word, even without flesh and not yet, as it were, inserted into humanity, is inferior even to the angels themselves, he will be less than his own creatures, and moreover a worshiper, and our defense will not further assist or plead for him. But if to say and think these things is both impious and most dangerous, and yet he is "less" because he is also man, then it will necessarily follow that one must think he is a worshiper because he is also man, even though he is God by nature and is worshiped equally with the Father by all. For God says somewhere through one of the prophets: "As I live, says the Lord, for to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess." A And the divine Paul, when establishing that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and knowing that what is begotten is in the glory of the Begetter, says: "In the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." B B. But, they say, we shall find the Son worshiped together with the Father, yet also worshiping, as one honored and not ignorant of what he is by nature; for he surpasses the nature of created things, but he is not equal to the Father. C A. So the Son has obtained the glory of deity as a gift and reward of virtue, and that he is to be worshiped is not of the dignity of his own nature, but he has obtained it by the bare and sole will of the Father. B. Thus they think and say. A. Then let them show when and how the Father granted the worship to the Son; for they will not say as though, whatever they might choose to imagine, that this is the decree of God and the Father. B. They say, He commanded the holy angels to worship him. For what else could this signify: "When he introduces the Firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him"? D A. Will they, then, because they deem that the Father commanded the Son to be worshiped, indeed deny that the term "firstborn" applied to the Only-Begotten according to the manner of humanity has necessarily brought with it the appearance that his glory is also acquired? For tell me, when was he the firstborn, if not when he became among many brethren? If, therefore, the Word was of the same kind as us and a brother in nature even before the flesh, why is it said that this did not exist in the beginning, but has come to be in these last times? And how indeed
is the Only-Begotten to be understood, he who is numbered A with the creatures? Since it is not a matter of doubt, but rather a truth that stands firm, that he appeared as man in the last times of the age, and therefore has the title of Firstborn, did he receive this glory as something added, as well as the necessity to be worshipped? If they do not think that matters stand thus according to their own view, their argument will necessarily drive them into a foolish and absurd stupidity of thought. For someone, I imagine, might say: "If, because he became man, he is therefore the Firstborn, and if he is to be worshipped when he is said to be most humbled, then the season of emptying itself will bring him unusual glory." But that baseness and ignobility would be more ancient than the humanity, when, existing—as it is written—in the form and equality of the Father, he humbled himself to a nature so abject, that is, the human. But if he were lowly and B nowhere near worthy of being worshipped, for what reason do the Seraphim, encircling the Son who sits upon the throne of the Godhead, honor him with hymns and doxologies, and call him Lord Sabaoth, and say that heaven and earth are full of his glory? For with what glory would heaven be full if he barely receives the right to be worshipped with the Father only when he has appeared as one of us? Hear, moreover, the wise Ezra writing: "All the earth calls upon the truth, and heaven blesses it, and all works shake and tremble." Although the blessed David cries out clearly concerning the Almighty God: "He who looks upon the earth, and makes it tremble." He, then, who before the incarnation and being called Firstborn was illustrious with the honors of God the Father, how could he be inferior to the Father in even the slightest detail?
B. "Let it be," they say, "according to your own opinion, that when he became Firstborn, then he was also commanded to be worshipped: is this not something given to him by the Father?" C
A. But one must consider not simply whether it is given, but at what time it is given, when, namely, he descended as Firstborn in relation to the brotherhood that is ours. For this, I imagine, is what the term "Firstborn" signifies.
B. I agree.
A. But then, tell me, would it be fitting for the nature of man, considered in itself for what it is, to be worshipped in the order and measure of God?
B. By no means.
A. Very rightly, my friend. For those things that are properly its own belong only to the nature that is queen of the universe. Therefore, when the Son descended from his own eminence, and did not count it robbery to be equal with God, he assumed the mode D of a nature that is servile and upon which the necessity of being worshipped lies, and worshipped with us. Since, however, it was entirely unreachable and beyond the logic of what is fitting that the Son who has shown forth from the Father should not be seen as illustrious in the Father’s glories, even if he has become flesh, through the illumination of the Spirit his heaven is initiated...
A, that is, the multitude of the holy angels, and it was commanded to adore him who was declared to be the Firstborn, and the Only-Begotten among many brethren, and Co-throned with the Father, the Father not leading him back to the first entrances of such glory, nor yet assigning the adoration as if it were something unaccustomed and strange, but declaring as adorable him who is adored by them always and from the beginning of ages, even after he has become flesh. Therefore (for I shall return again to the word concerning the beginning) the Son worshipped, when he also became the Firstborn and appeared in the form of a servant, from which a person might most clearly discern the dignity of the eminence that is in him by nature. For if it is fitting for the form of a servant alone to worship, to whom among existing things is the noble beauty prior to the Incarnation unknown? But that we do not insult the nature of the holy angels when we say that they too stood in need of the instruction of the Spirit, but rather that we are following the divine Scriptures and remain in this reasoned opinion, Paul will confirm by writing: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." And in addition to this, the inspired Psalmist also says: "Lift up your gates, O ye princes; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory." For since Christ, after having despoiled hell and overcome death, came to life again, and, as he was returning at last to the heavenly places and wishing to go back to the Father who is in the heavens, the Spirit commanded to open the gates in the heavens to him with all speed—the Spirit, surely, who resonates within them—and was revealing to the powers above the God who appeared in the flesh B, saying: "The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory."
B. It is established, then, that he worshipped indeed as man, although he was God by nature. You would say, however, I suppose, that we should adapt to the condition of his humanity, with correct understanding, that which he also says, to be ignorant of that day and hour.
A. I would not blush to say so, as you know. A multitude of certain arguments, nodding almost with their very eyebrows, bids us pursue this opinion as one void of all difficulty and as a trodden path, so to speak. For it is not alien, I think, to the condition of the emptying that the meanness of ignorance—not a diminution proper to the nature of the Word, in as much as he is understood as the Word and Wisdom of the Father—should be present. Do I not seem to you to have observed these things correctly?
B. Most certainly.
A. For what line of reasoning, so wicked and maliciously constructed, would drive us to believe and think that the Only-Begotten was ignorant of any of those things which in God [are hidden...
if He is truly, according to the Scriptures, the wisdom and counsel of the Father? B. No one who is truly wise would ever be led to believe that. A. Would not the blessed Paul also have spoken falsely, my friend, writing to us: "For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God"? B. Certainly. A. Does the Spirit of God then not know the things that are in Him, and is nothing hidden or obscure to Him? B. He knows them; for how could He not? A. If then the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit proper to the Son, how shall He be ignorant of anything that is hidden in God, since He Himself possesses the proper Spirit who knows all things that are in the Father? I hear Him clearly saying to His holy apostles: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." Does that oracle which we have produced seem clear to you, and have you further perceived that while He named the Paraclete the Spirit of truth, He nevertheless said that He proceeds from the Father, thereby manifesting that all things which are the Father's are His own? B. You have spoken most excellently. A. Through this, one can also learn of something truly ridiculous—a thing which rightfully exposes the opinion of our opponents as one to be rejected. For to imagine that that which proceeded and shone forth from God the Father—the Word, the splendor, the image, the bright character of His substance, endowed with equal glory and throne, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden, as it is written—could be ignorant of such a small matter, what a great opinion of their utter foolishness would that justly bring upon them? C B. The greatest imaginable. A. But I do not think that the Father and God Himself would have preserved His own glory intact, had He really been ignorant of anything of His counsel and wisdom. B. I agree; for anyone at all who knows this will surely acknowledge that [God] is certainly not without His own counsel and wisdom. A. Well said, my friend; for it is not fitting for defenders of the truth to think otherwise. Having therefore left behind superfluous and long discourses, let us proceed to this point: It was the custom of Christ the Savior to act in such a way, especially towards His holy disciples. If they asked something with a desire to learn, but which required further investigation, He was accustomed to recount and explain it as subtly as possible. But if they wished to curiously inquire into something greater D than their own capacity, He would gradually
restrain them A and very diligently persuade them to seek what is more suitable, and to perform good works through which they might obtain praise and suitable glory before God. Therefore, when they wished, I know not how, to investigate and learn things above their capacity, He persuades them to stop, refuting them with necessary arguments, since the Father did not reveal these things even to the angels, nor did He make them manifest to the Son Himself, if indeed He were a simple man and like unto them, and not God by nature. But because they were insistent and pressing that these things be explained to them, He at length rebukes them after a fashion, saying: B "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even unto the uttermost part of the earth." You see how He commands them not to curiously investigate things that exceed their capacity, but rather, as it were, directs them toward what is at hand and more suitable; for this was His custom. Indeed, the divine disciples once brought to Him a man blind from birth as He was just coming out of the sacred vestibules, and, still following Judaic opinions, they took the sick man as an occasion for learning, and said: "Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" But since they were touching upon divine judgments, and were asking that a matter so inaccessible and impassable to men be explained to them even C more than was fitting, He again transfers them to familiar matters, and wards them off from knowledge that is above man, and exhorts them to apply themselves rather to the care of acting and to good studies, saying: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." You hear how, having swept away these opinions as absurd and more suited to the ignorance of the Jews, He commands them to act rightly rather than to investigate things that are above man, attributing to the divine nature alone and of itself the knowledge of what it wills to accomplish. B. You speak rightly. A. We shall therefore conclude nothing otherwise, if our mind is right, than that, D even if, in accordance with His humanity, He is said to be ignorant of something along with us, nevertheless, since He is God, the Son knows all things that are of the Father, through whom and with whom to God and the Father be glory with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
DIALOGUE VII.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is God and from God by nature.
A A. When some wise man declares in song that the fruit of noble labors is glorious, and almost chants it to those who are accustomed to work most diligently, would you reject the truth of that saying, or would you praise it as rightly and excellently thought out? For to endure labor is indeed becoming to the saints, O Hermias. B. So it is. A. Come then, having advanced to the very goal of our labor, let us gird up our loins with the utmost alacrity, and putting on the breastplate of righteousness; and taking up the most sharp sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and the shield of faith, as it is written, let us manfully withstand the trifles of the heretics, who sharpen their mind and petulant tongue to heap insults upon the divine Spirit Himself, and plunder the minds of the weaker, leading them away from certain and true knowledge, and casting them, as it were, into pits of destruction, and pouring out the poison of their own ignorance. B Although the law through Moses has forbidden it—"Whoever strikes the life of a man, and he dies, let him surely be put to death"—yet Christ has clearly and openly declared: "Whoever shall cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it is better for him that a millstone be hung about his neck, and he be drowned in the depth of the sea." B. The judgment of such men is indeed great and most severe. For when they insult the brethren and strike their weak conscience, they sin against Christ. But by what reasoning, pray, are these men led? A. It is sheer absurdity, even if they cloak their own beliefs under the name of opinion and reason. But this I would very much like to know from you: these men, using a kind of unbridled audacity and an openness now bordering on impudence, say that the Spirit of God is created and made. Others, however, on the contrary, making the coarseness of their blasphemy somewhat more subtle, are rightly ashamed of this opinion, and turning their discourse into a more refined error, they say that He is not God, but stupidly leading Him away from the supreme substance, they believe Him to be uniform, and to have been allotted a certain individual and intermediate nature, which neither reaches the highest C perfection, nor
A creature conditione longe sublimiorem statum obtinet.
B. But what, I pray, is that nature, which is neither God nor creature? For I think there is absolutely nothing intermediate. For there is one, most complete, difference between the two, which separates God and creature in their natures, and there is nothing else among things believed to exist that one can notice besides these. Otherwise, do you think that anything else beyond these must be admitted?
A. Not at all, my friend. For divinely inspired Scripture says that all things were made through the Son; so that, if any thing of all that exist were separated by nature from the universe, it would avoid the insignificance associated with being a creature, and would be recognized as God by the excellence of its own nature. But the converse is not false either: for if anything is not God by nature, it will certainly be in the order of creatures. Therefore, let them either exalt the divine and holy Spirit on high and acknowledge that it is not substantially joined to the creature, or, dragging it down from the supreme and highest thrones, let them count it among the creatures. For no place or reason for another nature has been introduced to us in between, such that it denies kinship with both. And as to saying that the Spirit is "uniform," and thinking that this bestows glory upon Him—is this not utterly hollow? For there are very many things among us which, although they are in the number of creatures, have uniformity in themselves. For there is one sun, and one moon; and there is no other earth than the one that exists; and the nature of all water is likewise one, preserving uniformity, even if it seems to differ in its qualities. It is, therefore, a sign of an ignorant and childish mind that some think they are adorning the Holy Spirit and crowning Him with supreme glory by means of such cold quibbles, while they dare to enclose Him in the measures of a creature—not recognizing that He is separated by incomparable excellence and placed above it, just as, of course, the Father is, and the Son as well; but they impiously force Him into a lower and more humble nature, one which finds no place at all in the scale of things.
B. What, then, if they ask: "Where is the Spirit called God?"
A. B But where, I pray, and by whom was it said that He is of the same kind as created things—He who is coordinated and enumerated with the Father and the Son, and has been admitted into the faith of the one and supreme Divinity? For has not the Savior commanded us to be instructed by the holy apostles in this way? "For going," He says, "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." C Therefore, the blessed Paul also asked some of the believers: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And when they denied this, and openly said: "But we have not even heard if there is a Holy Spirit," he rebuked them, saying: "Into what then were you baptized?" D since he knew that their faith was not correct, nor was their conduct rightly ordered.
it could never be A perfectly achieved unless it were completed in the confession of God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus have those delivered it who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word; thus have the Fathers instructed us, and it is for the wise to know what is written: "Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers have set." "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," according to the Scriptures. For we have been baptized into one divinity and lordship of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not as if into a plurality of gods, nor yet as those serving a creature, lest that proverb fall true upon us: "A dog returning to its own vomit, and a sow that was washed to wallowing in the mire." For we who have been liberated from the worship of the creature, through faith, plainly, in the one true and naturally existing God, and in whom we place the hope and glory of our salvation, because we have cast off the old and profane error—if we do not confess the Spirit as substantially conspicuous in the thrones of the true divinity, B to where, then, and from where have we fallen? I am hesitant even to think of it, nor am I able to explain it; nay, rather it will be clear, and that most easily. For we have fallen, as it were, from the royal road, and wander no less than we did formerly, and we have been mocked, as it seems, by Paul, who says: "But then indeed, not knowing God, you served those who by nature are not gods. But now, having known God, or rather having been known by God, how do you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire to serve again?" For where, I ask, have we known the true and substantial God, unless the Spirit is declared to be God together with God and the Father?
B. Verily, they say, we have known God the Father and the Son, but not also the Spirit.
A. But we will not use those teachers who have corrupted their own mind, nor will we pay heed to spirits of error, according to the Scriptures; C but rather we shall believe that His Spirit inhere and subsists substantially in God, just as the human spirit inheres in a man. And just as if someone were to name for us, for example, Peter or John, he would at the same time and assuredly indicate to me their own spirit that is in them, and makes a declaration of the whole living being, in the same way, I think, it is with the Father and the Son. For the Spirit is indicated together with each, and not as if He were a part of Him, just as we understand it in the case of men. For He exists hypostatically, and the Father indeed pours Him forth from His own nature, and the Son Himself also grants Him to those worthy. But it is impious and altogether senseless to cut [the Godhead] into a duality, and to dare to as it were contract the nature of the divinity, even though the holy and divinely inspired Scripture unfolds it, as it were, in the three hypostases, D and again gathers it together, through an all-encompassing equality and likeness, into a natural unity and into the same thing in substance.
A B. Whence then, they say, or how might the Spirit also be known to be God?
A. From his own nature, my good man, and from that which is according to nature, in so far as it is possible, he is known. For things that exist are truly known from what each one is in reality; but we do not care much about names, provided that those things which are known without error are signified, although a suitable appellation is useful for each existing thing.
B. The discourse is obscure, and I do not grasp it very well.
A. I will explain further. For I will clarify, as far as I am able, what is meant. If someone were to say of something: "a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and knowledge," what would you say he has defined, I pray you?
B. A human being, evidently.
B A. But if he were to say "a whinnying animal," adding that?
B. I would say a horse.
A. Then, since he has kept silent the name of each of the things defined, how would you yourself say that they are a human and a horse?
B. Because, my friend, he defined the nature of a human and of a horse.
A. Now, if someone were to find fault with you for saying these things, and were to say that neither is the rational animal a human, nor is the whinnying animal a horse, because the names were not attached to the definitions, would we not judge that man to be ignorant, and that he ought to be called unpolished, narrow-minded, and stupid, for being so lacking in learning?
B. Certainly.
A. But if you were doing this, and someone were to ask you, and wished to learn further, what would you answer?
B. I would say that it is the mark of a rustic and an ignorant person to find fault with things that have been defined so very correctly and skillfully. For the definition of each of the things that exist is peculiar to it, which shows what it truly is; but names are often employed equivocally.
C A. Therefore, the demonstration of things is truer and free from error if each thing is accurately examined according to what it is by nature, and not altogether from names. For would we not attribute to the nature that is the queen of all things, incorruptibility, immortality, and immutability?
B. Completely so.
A. What then, tell me, is "God"?
B. That is surely the queenly nature itself.
A. But while the incorruptible and the immortal are proper to it, the name "God" is common to the angels and common even to us ourselves, even if it is adoptive and given. Similarly, there is indeed in a human the "rational," but the name "human" is attributed also to images made out of stone, or from some other material, shaped very well into our likeness. Come, therefore, consider whether the Spirit is God, and in God, and from Him naturally, especially since He is also substantially resplendent with the properties of the Godhead; or whether, condemned by D a fault as they wish, He has fallen from consubstantiality with God, since He is not called "God." Yet we shall refute those who babble here, even without labor.
A, using not arguments derived from contention, but taking our stand upon the holy Scriptures, and ridding our mind of the bleariness of their stale and empty clatter.
B. I would grant, indeed, that it is far and incomparably better to examine whether the Holy Spirit is distinguished by the properties of the Godhead, and is in no way less than the Father and the Son, than to argue rashly and to exhaust oneself in vain over a mere inquiry into a name.
A. Most distinctly and very rightly do you speak, Hermias. For I think this is the better and more accurate course B. But yet, for those who desire to busy themselves with unnecessary things against our adversaries, it is possible to see that the Spirit is also called God. For the divine and most sacred Peter, having exposed Ananias as guilty of theft and the interception of holy offerings, rebuked him vehemently, saying: "Anania, why has Satan filled your heart, for you to lie to the Holy Spirit and to defraud from the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain for you, and when sold, was it not in your power? Why have you put this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God."
B. It is so. For he who acts thus toward the Spirit, they say, lies to God.
A. In what way, my friend, unless the Spirit is God?
B. Because if one is pious toward the saints, they say, he is pious toward God. And thus Christ said openly to the holy disciples: "He who receives you, receives me." C Yet we do not say, following sound and true doctrine, that the disciples are gods by nature, even if one receives the Son by receiving the saints. Therefore, by a similar line of reasoning, perhaps he who sins against the Spirit sins against the God who sent Him.
A. But where the subjects are naturally endowed with equal powers and altogether the same properties, and thus have a necessary relation of consubstantiality with one another, there the reasoning that they be referred to something more excellent is D altogether superfluous; rather, they would be according to the identity of substance, both in both, and the one as the other, and the other again as the one. But when a natural inequality makes things diverse and other among themselves, I would not say that the argument by which they are referred to something more excellent is incredible or absurd. If, therefore, the Spirit is not consubstantial with God, he who sins against the Spirit will not have sinned against God. For the matter would be referred to Him who sent Him. But if logic compels them, even against their will, to honor the Spirit with consubstantiality with God, let them be ashamed of their own fables, who place "consubstantial" among those things that are not of the same substance with God. For it will not be the same thing to do something against the saints and against the Holy Spirit; but if they speak of a man, by right...
we shall refer the report to his Author: but when the Holy Spirit is brought into our midst, whatever has been done will be toward that very divine and ineffable nature, not tending through a mediator toward something more sublime, but leaping forward proximately and immediately to that very highest and supermundane beauty. A Therefore, because of the identity of substance, the appellation of Spirit is appropriate to God and Father, even if it is third according to the order of names only; and it is likewise appropriate to the Son. For Christ said, when He was instructing the Samaritan woman: «God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.» Paul also writes: «But we all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord»; B and again: «The Lord is the Spirit.»
B. The Spirit, then, is consubstantial with the Father and the Son?
A. Yes, absolutely, since the saints do not otherwise attain the participation of God than by the reception of the Spirit. For we are made partakers of the divine nature, according to the Scriptures: whether one is subject to Him together with a created and made nature, or whether we are truly, so far as is possible, partakers of the Godhead, and are thus called the genus of God?
B. If one cannot be a partaker of fire without fire, how will one be a partaker of the Godhead, if not through God?
A. That which is in us, then, as God, and which fulfills the place and power of God—can it be that it is not God?
B. In what way?
A. Observe, I pray, C God saying to those ancient men: «Therefore I am with you, says the Lord Almighty, and my Spirit has stood in the midst of you; be of good courage.» And again, to us [He says through] the divine evangelist: «In this we know that He abides in us, from the Spirit which He has given us.» For in what way, tell me, was God in the ancients, while the Spirit was standing by? Or how would He be in us ourselves, who possess the Spirit? For the Spirit would not have produced the natural presence of God in us, if He were of a different nature from God.
B. Certainly not.
A. The Spirit, then, is God, and is from God by nature; or, if they think that it is not so, in their own opinion, then the word of the most wise Paul—who wrote in this way to those who had received the Spirit and were prophesying D through Him—is revealed as a vain lie and a deception: «If, however, all prophesy, and there comes in some unbeliever or unlearned person, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all; the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God, reporting that
A truly God is in you.” Furthermore, to those who love tongues: “Therefore,” he says, “one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one hears, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries.” For where would God be understood as dwelling in those who prophesy through the Spirit, if it were not so? But since “he speaks mysteries by the Spirit,” in what way does he who speaks to God have a Spirit which is foreign to the natural identity of God? B. How rightly and justly you speak! A. And in addition to these things, I would say that a countless multitude of not-unsuitable arguments is at hand, which would lead us far away from blasphemy against the Spirit and establish us on the path of truth. B. What do you mean? A. Do we not say that man was fashioned on earth according to the image of God? B B. Who doubts it? A. And is it not the Spirit who imprints the divine image upon us and, like a seal, implants that supramundane beauty? B. But they say, not as God, but as a minister of divine grace. A. Therefore, it is not He himself who is imprinted upon us, but grace through Him. B. It would seem so. A. Then it would be necessary for man to be called an image of grace, and not an image of God. But consider this further. For what I am about to say is, I think, wise and simple. For the living creature was created in the beginning, with God himself as the craftsman and honoring it as it were by the formation of His own hands, according to the Scriptures. And this, when brought into the light, was formed according to the likeness of God, when the breath of life was breathed into it. But when it had lost sanctification through a turning toward vice, it was again brought back to its pristine and most ancient beauty, with Christ restoring what had grown old into a divine and spiritual form, and in no other way than that pristine one. For He breathed upon the holy apostles, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Is it not the case that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation? B. Indeed. A. Therefore, it is true to say, or rather it is now necessary to conceive, that if the aging and the manner of corruption have brought about the loss of the image endowed with sanctification, we must confess that through the return to the ancient state and the renewal through Christ, the likeness to God is inserted? C D B. Absolutely so. A. But if the grace given through the Spirit were separated from the essence of the Spirit, why did blessed Moses not clearly say that when the living creature was brought into the light, the Creator of all breathed into it grace through the breath of life; and why did Christ not say to us: “Receive grace through the ministry of the Holy Spirit”? And yet, He is indeed designated in that passage as the Spirit of
life; for a true life is the nature of the Deity, if it is true that in Him we live, and move, and have our being. A Through the voice of the Savior—He who truly leads and sends forth the Spirit Himself into the souls of believers—the Holy Spirit is and works, and through Him and in Him transforms them into the form that was in the beginning, that is to say, into Himself, or rather toward His own likeness through sanctification; and thus He leads us back to the archetype of the image, that is, the character of the Father. For the true character, perfectly expressing the likeness, is the Son Himself; but the pure and natural likeness of the Son is the Spirit, to whom we are also configured through sanctification, and are configured to the very form of God. The apostolic word will convince us of this. B “My little children,” he said, “of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you.” He is formed through the Spirit, who reforms us to God through Himself. When, therefore, we are formed toward Christ, and He is marked within us and is rightly formed as through the Spirit, who is naturally similar, the Spirit is therefore God, who forms toward God, not as if through a ministerial grace, but as bestowing Himself upon those who are worthy as a participation in the divine nature. C That the Spirit is the true likeness of the Son, you shall hear the blessed Paul writing: “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” We are reshaped into an icon toward the Holy Spirit, that is, toward God, through faith and sanctification and the relation to Him, it being clear that we are named participants—if indeed we are—of the divine nature in distinction and through participation.
B. I would have nothing to refute in what has been said.
A. But why are we called, and are, temples of God, and indeed even gods? Ask your adversaries if we are in reality participants of a naked and insubstantial grace. D But it is not so: by no means. For we are temples of the existing and subsisting Spirit; and we are called gods because of Him, since, indeed, we are joined to that divine and ineffable nature by our participation with Him. But if the Spirit who deifies us through Himself is truly foreign and substantially distant from the divine nature, then we have failed of our hope, somehow gleaming with an empty glory. For how are we eventually gods and temples of God, as the Scriptures say, on account of the Spirit who is in us? For how could that which is not God bestow Deity upon others? Yet we are temples and gods; and we must not acquiesce to those who wander in error. The Spirit of God is therefore not of a different substance.
B. But if He is not, as you say, of another essence, why, they ask, is He not then the Father Himself, or the Son?
A. What then, my friend? Is it regarding the supreme and eminent...
B. That is how they think.
A. But indeed, most foolishly and impiously have they devised this also, to overturn the simple-minded, if one considers the right doctrine. For God is not Father in that He is Father, nor again is God Son in that He is Son. For tell me, is it not the case in every respect, that if that which begets and that which is begotten is deity by nature—if anything whatsoever has begotten, or has been begotten, it would by all means also be God in truth? But the argument to this effect is admittedly reckless. For God is not the Father because He has begotten, nor again is God the Son because He has been begotten; but being God, He has begotten as Father, and being God, He exists as the Son who has been begotten. Nothing B therefore hinders us from believing that the holy Spirit, who is naturally from Him and in Him, is proper to the divine nature, even if He is neither Father nor Son. But what the nature of the Spirit is, must be diligently investigated, leaving aside for the present the property of the names, which does not indicate the deity, but which signifies the mode of existence of each as understood by us. For that name, Father, signifies the one who begets, and the name Son demonstrates that He is begotten; and the term indeed declares that the Spirit is from God the Father, and is proper to the Son Himself, like our own human spirit, even if He is understood to exist truly and hypostatically.
B. What, then, is the nature of the Spirit?
A. It is that which is deemed to be the same as the Father’s and the Son’s, and is C undoubtedly ineffable. For those things which are perceived concerning the deity exceed the measure of our mind and reason. Thus, for those accustomed to contemplation, even if in a mirror and in a riddle, and knowing in part, the subtle splendors of divine vision arise, which illuminate the ether of the mind and lead them to such knowledge as the soul can grasp. The nature of all things that is supreme is simple and incomposite, diffused indeed by the properties of the hypostases and the differences of persons and names, and extending into the holy Trinity, yet concurring in natural unity and in identity that is in every way undifferentiated, into one thing, namely the name and D reality of God, so that the whole nature is understood in each, together with its property, namely the hypostatic one. For each remains that which it is, possessing that natural union with the others also in its own nature. For the Father is in the Son and in the holy Spirit, and likewise the Son and the Spirit are in the Father and in each other.
B. And what authority do you bring for this?
A. The sacred Letters, that divinely inspired Scripture, which openly and exactly unites His Spirit to God, and teaches clearly that there would be no participation of God in us otherwise than through the holy Spirit.
A And so our Lord Jesus Christ, I think, says to every faithful and good person: “We will come, I and the Father, and we will make our abode with him.” And, “In this we know that He is in us, from the Spirit which He gave us.” For one might say that he who receives not some alien spirit, separated substantially from Him, but rather the Spirit who is from Him and in Him, and is His very own, and who bears an equal lordship with Him—and is thus named and taken in the order of the Son because of natural identity—possesses as an inhabitant and a natural guest the true God. “For there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” But since there is one Lord according to the Scriptures, the Lord is the Spirit. Is what I say not true?
B. Yes. For it is written thus.
B A. It is said that when blessed Samson had not yet had his hair cut, the Spirit was present and fought along with him. But when he gave himself over to the pleasures of a woman and his head was laid bare by the iron, “The Lord,” it says, “departed from him.” But when Christ was about to ascend into the heavens, He announced to those who believe in Him: “I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you.” And furthermore: “Behold, I am with you all the days, even unto the consummation of the age.” He sent to us the Paraclete from heaven, through whom and in whom He is with us and dwells in us, pouring into us not some alien spirit, but the Spirit who is proper to His own substance and that of the Father.
B. I agree. For I myself also remember the holy Scripture speaking in this manner concerning the holy apostles, that: “They tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them.”
C A. What then? Does not Scripture say that the very words of God are the words of the Spirit? For the divine Isaiah, narrating to us that extraordinary and most fearful vision of God, says: “I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up.” And after bringing in the things in between, he says: “I heard the Lord Sabaoth saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said: Behold I am here, send me. And He said: Go, and say to this people: You shall hear with your ears and shall not understand.” But the divine John says concerning the Only-Begotten: “Isaiah said these things when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” Furthermore, the most wise Stephen, addressing the Jews, said: “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” Is it not now evident in some way how, by a distinction according to hypostasis, what the Father is, and what the Son is, and what indeed the Spirit is, is very well discerned by us? Yet, through the bond of natural unity, all things are truly common to all: the coming, the words, and the participation,
energy, and glory, and whatever adorns the divine nature. But one thing very nearly escaped me.
B. What is that?
A. You shall hear, my friend. You hear the holy prophets crying out: "Thus saith the Lord," while our own teachers, who themselves were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, say: "Thus saith the Holy Spirit." It is also written: "As they were fasting and ministering to the Lord, the Holy Spirit said: Separate for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them" (Act. xiii, 2). But if the Spirit is inferior to the Father, and posterior in his essence, different, and endowed with a truly different nature, does not the ministry of the holy men of old surpass the evangelical and apostolic ministry, A seeing that the former announced words delivered by the Lord and God, while the latter [announced those] of the Spirit?
B. Very nearly.
A. But why, then, did Paul in some place designate that former ministry as a ministry of condemnation and death, while this one he called a ministry of life and righteousness, writing: "For if the ministry of condemnation be glory, does not the ministry of righteousness much more abound in glory?" (II Cor. iii, 9) And regarding himself and the other apostles: "Who also has made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (ibid. 6)? Will it not be most easily evident to anyone from this that those ancient words, delivered by God, were for the condemnation and the leading of the ancients to the extreme of evils, while now the words of the Spirit justify and give life? Do you not understand, then, whither our discourse is at last tending?
B. I do. For there is much fear lest we should think something even more excellent about the Spirit than about God the Father and the Son. But if it pleases you, I ask you to let these matters stand as they are and be spoken of rightly. However, since we say that the Spirit is God and from God by nature, let us carefully consider whether his excellence is discerned B by the properties of his deity, not by a relation to God, but as if in his own nature.
A. You will by no means prove it from that, my friend, if you conceive of the Spirit as adorned by a relation to God just as we are, and not enriched with the beauty of true deity in his own nature, just as surely as the Son, who said to the Father: "All mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them" (Joan. xvii, 10). For that which is graced by a habit not natural to it receives, at any rate, an alien glory into itself. But when a thing is partaker of nothing of its own, but becomes this by relation to another, it is absolutely necessary that that which participates be of a different nature from that which is participated.
B. It is necessary.
A. Then who, I pray you, will set forth, tell me, regarding the substance of God and the Father...
and the holy Spirit that is in Him and from Him? Would not this reach the height of all boldness, even if only one were to harbor such things in his mind? For I should think that only those have strayed from sound reason and the most excellent state of mind who imagine that it is necessary to think in this way. But come, let us speak of the things of God and of the Spirit. B. Let us speak.
A. State, then, how God’s glory and the power of His natural operation are to be understood by us.
B. I say that God’s glory is to be elevated above the nature and condition of everything created, and to be uncreated; and that His natural operation is the power to produce things from nothing and to call things that are not as though they were, to sustain well the things that exist in their being, to give life, to sanctify, and to impart wisdom A in a most excellent way to those who are capable of it.
A. We must then examine—if it seems good—the argument concerning the holy Spirit. For those who hold cold and childish views concerning Him would recognize in no other way than this that He is in no sense inferior to the Son, who is in the form and equality of God and the Father; but rather, we shall demonstrate by every method that He is substantially equal to Him and equal in power according to operation.
B. Proceed, therefore, with great courage, trusting in God who says: "Open your mouth, and I will fill it."
A. Then—for I will ask—does the ability to make gods of those who are not gods befit a generated and created nature?
B. I would not say so. For that which is less could by no means raise another to such a height.
A. You said rightly. And furthermore, it is B for your brilliant mind to consider this point as well: If the participation of a creature knows how to make the generated thing divine, how would the inverse not also be true? For it injures rather than truly benefits one to participate in God according to nature. Yet the creature will never be conceived as deifying; rather, this is to be attributed only to God, who implants in the souls of the holy the participation of His own propriety through the Spirit, through whom we also, having been made conformed to the natural Son, have been called gods according to Him, and sons of God. "For because we are sons, as it is written, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba, Father." If, therefore, C it is greater and more excellent than pertains to the nature of a creature to be able to deify by itself, who—if he has a mind not corrupted—will count the holy Spirit among the things that have been made, or how could he be called a creature, he who makes them gods?
B. I do not see how.
A. But the name and reality of servitude, Hermias, would, and quite reasonably so, accompany a created and made nature, but it would be very far removed D from God.
A B. Assuredly so. For it is surely true what is sung to God: *For all things are your servants.* A. Therefore, whatever can strip the slave of servitude and illuminate [him] with the glory of liberty also from his own self, will first leave behind the servile condition itself, and will belong to a supreme and free nature. For thus indeed would it also provide liberty to others, a good that is proper and essentially inherent to itself.
B. Indeed, I willingly agree with you speaking correctly.
A. Let the blessed Paul cry out, therefore: *But we all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.* And again, in another passage: *For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, he says, by whom we cry out, Abba, Father.* And with the glory of sonship, liberty B would certainly always accompany it. And thus our Lord Jesus Christ, since He knew how to honor the holy apostles with gifts beyond nature—inasmuch as, not long after, they were to be partakers of the holy and free Spirit—already called them friends and free men. *For no longer, He said, do I call you servants; you are my friends.* When, therefore, the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there liberty is to be sought, then He must be considered to have proceeded from a free nature, and not to be ranked among the creatures or numbered among created things—He, through whom and in whom the creature attains free glory, having cast off and declined the disgrace of servitude.
B. But, I suppose, they will say that the Spirit, fulfilling ministrative functions, brings to the saints those things which are from God.
A. They will think, of course, as it seems, that liberty is something great among those things administered through Him, and something greater than the creature. For whatever is produced is servile.
B. Perhaps they will think so.
A. Therefore, that which ministers is not by nature free, if indeed it ministers nothing to itself, but rather conveys to others a grace received from another. But as for that which ministers and is the medium, must it not be considered C to be that very thing which is ministered?
B. Necessarily.
A. How then is the Lord the Spirit, if, being bereft of free glory, He does not escape the condition of a servant and of one subject? And if indeed He is endowed with the natural glory of the Godhead, He no longer ministers—far from it—but rather He distributes liberty to us ourselves as an innate good. But if He has truly fallen away from being God by nature, He will indeed be inscribed among the servants and ministers; and He will minister what is alien, and will convey to those worthy [of it] a thing greater than what D He contains within Himself.
A For He will yield, I think, to those who are of God the palm [of victory]. Are we, then, already better by this much than the Holy Spirit, being gilded with a glory higher than His? Or does it not seem to you that I have spoken these things most excellently, even if the words should perhaps suffer from the greatest astonishment? B. Most certainly. A. Let us proceed, however, to track down the truth by means of other considerations. Terrene kings, if they should choose to adorn certain of their intimates, that is, those of blood and kin, with their own honor, and to crown them with royal glory, in what manner, pray, would they do this most excellently and reasonably? B. By raising them, surely, with the highest honors. A. Whether, then, B would you judge the royal honor and glory by which one, being crowned, is raised above himself and others, to be superior and more excellent for the one to whom that honor is deferred, or perhaps equal or inferior? B. Superior, surely, and more excellent. For thus it brightens the thing adorned. For that which is less and inferior to the glory of someone will not render it more brilliant if it should be added to it, but rather will lead it toward the baser. A. You speak well. For the matter is thus, and you think rightly. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is not naturally possessed of glory that is truly free, but rather distributes as a minister a grace received from another, how is Christ anointed into a king, receiving the Spirit as an anointing? For it says, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit." And the wise John himself writes thus to us: "And the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you, but as His anointing teaches you concerning all things." It is possible also to hear Christ Himself through the voice of the Psalmist crying out in this manner, and interpreting the glory received from the anointing: "But I was established king by Him." Tell me, does a servile Spirit make a lord? Does royal dignity have its own nature, if, as they wish, it is not free? Away with such wickedness. For I cannot endure the vomit of my adversaries. For it was necessary, it was necessary, if they were thinking rightly, to perceive from this the free and royal dignity of the Spirit. For concerning those who are justified by faith, the great Paul said to us: "Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?" But having kindled the power to justify some, and to make them the chosen, solely in the divine nature which is above all things, he attributes the same thing also to the nature and glory of the Spirit. For he writes again: "And we were by nature children of wrath, just as the others; but you were washed," he says, "but you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." D
B B. Does the Spirit, then, justify those who have sinned, as God does?
A. Most certainly, my friend. For it is fitting for God alone, and for no other being, to be able to absolve those who are liable to transgression and sin. That the Spirit is God and from God by nature, we have already demonstrated in many words and will demonstrate again, unless I should be wearisome in this matter.
B. Far be it! For what is useful holds no weariness for those who are fair-minded.
A. Therefore, those who are destitute of God and lack the hope of the saints live in the world, according to the Scriptures, as having worshipped the creature before the Creator and Artificer.
B. That is so.
A. But now, having known God and having been known by God, we have known the Father of all and God through the Son in the Spirit. And our Savior himself is witness, saying of himself: "My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life; and I know my own, and my own know me." And concerning the Spirit, to his holy disciples: "When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me." Is it not, then, manifest that he is God, who is known as God and who dwells in us, not as a creature or a work subject to our servitude, but as free by nature and the Spirit of truth itself, or rather, through his unity with the Son, C the truth itself? "For the Spirit is truth," according to the Scriptures; and the Truth is Christ.
B. Is, then, that natural identity with the Son sufficient for us to demonstrate and prove that the Spirit is God?
A. Yes, since if the Son is one Lord, the Father is Lord. For since the Holy Spirit concurs thus and is understood as being in both, the mind of the believers will follow the straight path of truth and will not stray at all from the right understanding. For on account of the identity of substance, the Spirit is Lord and God, and by this name he is designated in the divine Scripture. For the divine Isaiah, concerning the Israelites, says: "The Spirit descended from the Lord, and led them; so you led your people to make for yourself a name of glory." And that great Moses, when he acknowledged the Spirit to be Lord D and God, speaks thus: "The Lord alone led them, and there was no foreign god with them.” And in the song he addressed the Israelites: "Remember, do not forget how much you provoked the Lord your God in the desert." And signifying again the Lord and God who was provoked, the prophet says:
A "Not a messenger, nor an angel, but He Himself, the Lord, saved them, because He loved them, and spared them. He Himself redeemed them, and took them up, and exalted them all the days of eternity; but they were disobedient, and provoked His Holy Spirit, and He turned to be their enemy." Does he not clearly call the Holy Spirit, who deigned to visit and guide the redeemed, both Lord and God, and not an alien? How, then, could He who is neither essentially separate from God nor an alien, but His very own, be of a different nature? And tell me, you who provoke the Spirit, in what manner do you provoke God? Or how could those to whom the Spirit seems to be an adversary have chosen to think thoughts hostile to Him?
B. You tell me; for it is somehow your part to explain this.
A. I would say, then, that by His union with God the Spirit is God. And this will be most manifest immediately, even if one should choose to proceed by other lines of reasoning. For since God is not subject to place and limitations, to quantity and measures (for this is more appropriate to created things; for the divine is without quantity, without limits, and without size, and is not conceived as having a position in space, since it is entirely incorporeal), the Spirit Himself will also appear conspicuous B by the properties of the divine nature, filling all things with the Father and the Son, and believed to be in all things. For He who is God in all things says somewhere through one of the prophets: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord." And attributing the same thing to the Son, Paul wrote to us: "He who descended, He is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things." And the divine David sings to God: "Where shall I go from Your Spirit, and from Your face where shall I flee? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I descend into Hades, You are present." If, therefore, there is no place where the Spirit is not, and since it is the Spirit who fills all things, it is God who fills, according to the well-spoken word, that "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world; and that which contains all things has knowledge of the voice." How, then, could it remain obscure C that the Spirit is God by a natural union with God? But if He contains all things, how could He be created or made, since that word "all things" encompasses every species and genus of substance, and He who contains them clearly signifies that He is something other than all things? But that which is not in all things, but is outside all things, will naturally excel all created things and surpass the nature of those things which are filled and contained by Him. And that which surpasses creation is God. Is what I say not true?
B. I agree; however, know that they will say again that the Spirit is created and made. For God says somewhere, or one of the ancients has proclaimed: "I am the Lord, who establishes the thunder, and creates D the spirit,"
and announcing unto men his Christ, making morning and mist, and mounting upon the high places of the earth.”
A A. And yet, my friend, the majesty of the Holy Spirit will in no way be harmed by what has just been brought forward, unless one be of feeble and corrupted mind. For "spirit," when the term is used simply and indiscriminately, does not necessarily signify that holy and divine [Spirit]—otherwise I would say, not at all absurdly, that they have fallen into that blasphemy—but it is used equivocally, and of very many things that differ from one another by the law of nature. For an angel is a spirit, and so too is the soul of man, and the motion of the air. Why then, neglecting an exact and fitting investigation of the thing signified, do they not fear to afflict with vain mockery Him who excels the creation and is its Creator, in unity with that one only and natural Artificer? For the Prophet, or rather God through him, by no means says that He creates His own Spirit; far from it. We shall not be persuaded that the matter is so; but since some, by a vecordia excessive and great, supposed that they and others could attain happiness even against the will of heaven, and occupy royal thrones, and possess glorious empire and sceptres, that power is undoubtedly claimed by Him who is God over all, showing that the whole creation is governed by His own laws and nods. “I, He says, am the Lord, establishing the thunder,” and sending forth the force of the winds B to created things. For thus I create the spirit, and clearly announce whom I would have to be Christ, that is, who is to be anointed for the kingdom, and is to obtain the empire: and not against my will, but by my command is the dawn and the mist fashioned, that is, night and day, light and darkness. But let them tell me what there is in common between thunder and the Holy Spirit, or what [commonality] dawn and mist have with Him who is of God and in God. Is what I say not manifest?
B. Entirely so. For the incoherent and diverse nature of the things mentioned will argue the absurdity of their opinion.
A. But how else could He be conceived to be a created and generated thing, who creates together with the only Creator, and who possesses in this [act] a power and authority not brought in from without, nor adulterated, nor received from another, but [proceeding] from Himself, and being His own and natural? For "divine Spirit has made me," He says, although the Holy C Scriptures assert that God took dust from the earth, and in a manner adorned man by the work of His own hands, seeing that He who says, “Thy hands have made me, and fashioned me,” is true.
B. This is indeed true.
A. But what, shall we not also believe that the restoration and resurrection of human bodies in the last times of the age will come to pass by the power and operation of the Spirit, and has the divine oracle also preached this to us?
B B. It is so, for I remember the blessed David crying out, and describing our fall from sin into corruption and death, and very well foretelling the renewal from the resurrection. For he spoke thus to God: "When you turn away your face, they shall
be troubled," and then he describes the transition of nature, and one might contemplate the transformation into well-being. But A if anyone wishes to philosophize on this, he would apply it not solely to us humans, but rather to the entire creation.
B. What then follows from this for us?
A. I hear the blessed David singing and, as it were, plucking a spiritual lyre, saying clearly: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their power by the Spirit of his mouth." B Tell me, therefore: would that which establishes the heavens, and is the entire power of existing things, be God or creature?
B. I say God, and with very good reason. For I would not concede that creatures have no need of God, but rather that they can perform and provide for themselves those things by which they are able to be saved and remain in a correct state, even though they naturally fall into corruption.
A. The Spirit, therefore, establishes the heavens, not by imparting to them a participation in a created and made substance, but by bestowing his own power as the power of God. For that which holds things together C and establishes in a state of permanence that which is by nature prone to decay and capable of reverting to non-existence, would demonstrate that it is the very Substance that governs this universe. And indeed, the divine Paul persuades us to contemplate and conceive, as far as possible, what the nature of God is from the things that have been made, saying: "For his invisible attributes, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse; because when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, D but became futile in their imaginations." Therefore, his eternal power will bring the beauty of the divine nature into view as something more manifest. And the Spirit establishes the heavens, not as one of the creatures taken and assumed for assistance (for it is the sign of a foolish mind to think or say this), but as the proper Spirit of God who creates and strengthens all things. Or if they say that it is not even so, let them answer and point out to us the reason why the Maker of all things implants and grants a glorious state and harmonious order to creatures through the participation of the Holy Spirit. For he establishes the heavens, to which, if being created alone had sufficed for them to remain in a firm state, it would not have been necessary for them to be established by the Holy Spirit. But if we wish to examine this a little more accurately, we shall find this not to be true; and thus the contrary will be commended.
B. You have spoken rightly; but why do we say that the nature and origin of man was brought to such a state of perfection, barely suitable to himself, only when he received within himself the divine image through the Spirit?
A. Certainly this is not obscure, if one considers the nature's...
slip and the reformation into well-being. For when the living creature had inclined toward wickedness, and through its total devotion to the flesh had fallen ill with the imported disease of sin, the Spirit—which formed it after the divine image and had been imprinted upon it ineffably like a seal—withdrew, and so it appeared, having caught corruption and vice, and every form of wickedness (for why should I not mention things that are bizarre?). But when the Creator of all things wished to restore to stability and beauty that which had slipped into corruption and had become base and unsightly on account of the imported sin, He introduced again into it the divine and holy Spirit that had once departed, transforming it well toward the transcendent image, having both the nature and the power to reshape us to His own likeness. Shall we then persuade ourselves that the One who sustains the creature in a good state, and preserves it with a mutual relationship to Himself, and transforms the living creature into the likeness of God, is inferior to the Creator, and—by positing Him as different and alien—strip Him of the perfection suitable to each person, which is imparted by Him to the creatures? Or shall we, by saying that He who is from Him and in Him by nature is of equal nature and consubstantial with Him, honor Him with the complete work of creation, and attribute to Him the whole operation upon the things that have been made, just as we do to the Father, brought to perfection through the Son in the Spirit? B B. I would say that these things are most rightly spoken. C A. That all things are through the Son in the Spirit, throughout all things, and in all things the power and efficacy of the Father is made manifest—is it not easy to discern even from this? For it suffices for the demonstration that the heavens were made firm by the Word of the Lord, and that the whole strength of them is in the Spirit, as the Psalmist of old well sang. I will offer, however, Christ performing miracles through the power of the Spirit; for it is written that “Jesus was led in the power of the Spirit into Galilee.” And elsewhere, when the Jews had poured out impious words against Him and were sharpening their churlish tongue against Him, He rightly rebuked them. For they said, “This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” And after other things, He says, “And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” D For one must confess that the generation of the Only-Begotten from God the Father transcends every mind and reason of ours. But since He became flesh and dwelt among us, even while being man, He revealed the operation of divine authority. Therefore, He says, as having entered into the measure of our condition: “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” And this is nothing other than to say that the divine authority and power has descended even into men, since I, having become like you for your sake, perform miracles through the Spirit. For the kingdom of God, I think, is that most divine power and operation in the Holy Spirit...
A or perhaps it is the Spirit Himself, in accordance with that which was said to us: "The kingdom of heaven is within you." Since, therefore, the Son performs mighty works in the Spirit, although He is God, and calls kingdom that most firm and invincible power which is in Him and through Him, then tell me, how could He be called a creature, and not rather a state by far superior to that of the creature, as understood both by us and by the upper spirits? For He has been glorified in the Spirit, and has acquired in Him the glory of omnipotence. Why, then, by the excellence of the works performed, and by those things which He has done for us in the Spirit, did He wish to be believed God, equal in nature and thus consubstantial with the Father, even though the Only-Begotten became man? "For if I do not the works of my Father," He says, "believe me not; but if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works." B Since, therefore, the divine nature is recognized from the supernatural brilliance of the works, and these things were done by the power and operation of the Spirit, how could He then be a creature, He who is equal to God, creates with Him, and simultaneously grants life to things deprived of life? Does not the power of vivifying belong solely to the true and natural Life, that is, to God?
B. I assent. For it is written concerning Him: "Who alone has immortality, and dwells in light inaccessible."
A. Since, then, God alone has immortality of Himself and in His own nature, and is believed to be Life, how could the Spirit be vivifying—while, according to their opinion, He is numbered among those things which are vivified—unless He has cast off the status of a created thing? C Yet the matter is not so. For the Spirit is vivifying, but in no way receiving life from another, nor is He in need of it. Therefore, the fabrications of the heretics against Him are an imposture and a vain lie. But we, not embracing a view that is akin to or in agreement with their foolish talks, hold to the straight path, and having liberated our mind from an inclination toward any vice or corruption, being educated only by the sacred Scriptures, and contemplating from them the pure glory of the Spirit, we believe Him to be God and from God—not adorned with some foreign and external goods, but being by nature whatever God is. And indeed (for the voices of the apostles must everywhere be heeded), "in God we live, and move, and are." And concerning God and the Father, the most wise Paul says to Timothy: "I charge you before God who gives life to all things." D And Christ, instructing the sister of Lazarus, says: "I am the resurrection and the life." And concerning the Holy Spirit: "The flesh does not profit anything: it is the Spirit who gives life." Since, therefore, God and the Father gives life to all things, and the Son is Life, and it is the Spirit who gives life, who will separate and divide His vivifying...
power from life, and declare that the Spirit is something other than life—or rather, not life at all? For if He lacks the power of vivifying by nature, how could He still be conceived of as life? B
B. They say that the Spirit is vivifying in that He administers to creatures the life that is from God, but is not life itself.
A. But we shall by no means admit such self-appointed legislators and judges of things that exceed mind and speech, these men who suffer from such a corrupt contagion of mind, with that "invincible" argument of theirs, as they imagine. Instead, they will yield with us to the holy and divine Scriptures, which clearly proclaim that the vivifying and holy Spirit is not a minister of life handed down from another, but is life itself and the bestower of life by nature. For thus the blessed Paul once said again: C “But if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” The Spirit of life, therefore, would indeed essentially be none other than life itself, according to the opinion that is blameless in the correctness of its reasonings. For how could He not be life, He who has life as His root, and a fountain, as it were, that is incorruptible, and is the nature of God, which is superior to every created thing? For it is not obscure—and it will be easy for those who are truly quick-witted to see—that He proceeds from the very substance of God and the Father, from the fact that it has been clearly said: “He that raised Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” For the Spirit that is indwelling in our hearts is truly the vivifying Spirit of God. D But if we concede that the Spirit—who is proper to God and proceeds from Him by nature—is bereft of life, since He possesses life as an adventitious quality, how would He not be considered dead in power? For whatever might be capable of undergoing such a thing, someone might say—even if the time for undergoing it has not yet arrived—just as everything that is thought to be adventitious, or is truly added from without, is not believed to be exempt from destruction, but is in fear of falling away. For it is not supported by the laws of nature, nor does it have a stable foundation, since it exists by way of an accident, and is like a color once applied to things.
B. It is certain, therefore, that the Spirit is life, naturally of course, and not by participation.
A. It is so entirely, my friend, and you will understand this well also from other considerations. For you will hear God speaking, as it were accusing of desertion those who worshiped the creature: “The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly, says the Lord. For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me the fountain of living water, and they have hewn them out cisterns broken, that can hold no water.” Moreover, we shall find our Lord Jesus Christ addressing the Jews: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as...
the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” A And the divine evangelist John, explaining this and making it plain, refers it to the nature and operation of the Holy Spirit, saying: “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him were to receive.” Behold then again, clearly and perspicuously, the Spirit, like the Father and indeed the Son, is water of life in equal manner and equal power, because, I should think, of the identity of substance that follows from the community of the name. For that it is so by nature, it is possible to demonstrate in another way as well. For seeing that God is holy by nature, the Spirit is holy substantially, and through him and in him any one may partake of the holy God. B
B. Not because it is his own, they say, but because sanctification is adventitious to him, and he conveys it from God to the creature.
A. Therefore, the Spirit is first sanctified and then bestows upon creatures a sanctification that is not his own, if indeed we say what is true, namely, that in everything which is thought to convey that which passes through it to others, that which is conveyed must be something other than the thing itself. For nothing could convey itself to others in the way it conveys something else.
B. It is true.
A. Therefore, if the Spirit who is in us is not holy by nature, let them say what nature he has received. And if they are unwilling to ascribe a holy nature to him, would not their argument fall into unavoidable blasphemy?
B. So indeed. Nevertheless, they say that Christ spoke about him: “He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you.” Therefore, they say, the Spirit is a partaker of the Son.
A. By no means; far from it, I think. For how could he who is from him, and in him, and his own, ever be a partaker of him, or be sanctified by a certain relation, just like those things which receive holiness from elsewhere, and be C futurely alien in nature from him of whom he is even said to be own? But those sharp-witted and most subtle examiners of the divine words, as they persuade themselves, why do they, having rejected the contemplation of the truth, float upon adulterated and spurious reasonings? For the Son did not signify a difference of nature when he said concerning himself and the Spirit, “He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you.” For he would then have said quite clearly: “He shall receive sanctification from me, and in his turn shall sanctify you.” For these words would have indicated a division into inequality of nature, and would have clearly shown that sanctification as one thing in another was in the Spirit. D But he did not say this, but rather that he would use his words because of the identity of substance and the complete equality of nature, speech, and operation, so that, if he should choose to sound something into the holy ones, he is said to be of Christ. For he shall not speak, he says, of himself.
A Just as, therefore, the Son, existing as consubstantial with God and the Father, and being his Word, speaks his things—"For he whom God has sent, speaks the words of God," according to the voice of John—since there is nothing else besides the will of the Son that is in God and the Father; in an equal manner, I suppose, and by the same logic, the Holy Spirit speaks the things of Christ, being his Spirit, and having his glory and his complete identity of speech by way of that natural identity in all things. Therefore, he is holy not by participation nor by any external relation to the Son, but by nature and truth, as his Spirit. And just as it is stupid and insipid for a man to be truly called a man, yet to be understood as something else apart from that, so it is extremely foolish to name the Spirit the Holy Spirit, and yet to restrain him from being holy by nature, and to force him absurdly into another nature. For his name will not signify a certain mode of glory or preeminence, as do, for instance, "Principality," "Throne," and "Dominion," concerning those things that were brought into existence through him; but it will rather be indicative of his substantial quality, just as the name "Father" is to the Father, and "Son" to the Son. And if it is an exact indication of the utmost folly to name God the Father, yet not to understand him to be the Father, or to name the Son, the Son, yet to say he is not this, how shall we exempt from the accusations of ignorance those who dare to strip of natural holiness the Spirit who is by nature and truly holy? If, therefore, God is holy by nature, and the Spirit who is understood as being from him and in him is also holy according to him, what then would be the mode of difference, I mean, the difference of essence? Or how would those who ascribe to a creature that by which and in which the nature of the Godhead is within us not be found to be rotten and narrow-minded? For that which is above creation is not communicable in a creature. Or is not what I say true? B Indeed, it is.
The Spirit is Wisdom itself
C A. What then? Is not God wise, or rather, Wisdom itself? B. To whom is this doubtful? A. And in what are those things that receive wisdom wise? B. In wisdom, clearly. A. If, therefore, the Spirit imparts wisdom to those capable of wisdom, he will surely be, and be understood as, wisdom. And this we said is God. B. What then, they say, if humans and angels are also wise, and are apt for infusing wisdom into others? A. But not, my friend, by infusing wisdom into those who are said to receive wisdom from them, as God does, but by making them partakers of their own instruction. For I would say that that holy utterance applies to the saints: "Freely you have received, freely give." But the Holy Spirit in fact Dto the A God. Thus, if He has granted Himself to anyone to be participated in and to be an indwelling guest, He absolutely makes that person wise through Himself, and in this again He fulfills the operation of the supreme nature. Therefore, to Moses, the interpreter of sacred mysteries, God Almighty said: "Who has given a mouth to man? And who has made the deaf and the hearing, the seeing and the blind? Is it not I, the Lord God?" And again elsewhere, through one of the prophets, regarding the flock of the Jews: "For in other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they believe." And in the Acts B of the holy apostles, the matter is performed by the power of the Spirit: "And they began," it says, "to speak in other tongues, just as the Spirit was giving them the power to utter." And since Christ again tells His own disciples that they would be led before leaders and kings, but that they ought not fear them at all: "For do not be anxious," He says, "what you should say or what you should speak. For I will give you a tongue by the power and nature of the Holy Spirit," the sacred Scriptures say that the promise was fulfilled for the saints. For Christ Himself used to say: "It is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who is speaking within you." How then, finally, is He created and made, and inferior to the supreme nature—He who, being wisdom, pours forth wisdom, when God is Wisdom? And how, when He knows all things and searches the depths of God, shall He be placed among those things that do not know what belongs to God, and receive from us a servile glory, when the Savior clearly says: "A servant does not know what his master is doing"? Since, therefore, the Spirit knows the things C that are in God and in the natural Lord, how is it that He is not free and above creation? And how, indeed, is He who surpasses creation not placed in the same rank and order with God the Father, by identity of substance, and likewise with the Son? Through whom and with whom, to God and the Father, be glory together with the same Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
SUMMARIES OF ARGUMENTS
DSummaries of the Arguments contained in the Dialogue on the Holy Spirit, with the addition of others.
If the ability to deify, and furthermore to bestow upon creatures a dignity greater than a creature can receive, is greater than the nature and glory of a creature, and the Spirit deifies, how shall He be created, and not rather God, inasmuch as He deifies?
If God is believed to be in us, the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, how shall He be created? For it is not possible that God, who is superior to creation, dwell in us through a creature. For just as, when God by nature dwells within us, we are not participants in a creature, but in Deity; so, if a creature dwells within us, we are not participants in Deity, but in a creature. Therefore the Spirit is God, if indeed God, who is God by nature and in truth, is in us through Him.
A If everything that is called from non-existence into being is a slave of the Creator and possesses the measure of a servant, while we who have become participants of the Holy Spirit are free, then the Spirit is certainly free by nature. And if this is the case, He is neither created nor under the yoke, as is the creature, but is rather of a nature beyond the yoke and is instead free.
If the Holy Spirit works the divine gifts in us as He wills (for this is what the blessed Paul said), and it is God who works all things in all, then the Spirit is also God, and is God by nature, derived from God.
The blessed David sings to the Savior and God of all regarding things that lie upon the earth: "You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created; and you will renew the face of the earth." That which is renewed is renewed in such a way that it is as it was in the beginning; and it would be the work of the same power both to bring into existence in the beginning, and to renew again to its original state that which had been corrupted. The Spirit renews the creature, in the same way that He Himself created it in the beginning. How then is He still a creature and made? For the creature is not made or renewed after suffering corruption through a creature, but through the God who is such by nature. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God and is God by nature, derived from God.
B If all the power of created things is in the Spirit of the mouth of God, as David sings, but the Spirit is a creature, let those who think so say by whom He Himself is supported. And if the Spirit, being of created nature, strengthens the creature, then the creature strengthens itself, having no need of God in any way. But it is entirely absurd to think or say this. For we are strengthened by God through the Spirit, and the voice of the Psalmist is true, that "By the Spirit of the mouth of God is all the power of created things." Therefore, the Spirit is God by nature, derived from God, entirely and in every way different in nature from the creature that is supported by Him. And whatever is altogether above the creature and different in nature from created things is certainly God, and nothing else.
C God makes us wise, and indeed also powerful, through the Son in the Holy Spirit; for He is called the Spirit of wisdom and power. How then can the Spirit be a creature? If this were true, nothing, it seems, would prevent us from thinking that God is wise and powerful in a creature, and that He has His own wisdom as a thing made. The creature, therefore, would adorn Him, and not He the creature. But to think or say this is impious. Therefore, the Spirit is God and is God by nature, derived from God, through whom He makes the creature wise and powerful.
The blessed Paul said concerning the Son: "The Lord is the Spirit." And the Son Himself also said: "God is Spirit." Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit sometimes signifies the Father, and sometimes also the Son, how is He not consubstantial with them? For God is not recognized in a creature, just as a creature is not in the nature of Deity.
If we cannot participate in God otherwise than through the Holy Spirit, how will He be considered alien to the Deity, who makes those in whom He dwells participants of God through Himself?
To call the creature, or one of those things that have been made, equal in power and strength to God is to give the highest proof of impiety. Since the Holy Spirit has the same operation as the Father and the Son, it is evident that He is God and is God by nature, derived from God, inasmuch as He is able to work the things of God. Proof of the things said is found in what is clearly stated by the voice of Paul: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who works all things in all." And while the Spirit is life-giving...
A, the Father is likewise, and in like manner the Son; the Holy Spirit is also life-giving. The blessed Paul writes indeed: “I charge thee before God who gives life to all things.” And the Son said: “My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life.” That the Spirit also gives life, the Savior himself teaches in these words: “The flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives life; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Blessed Paul also writes: “He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwells in you.” He, therefore, who is able to work equally with God, is God, and from God by nature.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, rebuking the crowds of the Jews, said: “Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?” Again: “The Father who dwells in me, he does the works.” Moreover, he confessed that he casts out demons by the Spirit of God. Since, therefore, he says the works of the Spirit are the works of the Father, and obviously his own as well, how could the Spirit be created? For if this were true, the Father B is glorified through a creature, and likewise the Son, if he wrought divine signs through the Spirit. But this is absurd; the Spirit, therefore, is God and from God by nature, as fulfilling the works of the Father and the Son.
Blessed Paul, showing that the New Testament in Christ is more excellent than the worship according to the Law, said: “For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, the ministration of righteousness much more exceeds in glory.” The law, indeed, was the ministration of condemnation, but the preaching of the Gospel is the ministration of righteousness. But the ministers of the Old Testament, which condemned, used to say: “Thus says the Lord.” And those of the New, which justifies, used to say: “Thus says the Holy Spirit.” Are, then, the ministers of the condemning Testament better than the second? For those were served by the words of God, but these, if the Holy Spirit is created, by the words of a creature. How then does the ministration of righteousness C excel in glory? For what is more noble or more excellent: to be served by the words of God, or by those of a creature? But the former are neither better nor more noble than the latter. Therefore, when they say, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” they also are served by the words of God, because his Spirit is God and from God by nature. And that the ministration of the second is more glorious than the first, the Savior himself will confirm, saying to the holy apostles: “Amen, amen, I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it; and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. But blessed are your eyes; for you have become the stewards of mysteries, into which angels desire to look.”
Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the holy disciples: “Do not think how or what you shall speak, when some call you before governors or councils; for it shall be given to you in that same hour what you shall speak (namely, the mouth and wisdom); for it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.” Furthermore, blessed Paul says: “Do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?” When, therefore, it is Christ who speaks in the saints D, and the Spirit who is the one speaking, how could he be created, and not rather be God, and from God by nature, as consubstantial with the Son, through whom he is also in us, and speaks?
Blessed Moses said in the book concerning the creation of the world: “And God made man, he made him after the image of God.” And he said somewhere also...
the Creator of all things through the voice of Isaiah: “I made the earth, and man upon it.” And if this be true, the blessed Job is found saying: “The divine Spirit is that which has made me.” But if the Holy Spirit is created, then he was made through a creature. And then how does Sacred Scripture say again: “And God took dust from the earth, and fashioned man”? A If, therefore, it is of the most absurd things to attribute the glory of the Creator to any of the things that have been made, while the Spirit is a Creator, then He is God and from God by nature.
If the lesser is blessed by the greater, according to the word of the blessed Paul, and the intellectual creation is blessed, being sanctified by God through the Spirit, then it is blessed and sanctified as by one who is somehow greater than all things by nature. But if this is the truth, then the Holy Spirit is not created. For that which is greater is no longer blessed by the lesser.
If created things are conceived of in place and circumscription, but the Holy Spirit is not so, it is written, for: “The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world.” And David also sings: “Where shall I go from your Spirit, and from your presence where shall I flee?” How could that which fills all things be created? B And this would only befit the divine and supreme nature. For it is written also concerning the Son: “He who descended is the same as he who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.” And indeed, the Father himself said to the Jews: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What house will you build for me, says the Lord? Or what is the place of my rest?” And again: “Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.” And what did God say to those of Israel redeemed from Babylon? “And I am with you, says the Lord, and my Spirit has stood in your midst,” that is: In you is the God who is God by nature and in truth. How could He be conceived as created, and not rather as God and from God by nature, since He fulfills the presence of God through Himself?
It is written that “by the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their power by the Spirit of his mouth.” C But that the strengthening of the creature should befit God, and not a creature, how is it possible to doubt? But if, being created, the Spirit strengthens the creature, the creature holds itself toward the good, having received nothing for this from God; or rather, if one must say something even jarring, the creature is found to be a boast of the supreme nature, if it operates through itself and is admired for this reason. But this is absurd; rather, the Spirit strengthens the heavens and gives power to the creation; therefore, He is of the nature that is above the creation, that is, God.
If the Spirit gives life, and is life, according to the word of the Savior, how could He be created? For that which does not exist at some time is no longer life. For if He too was created with the others, He was brought from non-being into being. D But this is absurd; but He is life in truth and is life-giving. Therefore, He was not made, but existed eternally, as being from God by nature, and God.
Simple and incomposite is the divine and immortal nature, and it brings all things into being and perfects them through the Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit is created, as those of the opposite opinion say, the works of the Godhead are perfected in a creature. But while God is simple by nature, how could His Spirit be conceived as composite? For nothing among created things is simple by nature.
Yes, say those who disparage the glory of the Spirit, the Spirit receives sanctification from God.
A That which is given and comes from elsewhere and from another is entirely and altogether both separable and possible to be removed; and that which we do not possess by nature, we can also lose. Will the Holy Spirit, then, ever be destitute of the power to sanctify? And yet, the name bears the signification of His substance—the substance in which He is also believed to exist—and not of an office or of a preeminence, as is the case, for example, with "Authority," "Throne," and "Dominion." For such names as these are not indicative of the substance of the things signified, but rather signify the measure of each one's honor. But in the case of the Holy Trinity, the name "Father," and "Son," and furthermore also "Holy Spirit," does not declare a certain preeminence, but rather demonstrates what each of the named things is. If we say that the name of the Spirit—that is, B of that which He is by nature—is indicative of His substance (for He is named "Holy," and God is holy—for so the powers above hymn Him, not as having an adventitious sanctification, but rather as being holy from Himself and essentially), then the Spirit will not be alien to His substance; for He is holy by nature, as being from the Holy and in the Holy by nature, God.
Those who say that the Holy Spirit is created and generated do not understand—for they are blind—that every ministerial service is lesser than the operation that is wrought, so to speak, by the very hands of God. For example, the law was given to those of old, having been spoken through angels and the mediator, the all-wise Moses. But He who of old spoke the law, He Himself wrought for us the grace through faith. Hence the ministry through Christ is also C more glorious than that of Moses. If, therefore, the Spirit performs the sanctification in us in a ministerial way, who has been sanctified more greatly by the Father? For He does not sanctify in any other way than through the Holy Spirit, and the highest peak of divine blessing is the sanctification that is through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit does not provide the sanctification to the creature in a ministerial way, nor as something given by another, but as God Himself working this into us, as through His own Spirit.
Christ said somewhere: "If anyone hears me, I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him, and we will dwell in him." But in what way this very thing that was promised is performed in us, the word of the God-inspired Scriptures will clearly teach. For the blessed John says: "By this we know that He is in us, because D He has given us of His Spirit." But the most wise Paul says: "Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" How then is the Spirit still created, if we become partakers of the Father and of the Son through Him? For we would not become partakers of the divine nature through a creature, one of the number of holy angels; but this is not true. Therefore, God is in us through God the Spirit.
The God-inspired Scripture says that the Holy Spirit was present with Samson while he was unshorn; then it says again, "The Lord departed from him," when he had cut his hair badly. How then is the Spirit created, if He is Lord by nature? For among created things there is not truly any freedom or lordship.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, about to return to the heavens, was consoling the holy apostles, saying: "I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you." And He has fulfilled the promise, sending to us from heaven the Paraclete.
A or rather, having come into us through Him. How, then, is the Spirit created, through whom the uncreated nature of the Word who creates all things is in us?
They act most irreverently who dare either to think or to say that the Holy Spirit is created and generated. For just as a man’s spirit is not something other than the man himself, so His Spirit is not something other than the nature of the true and natural God, even if It is conceived of as existing in Its own subsistence, as, indeed, are the Father Himself and the Son. For that the Son is in us by reason of the identity of essence, seeing that the Spirit is in us, and that the Spirit is by nature His own, the divine Paul will attest, writing: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. viii, 8-10). Understand, therefore, how, while calling It the Spirit of God, he also names It Christ by reason of the identity of essence. When, therefore, Christ is in us, how could His Spirit be created, since the Son is God by nature and consubstantial with the Father? B
The blessed Paul, discoursing on those who prophesy in the Spirit in the churches, says that the observers will then be edified if they prophesy in order and by turns, proclaiming that God is truly in you (1 Cor. xiv, 25-26). But he also said concerning those speaking in a tongue that they do not speak to men, but to God: "For they speak mysteries in the Spirit" (1 Cor. xiv, 2). Behold, he clearly says that those who prophesy in the Spirit have God in themselves, and those who speak in a tongue speak to God: "For they speak mysteries in the Spirit." The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God.
Everything that is created and made is altogether inferior in divine excellence and falls far short of the highest glory. For a slave will never possess the same dignity as his master, nor the work the same as the one who made it. Accordingly, God of all justifies those who sin, inasmuch as He has the power to forgive sins; yet the Holy Spirit also justifies with equal rank. For Paul writes: "And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. vi, 11). If, then, He justifies in equal rank with God who is such by nature, how will He not also be consubstantial with Him? For a creature cannot justify us. C
That which has the same operation with God and the Father is surely also consubstantial with Him. Therefore, since God and the Father is vivifying, the Holy Spirit is vivifying in the same equal way, or rather, the Father is vivifying in the Holy Spirit. And Paul, writing to his genuine disciple Timothy, will testify: "I charge you," he says, "before God who gives life to all things, and before the Lord Jesus Christ, to keep the commandment without spot" (1 Tim. vi, 13). And in another place: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus Christ from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. viii, 11). Therefore, God and the Father does indeed give life to the dead, but, as I have said, He gives life through His own Spirit. How then is He created? For the Father is not vivifying in a creature, but in the consubstantial and uncreated Holy Spirit. D
God said somewhere to the hierophant Moses: "Who has given a mouth to man, and who made the deaf and the mute, the seeing and the blind? Is it not I, the Lord God? And now go, and I will open your mouth" (Exod. iv, 11-12). And further, our Lord Jesus Christ also promised to the holy apostles, if they were to be brought before the princes...
A that He would give them a mouth and a tongue. But it is written in the Acts: "And there appeared to them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they began to speak in various tongues, as the Holy Spirit gave them to speak" (Acts ii, 3-4). Behold, then, as God gives a mouth to man, the Holy Spirit similarly gives it. But since He has the same operation, power, and authority as God by nature, how will He not be His own substantially, and not a creature or a thing made?
If one nature of the Godhead is worshipped in the holy and consubstantial Trinity, how shall the Holy Spirit be a generated thing? For there will no longer be a Trinity, or the fullness of the Godhead will limp in some way, if the Holy Spirit is numbered among the creatures, although the blessed Paul necessarily numbers the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. For he writes to some: "The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Cor. xiii, 13). For he was not praying that the faithful should become partakers of a creature, but rather that they should be sanctified in the participation of the Divine nature. B This is fulfilled through the spiritual communication with the Spirit, through whom we are made partakers of the Divine nature.
The blessed prophet Isaiah says: "I saw," he says, "the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and elevated, with the Seraphim standing around Him, of course, and singing hymns to Him" (Isa. vi, 1). He adds also: "And I heard Him saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said: Behold me, send me. And He said: Go, and say to this people: You shall hear with the hearing, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive" (Isa. vi, 8-9). But the blessed Paul says that this utterance was made by the Holy Spirit. For it is written thus in the Acts, concerning him and the Jews: "And when they did not agree among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking one word: That the Holy Spirit well spoke by Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying: Go to this people, and say to them: You shall hear with the hearing, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive" (Acts xxviii, 25-26). C But how, when the Lord of hosts is speaking, is it the Spirit who is speaking, if He is a creature? But this is not true; rather, as the Spirit of the Lord Sabaoth, and His own by nature, He speaks what is His.
When God says: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord" (Jerem. xxiii, 24), and so the blessed Paul writes concerning the Son: "He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things" (Ephes. iv, 10), it is the Spirit who fills all things. For it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world" (Sap. i, 7). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not alien to God and Father by nature, nor indeed to the Son, but passing through from the Father through the Son into the creature, because He is also above the creature. For the creature is a participant, not of itself, but of Him who is above it by nature, that is, of God, through the Spirit.
The blessed Isaiah said somewhere concerning the Israelites: D "The Spirit descended from the Lord, and led them; you led your people, to make yourself a name of glory" (Isa. lxiii, 14). And the divine Moses in Deuteronomy again says: "The Lord alone led them, and there was no alien god with them" (Deut. xxxii, 12). Behold, then, clearly the Holy Spirit is called both Lord and God not alien. But if He is created, and alien to the divine and supreme nature, and not endowed with the glory of true dominion, then certainly He will also be an alien god. But this is impious to say or think. For He is called Lord and God not alien. Therefore, He is God and from God by nature.
That the Spirit is both Lord and God, we shall no less understand from those things also which are written in the Canticle of Moses.
For he says: A “Memor esto, ne obliviscaris ea quibus exacerbasti Dominum Deum tuum in deserto” (Deut. IX, 7). And the blessed Isaias says: “Not an ambassador, he says, nor an angel, but the Lord himself saved them, and took them up, and lifted them up all the days of the age. But they were disobedient, and provoked the Holy Spirit, and he was turned to them for bitterness” (Isa. LXIII, 9, 10). Behold again, the all-wise Moses says: “You have provoked the Lord your God.” The prophet Isaias says that the Holy Spirit was provoked. For the Spirit of the Lord—that is, the Holy Spirit—is not something foreign to the Lord and to God by nature.
Those who possess the right faith say that the Holy Spirit is divine. For it is written: “Divine is the Spirit that made me.” But those whose minds are perverted, and who say that He is a created being, swimming about in manifold arguments, say: “True, the Spirit is called divine, but not as existing in truth from God and being God, but just as a man might be called divine.” To such things we say this: The blessed Paul called the God of all “divine.” For when speaking to the Athenians, he said: “Being therefore the offspring of God, we ought not to imagine the divine to be like unto gold or silver, or graven by the art and device of man” (Acts XVII, 29). By “the divine,” he meant God. B And furthermore, he writes to the Romans concerning God: “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity” (Rom. I, 20). Empty, therefore, are the things which the adversaries bring forward when they say that the Holy Spirit is called divine, just as if one of us were called a divine man.
Our Lord Jesus Christ says: “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (John VII, 37, 38). Then the blessed evangelist John adds: “And this he said of the Spirit, which they should receive who believed in him” (John VII, 39). Therefore, according to the Savior’s voice, the Spirit is living water. We find, moreover, through the voice of Jeremias, the God of all saying: “The heaven is astonished at this, and is very much afraid, saith the Lord, for my people have done two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have digged to themselves broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. II, 12, 13). C Since, therefore, the God of all names Himself the fountain of living water, and the Holy Spirit is living water, how is He not God by nature, He who possesses the same life-giving power as He?
The blessed Paul writes: “Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaketh in me?” (II Cor. XIII, 3). And to the holy apostles, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says: “For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. X, 20). Since, therefore, the Spirit speaks when Christ speaks, how could the Spirit that is proper to the Word who created all things be a created being? “For all things were made by him: and without him was made nothing” (John I, 3). But He who made all things is surely also other than all things by nature, and is in the preeminence of divinity which is above all creation.
That the Holy Spirit is God and from God by nature, the blessed Peter will teach, saying: D “Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? You have not lied to men, but to God” (Acts V, 3, 4). Therefore, if he who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God, how is the Spirit not God by nature?
The blessed Paul, calling himself a servant of Jesus Christ and a called apostle, says that he was set apart for the Gospel of God (Rom. I, 1). Then again, signifying the same thing in another way, he writes to some as if concerning God:
A “Who also made us sufficient to be ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit.” If, then, he knows the New Testament to be the Gospel of God, for which he says he was also set apart, how is the Holy Spirit not God?
He writes again: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he might instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ,” 672 speaking of the Spirit who dwells in us. Since, therefore, he is called the mind of Christ, how could he be of the things that were created, when it is impossible for the divine and incorruptible nature to have anything from outside substantially in itself?
Writing to the Galatians, Paul says: “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.” And if Christ is formed in us, by the power of the Spirit remaking us through all virtue into his own likeness and rendering us spiritual, God, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, who is formed in us as he himself is.
B Someone approaches in the Gospels and says to our Lord Jesus Christ: “Good Master.” To this Christ answered: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God.” Since Christ therefore asserts that one is truly and substantially good, the Psalmist says somewhere: “Your good Spirit shall lead me in the right way.” If, then, while one is good, the Spirit is good, it is evident that he is of the divine nature, of which “good” is truly predicated.
Paul, defining the laws concerning women, says: “A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives. But if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so remains, according to my judgment. I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” What do we gather from this? If it belongs only to God to establish laws, and Paul establishes laws as one who has the Spirit of God, then the Spirit in him is God, who also moves him to establish laws.
In the Gospels the Savior says somewhere concerning himself: “I am the truth.” But the blessed John, showing that the Spirit is from the substance of the Father and the Son, says in the Gospels: C “The Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father.” And in the Epistle: “The Spirit is truth.” How then could he who proceeds from the Father and is the Spirit of truth, and has such likeness to the Son because of the identity of substance that he himself is also called truth, be created and made? But this is absurd. Therefore the Spirit is God, since he is truly truth and proceeds from the Father.
The Mosaic law brings inevitable punishment upon those who blaspheme the God of all. And indeed, God commands the son of an Egyptian woman to be stoned to death by the whole assembly in the desert 673 because he had named the name, as it is written, and had dared to say something forbidden. D Nevertheless, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, preserving the same honor for the divine nature, affirms that it will be forgiven to one who has spoken against the Son of man, but that it will not be forgiven to him who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, neither in this age nor in the age to come. But if the Holy Spirit were a creature, and not existing of the divine substance, being glorified with the Father and the Son, how does the blasphemy against him have so great a punishment, as much as is decreed against those who blaspheme against God? But it is clear that the Spirit is God, and from God, and in God, who is honored as God in the divine Scriptures, and exists as such by nature.
If, as the Savior says, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” and such a one is not of
blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of a woman, but is born of God, then the Spirit is God by nature, for He regenerates the saints into unity with God by dwelling in them and making them partakers of His own nature. A
That which is holy by participation, existing as it were as a receptacle of a holiness conferred upon it, must consist first of all in its own nature—just as man, for example, or an angel, or any other rational nature. Let those, therefore, who dare to say that the Spirit is holy by participation in the God and Father, and not by nature, tell us what He is in Himself and properly. But we have heard nothing else in the divine Scriptures. He is not, therefore, holy by participation or by composition, but is a sanctifying substance and nature, and, so to speak, a quality of the Godhead of the God and Father, just as the sweetness of honey is, or fragrance from a flower.
Paul, writing to the Romans concerning our Savior Christ, says, “Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” If, then, by being raised from the dead and by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, Christ untied the bonds of death, and is declared and understood to be the true Son of God, the Spirit—through whom the demonstration of divine power occurs—cannot be a creature or a work. Otherwise, Christ would appear, in a certain sense, to be aided by a creature, rather than using a power that is his own, through the consubstantial Spirit. B
“For the creation,” he says, “was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it in hope.” If, therefore, they say that the Holy Spirit is created and made, they must necessarily admit that He Himself is also subject to vanity, and groans and travails with us, and is now in slavery, to be liberated only at the redemption of the glory of the children of God. But where then will Paul stand, who says: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” If the Holy Spirit is a slave, as being made or created, how do we cry in Him, “Abba! Father”? But He delivers those in whom He resides from slavery, and rather reforms them into free sonship, showing them to be partakers of His own nature. He is not, therefore, a slave. If this is so, He is no creature. And to have escaped both the condition of being a creature and of being ranked among slaves, He must surely belong to the divine essence. C
Regarding the accomplishments done through him by our Savior for the benefit of the Gentiles, Paul boasts, saying: “I have reason to be proud in Christ Jesus in my labors for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit.” If, then, Christ performs signs and wonders through Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is, as it were, a natural and living activity, and, if we may say so, a quality of the Godhead of the Son. If this is so, how can He be a work, who is in God and of God by nature? And how, on the other hand, can the active power of the Son be a work? To say this is nothing less than complete impiety.
Teaching that the message of salvation does not need the cleverness of human arguments, Paul writes to the Corinthians: “And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Behold, he shows that the demonstration of the Spirit—that is, the workings performed through the Spirit—is the power of God. For the Spirit is from Him and in Him by nature, working all things. D
A How then is that in which God, who is such by nature, is known, as far as it is accessible to us, as in a mirror and in a riddle, a creature or a work? «Do you not know,» he says, «that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?» Since, therefore, when the Holy Spirit dwells in us, we are called the house and temple of God, how will He not be of the divine nature, but be numbered among created things? For it is also manifest that no created or made thing is said to dwell in a temple as God does, but this, too, is unique to the divine nature alone among all other things.
«I will therefore most gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.» But if it is the Spirit who dwells and resides in us, and through Him Christ, then the Holy Spirit is the power of Christ. If this is so, how will that which is by nature present in the Son be a work? For it is time to say that the Word of God, who possesses no duality, is composite, being composed of a created and of His own nature. But if this is absurd, the Spirit is not created or made, but is from the incomprehensible and divine substance as its power, and as it were, its natural operation.
B Regarding our Savior Christ, Paul says: «In whom you also, having heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation—in whom also having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance.» If, when we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, we are transformed to the likeness of God, how will He be created through whom the image of the divine essence is engraved in us and the seals of the unbegotten nature remain? For the Spirit does not, in the manner of a painter, sketch the divine essence in us, being Himself other than it, nor does He bring us to the likeness of God in this way; but being Himself God, and having proceeded from God, He is impressed upon the hearts of those who receive Him like a seal upon wax, invisibly, by the communion and likeness to Himself, re-forming our nature to that exemplary beauty and showing man again [to be] in the image of God. How then will He be a work, through whom nature is transformed toward God, as having become a partaker of God?
C «Be prudent, therefore, and be watchful in prayers. But above all things have fervent charity among yourselves, for charity covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another, without grumbling, each as he has received a gift, administering it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.» Observe for me, again, that the admirable Peter insists that the variety and gift of such grace [comes] from God, acknowledging the Holy Spirit not to be alien to the divine nature, since He distributes the divine gifts as He wills, and apportions them to each of the saints with authority. Since Peter calls the Spirit God, how will he not be impious and deranged who classes Him among created things and dares to oppose the preaching of the holy apostles with headlong recklessness?
D «Who is it that overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He who came by water and blood, and the Spirit: Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater.» See then, again, that the herald of truth calls the Spirit God and [that He is] from God by nature. For having said that it is the Spirit who testifies, after a little [more] he adds: «testi-
testimony of God is greater.» A How then shall He be a creature, who is spoken of theologically together with the Father of all, and who is the complement of the holy Trinity?
«Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.» B If the power to create resides solely in the divine nature, and this is its preeminent attribute along with other divine honors, yet the divine Spirit creates for Himself a temple in the Virgin according to the Scriptures, will not he who says that He has been made be found both impious and foolish? For he brings an accusation against the most primordial substance of all, dragging it down, as it were, and forcing it into the category of created things, which began to be recently and were not in the beginning. But in us God is not recent, according to what is written in the Psalms; therefore, He did not come into being, nor was He created, but is rather a divine and immortal nature in the beginning. But if this is so, how shall that divine and holy Spirit who is in God and the Father be considered created?
«But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the children of God, who were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.» C If it is the Spirit who through faith in Christ regenerates us unto salvation, so that because of this very thing we are counted as children of God, how shall the Spirit not be God? And that we who have believed are born of the Spirit, the Savior Himself will testify, saying to Nicodemus: «The Spirit blows where He wills, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes and where He goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.»
«But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.» If the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father, and is, as it were, a vapor or quality of His substance, yet the Father is unbegotten and uncreated; how can the Spirit, who flows forth from Him, be begotten? And how are we called temples of God upon receiving the Spirit, if He is not God, according to the thoughtlessness of some?
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE HOLY AND LIFE-GIVING TRINITY. PROEMIUM.
A It would indeed be proper that all who are illumined by the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, and who boast of being sheep of that Shepherd who laid down His soul for us, should hear the voice of the Shepherd, feed upon the pasture indicated by Him, adhere to the boundaries and commandments of the evangelical faith, and love the simple doctrine of the Apostles. But because many, stirred by pride, desirous of vain glory, and ignorant of their own powers, prefer the concepts of their own wandering mind to the inspired doctrine; and, turned aside from the straight path that leads to the heavenly city, tread many various and deadly paths—all indeed wandering alike, though not all pursuing the same path of error, but following the fallacy of their own thoughts in different ways—I believe it befits those who B walk in the royal and well-beaten path of the orthodox to have pity on those who wander, to reveal their fraud to them, to teach them true piety, to provide guidance to their followers, and to take care that they do not deviate to either side, until they finally reach the royal city.
ON THE TRINITY. CHAPTER I.
A That God greatly esteems the salvation of men. For the sake of this, the Savior of all sent the holy choir of Apostles into the whole world, so that they might illuminate with the rays of divine knowledge those who had been nourished in the darkness of ignorance; that they might gather and diligently shepherd the sheep that were scattered and exposed to wolves; that they might change the wild olive into a cultivated one by the art of the Spirit; and that they might fish out with the word of doctrine those who were submerged in the abyss of impiety. Since, therefore, the salvation of men is most pleasing to the Creator of all men, and since it seems to be the law of nature that we should provide care for a neighbor who is in need, let us also deposit the talent of knowledge given to us by the Lord with the B money-changers, lest we be condemned along with that slothful servant. We shall, therefore, set forth the teaching of the divine dogmas, both for the remembrance of those who know and for the instruction of those who are ignorant.
II. What the character of ecclesiastical discourse should be.
Our discourse should preach the evangelical faith simply and didactically, not dialectically or contentiously, but in a manner becoming to the Church of God—to contrition, not to ostentation; to instruction, not to contention. It should be devoid of artifice, abound in theology, not investigate inaccessible things, not search out things beyond understanding, not attempt to encompass with mind and word things that are incomprehensible, not subject the supreme Architect to artificial methods, and not reject faith while demanding proof. Our discourse should follow the fishermen, trace the steps of the tanner, be led by the tax-collector, be illuminated by the prophetic lamp, be enlightened by the evangelical sun, mix in nothing of its own reasoning, and weave together only the teachings of the all-holy Spirit; for this is the definition of divine teaching.
III. That this instruction is to be given to the orthodox.
We have already refuted the heretical blasphemies in other writings, dealing with each one separately, stripping away the veil of deception, and showing the impiety naked. Now, however, C God willing, we shall set forth those things which are divinely granted by the Church to the foster-children of the faith, neither imposing a satiety upon those who encounter them by the length of the discourse, nor corrupting the precision by brevity, but holding to the mean between both extremes; so that we may neither be burdensome to the listeners by excess, nor fail to provide a clear instruction in divine knowledge. I shall begin from above, running toward the very fountain of good things. D
IV. What opinions are to be held concerning God the Father.
We, the lovers, adorers, and proclaimers of the Trinity, with a loud voice and sublime conception of mind, believe in one God the Father, without beginning, unbegotten, who has always existed as Father, and has not attained this quality afterward; for there was no time when He was not, but He was Father from before. Nor was He first Son and then Father, as the sequence of bodies requires; but from the time He exists, He always exists, and is and is called Father. A
V. What is to be thought concerning the Son.
We believe in one Son, coeternal with Him who begat Him, who had no beginning of existence, but always is, and has been with the Father. For from the time the Father is, and He is always Father, from Him is the Son; for these are inseparably related to one another, both the names and the realities. But if the Son did not always exist, but there was a time when He was not, then neither was the Father always, for He has this name from the time He begat. Now if God always existed as Father (for it would be blasphemy indeed to subject the Creator of times to times, and to declare the timeless and super-temporal generation younger by a temporal interval), then the Son always existed, begotten ineffably from the Father, yet always existing with the Father, and known with the Father. B
VI. That the Scriptures teach that the Son is coeternal with the Father.
"In the beginning," he says, "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." What therefore was in the beginning, when was it not? For he did not say that it was made in the beginning, but that it was in the beginning. However much we may try by our thinking to exceed the phrase "was," we shall not be able to cross beyond the beginning. All things are secondary to that which is in the beginning, namely time, and age, and any other temporal interval that can be conceived. If, therefore, the Son had not always existed with God the Father, but had been made afterward, necessarily time and age would be interposed between the Father and the Son. But if anyone concedes this, the thing made will be found to be anterior to the maker. "For all things," says the evangelist, "were made through the Son, and without him was nothing made." Now, one thing out of this totality is the age also or time, which is to be accounted for. But the blessed Paul says: "In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages." C But if the ages are the works of the Son, they do not precede Him who made them; and the ages not existing, it is investigated that not even time existed, which days and nights create and measure. D
the Word, by the good pleasure of the Father, created by His word. And they are measured: for day and night are made by the rising and setting of light—a light which was indeed made after heaven and earth and air. All these things, furthermore, and whatever is in them, God the Word, by the good pleasure of the Father, created by a word.
Since, therefore, times and ages, with all other things, were created by the Word, there is nothing between the Father and the Son, but the Father was always God, and the Son was always with the Father. Wherefore the evangelist also cries out, A “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). And the apostle Paul says, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3). And elsewhere, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6). And neither that one (John) by the word “was,” nor this one (Paul) by the words “being” and “existing,” implies this; since they proclaim the One who always is. For which reason, a little later, the evangelist says, “The life was, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). And again, “There was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). And again, “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). B And in the Epistle, “That which was, he says, from the beginning” (1 John 1:1). In this way, those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word were taught by the divine Spirit to speak about the only begotten Word of God. For this reason, they did not count the Creator with the creation; they did not place the Maker in the order of the things made; nowhere did they call the venerable offspring of God a creature; nowhere did they join the phrase “it was made” to the Divinity. But the one said, “In the beginning was the Word;” but not, “In the beginning the Word was made.” And the other: “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” He did not say, “It was made C brightness and image.” And again: “Who, being in the form of God,” not “having become the form of God,” but “Being in the form of God.” And elsewhere, “Who is the image of the invisible God,” he did not say, “who became the image of the invisible God,” but, “who is.”
VII. Proof from the Old Testament that the Son is eternal.
Thus, in theological discourse, “was,” and “being,” and “existing,” and “is” are everywhere conjoined. Thus, God, speaking with the great Moses, named Himself, “I am who am” (Exod. 3:14). And again, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: He who is hath sent me unto you.” Now, that these are the words D of the Son, the standard-bearers of blasphemy themselves witness, who, while saying the Father is incomprehensible, call the Son a medium between the Father and the creation, and say that He appeared to and conversed with the patriarchs and prophets. But God the Word Himself clearly teaches us through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “In those days, and at that time, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the days when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (Jer. 31:31). Let us ask, therefore, who it is that delivered the new covenant. Is it not manifest to all that the...
[Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum ejus esse datorem?] A Let us inquire, therefore, who gave the new testament. And is it not clear to all that the Lord Christ is the provider of this? For He Himself cries out in the holy Gospels: "It was said to those of old, You shall not kill; but I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment. It was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely; but I say to you, do not swear at all." And He sets forth other things similarly, that it was said thus, but I legislate in this way, not indeed subverting the existing law, but making the legislation more perfect and teaching the manner of its observance. The Lord Christ, therefore, has given the new testament to us. But the One who delivered this is the same who also gave the old [testament] to Israel after their departure from Egypt. And He who had given that one is the same who, in order to deliver them from the Egyptian servitude, had, of course, sent Moses to Pharaoh. He Himself said: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: He Who Is has sent me to you." B And the prophet makes this manifest elsewhere: "For this," he says, "is our God; no other shall be accounted against Him. He has found out every way of knowledge and has given it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. After these things He was seen on earth and conversed with men."
Therefore, beginning from the foundation, let us investigate the prophetic meaning. Who is it that was seen on earth and conversed with men? It is clear, I think, to all who possess a mind, that it is the Word of God, who took on our nature, who did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. C This One, therefore, gave the way of knowledge to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved, proclaiming the old law in the desert through Moses. But the One who brought that law, before He delivered it, speaking with Moses, had said: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: He Who Is has sent me to you." Therefore the prophet cried out: "This is our God, no other shall be accounted against Him," in which words He does not so much deny that He is less, as [He] affirms Him to be incomparable. Observe how the prophetic oracles harmonize with the evangelical sayings. Moses says "I am"; or rather, the Word of God Himself says "I am"; but Paul often says "He who is"; he also says "He exists"; which expressions have the same meaning. Similarly, John the theologian D inserts the word "He who is" many times in the narrative of the Gospels; and he adorns the very prologue with such words, not once or twice or three times, but many times proclaiming the "He was."
VIII. That some things befit the Word of God, and others the assumed nature.
Now truly, since the heralds of the truth have taught such things, who is so bold and reckless as to...
or not [was] to say? And instead of "being" A and "existing," to call a creature him who was begotten of the Father timelessly and impassibly, and who is established in the bosom of the Father? For he who is, is not founded; he who exists, is not created. For the words "it became" and "he took," and whatever similar things [exist], were stated by those who were entrusted with the mysteries of the knowledge of God, not as speaking of the theology of the Godhead, but as proclaiming the dispensation. And first the
A Word is called God, as participating in the Father’s nature, and as existing as the exact image of God who begat Him. He is the Only-Begotten, as the only one from the only one, and begotten in a unique manner; the Radiance of His glory, as showing the Father in Himself, and as always existing with Him who begat Him, just as the radiance is with the light; the Impress of His substance, so that you may not think the Word of God is a mere activity, but a living substance, showing the One who begat Him entirely within Himself. But the term "firstborn" is not a name of the divine nature, but of the dispensation. For how is it possible for the Word of God to be both Only-Begotten and firstborn? For these names are contradictory. For the Only-Begotten signifies the one who alone was begotten, while the firstborn signifies the one who was begotten before others, and who takes precedence over others by birth. Yet the Word of God B has no brother, seeing that He is the Only-Begotten. How, then, is He the firstborn, He who alone was begotten from the Father? It is therefore clear that "firstborn" is a term pertaining to the economy. And if anyone doubts this, let him learn from Paul, who cries out: "Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Whose brothers by nature are the believers? Certainly not the brothers of the Word of God, but of the connatural humanity; for they are indeed conformed to this. And elsewhere he says: "Who will transform the body of our lowliness, that it may be made conformed to the body of His glory." Therefore, He is also the firstborn who has many brothers, concerning whom He says in the Psalms: "I will declare Thy name to My brethren." We do not say that the Only-Begotten is one C person and the firstborn another, but the same person, though not according to the same respect. For He is named Only-Begotten according to His birth from above, but He is called firstborn as having been the first to break the pangs of that birth which leads to life. For this reason He is also named the firstborn from the dead, as having been the first to rise and to have opened the gates of death; and the firstborn of all creation, as having been the first born in the new creation, which He renewed by being born, concerning which the blessed Paul says: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." And if those who prefer D contention to persuasion still dispute about "firstborn of all creation" being said of the Word of God, we shall laugh at their ignorance; but we shall nevertheless indulge them, so that we may thus show that the truth abounds among us more than sufficiently. For He is called "firstborn," but not "first-created" of all creation; so that it is evident that He was begotten before all creation, and that nothing is older than the Son, but that He always existed with the Father, and existed before all creation. But the whole nature of created things is certainly posterior, inasmuch as it was brought into existence by Him. Therefore, nothing will be gained by the blasphemers from this.
XI. That no one knows the Son, except the Father; and no one knows the Father, except the Son.
A And that we may demonstrate the equality of the Father and the Son, let us come to the Lord’s own teaching: "No one," He says, "knows the Son, except the Father; and no one knows the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." What could be clearer than these words? Our knowledge, He says, is equal; for I know the Father, being known by Him, and the Father knows Me, being known in turn by Me. But the entire body of created things is excluded from our knowledge. For how could that which does not share in our nature participate in our knowledge? Yet some do partake of a small measure of contemplation; for I reveal, as far as is permitted and as I will, the knowledge of the Father, as in a mirror and in a riddle. We have learned these things from the Lord’s teachings. What room is there here for "greater" and "lesser"? What creature knows the Creator as it itself is known by the Creator? What created thing maintains equality with its Maker? Or B are we ignorant of how the Divine Scripture speaks concerning created things? Let us call to mind the words of the Prophet: "In the beginning Thou, O Lord, didst found the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands; they shall perish, but Thou remainest; and all shall grow old like a garment, and as a vesture Thou shalt fold them, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail." And again: "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire." This is the difference between the creature and the Creator. C Where, therefore, there is equality, there is no longer creature and Creator, but Father and Son; and for this reason He set forth these names, that from the names themselves we might learn the identity of substance. "For no one," He says, "knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son." By saying "no one," He indicated the creature; and by casting out the creature, He points to Him who remains, superior to created things, and naturally conjoined to the One who begot Him. "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
Let the enemies of the truth say how one ought to read the Divine Scripture: whether to cling to the letter or to search out the meaning. If they say the latter, let them learn from what they say to apply this principle to their own propositions, and to seek the true interpretation of things. But if they say that the letter suffices for accurate instruction, I shall refute their own sense from the words set before us. For on their view, the Son would be found incomprehensible, while the Father would be comprehensible; the former beyond thought, the latter visible. For since the Lord Christ said of Himself, "No one knows the Son except the Father," He did not add, "and to whom the Father wills to reveal Him." But when He said, "nor does anyone know the Father except the Son," He immediately added, "and to him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." And He has not only made the Father knowable, but by making this depend upon His own power, D
knowledge. Moreover, even if they should wish ten thousand times to act impiously against the Son, as is their habit, we will not endure to accept a blasphemous conception concerning God the Father. For we believe that the God of the universe is A invisible and inconceivable. For how could the Son be incomprehensible if He belongs to One who can be comprehended? Therefore, we declare the Father as well as the Son to be unintelligible, inaccessible, and incomprehensible. We believe, however, that knowledge of the Son is revealed by the Father to the vision of the mind and to the contemplation of faith. "No one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son." And in another place: "As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father." For indeed it is not that the one knows more and the other less, but just as I know, so also am I known.
XII. That the power of the Father and the Son is equal.
Therefore, those whose knowledge is equal, their power is also B equal. And those whose power is equal, their substance is evidently also one. Now that the power of the Father and the Son is equal, the Savior Himself has taught us again by saying: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. My Father, who gave them Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one." Observe how He did not simply put: "I and the Father are one," foreseeing the heretical malice, C lest they should interpret this saying regarding intent and will. But having first established the equality of power, He then added the aforementioned statement. For to the sheep, He says, that follow Me, I give eternal life, so that none of them may perish forever. For who is so great as to be able to snatch from My hand that which is pastored by Me? For just as it is impossible for anyone to get the better of the right hand of the Father, who is greater than all, so it is impossible for anyone to be snatched away who is guarded by Me. "For I and the Father are one." Where, therefore, is the greater and the lesser? For if, likewise, D no one can snatch from the hand of the Son, nor from the hand of the Father, there is no room for "the greater." And since the Father is greater than all, and no one can snatch from His hand, it follows that the Son is also greater than all, since likewise no one can snatch from His hand. Therefore He added: "I and the Father are one." For if we follow the letter again, we shall see the Son placed first: for He said, "I and the Father," not "The Father and I." And having demonstrated the duality of the persons, He proclaimed the unity of the nature. For by saying, "I and the Father," He signified the number of the hypostases; but by adding, "are one," He declared the unchangeable [m] nature of the power. Therefore, of those whose knowledge is equal, their power and will are also
of whom there is knowledge, and power, and volition, of these, it is evident, the nature also is one, even if those who utter blasphemies should act shamelessly.
XIII. That it is possible to learn the equality of the Father and the Son from many sources.
That the Son can do the same things as the Father may be learned from other sources. For at one time He says: "My Father worketh until now, and I work," and at another: "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will." "Whom He will," He said, not "whom He is commanded"; "whom He desires," not "whom He is ordered"—for the former is proper to mastery, the latter to servitude. And again from another place: "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not; but if I do, even if you do not wish to believe Me, believe the works, and know that B the Father is in Me, and I in Him." See again from this the equality of the Father and the Son, for, He says, "The Father is in Me, and I in Him." But for this to be found in the greater and the lesser is absolutely impossible. And I shall now demonstrate this. Universal God encompasses in Himself all creation, both visible and invisible, or rather, He holds it in His hand: "For in His hand," it is said, "are all the ends of the earth." And again: "He who holds the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants as locusts." And elsewhere: "Who has measured the water with His hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth with a fist?" Therefore, as I said, the Creator of all things holds the whole of creation in His hand; but that He Himself should be encompassed by creation is impossible; therefore it is impossible for unequal things to contain one another. But if this is true, as it is indeed true, and the Son contains the Father, just as the Father contains the Son, the argument for inequality is clearly cast out, and equality is recognized in the Father and the Son.
XIV. Demonstration that the Son is of equal honor to the Father.
This again the Lord Christ Himself teaches us elsewhere, saying: "I am the door. No one comes to the Father except through Me." And from another place: "No one comes to Me, the Son, unless My heavenly Father draws him." And we are taught from this that the Son in like manner leads those who are being saved to the Father, and the Father to the Son. Where, then, is the servile liturgy of the heretics? Where is the worship befitting a creature? Where do they show the inequality of the Father's mastership and the Son's servitude? For we hear that now the Son leads those who desire salvation to the Father, and now the Father does this, and leads the nurslings of the faith to the Son.
XV. That the nature of the Father and the Son is one.
And we learn from this the equal honor of the Father and the Son; but this can also be learned from another source, when the Lord Himself is conversing with the Jews who are listening. For after having spoken of many things, He concluded: "Even if I C
A bear witness of myself, my testimony is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me. And it is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me." B The Jews therefore said to Him, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered them, "You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also." Good heavens! How great is the insanity of the heretics! How great is the stupor under which those who are the heirs of the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius labor! Besides their insanity, one can also see much impudence thriving in them; for they speak of the mission back and forth, and they say the sender is greater than the one who is sent. Such is their ignorance of the Scriptures! And they do not consider that Jacob, having been sent by Isaac into Mesopotamia, is not on that account, so far as his nature is concerned, lesser than the one who sent him. Likewise also, Joseph was sent by Jacob to check on his brothers, and yet no one would say that he did not share in his father's nature because he undertook the mission to be performed while obeying his father.
But they say perhaps: Even if, by reason of nature, these senders were not greater than those who were sent, at any rate they held the primacy of honor by paternal dignity. And yet we discover, O insane ones (for I am addressing you by name), that greater ones have also been sent by lesser ones, and we shall not for that reason strip those who were sent of their own honor. For Jonathan, the king’s son, was sent by David, a fugitive; and the co-ruler of his father was sent by one who dared not even appear in the rank of a servant. C Since, therefore, the one sent while the other sent, then, according to your reasoning, the one who was sent will no longer be king, and the one who sent will no longer be a fugitive; but the dignity of the one who was sent has passed over to David who sent him, and the misfortune of the one who sent has passed over to Jonathan who was sent. But in reality, these things are not so. But why do we recount human affairs? We find a God who was sent, and a man who sent. For he who had wrestled with Jacob said, "Let me go, for the dawn is rising." To whom Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." What have these wise and ingenious teachers of the faith to oppose to this? D Moreover, from the Lord’s own words, we shall also know that the Father who sends is himself co-existent with the Son who is sent. "For I am not alone," He says, "but I and the Father who sent me." And in another place: "My Father has not left me alone." And elsewhere: "My Father who abides in me, he does the works." If, therefore, the One who sent was in Him and with Him, where is the lowliness? Furthermore, He who fills all things—whither or whence was He sent? For a mission implies a change of place. Now, if the Father and the Son contain all things, and the Father is not removed from those to whom He sent the Son, nor did the Son pass from one place to another [694m]
A it remains to be understood that it was the mission of the humanity that had been assumed.
But it is time to turn to the interpretation of the Lord's words. "In your law," He says, "it is written that the testimony of two men is true." Then He adds: "I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me." Therefore, looking upon the image, let us understand the archetype: "The testimony of two men," He says, "is true." Now, that the nature of two men is one is clearly confessed by all; therefore, the essence of the Father and the Son is one, and it will be understood and confessed as one from the image. For just as there are two men there, so also here God and God, Father and Son, and by these very names they signify the identity of nature. For neither can He who is truly God be of a different nature from Him who is truly God, B nor can the Son be different from Him, since He is the Son of God. Having heard these things, the Jews asked Him: "Where is Your Father?" Jesus therefore answered: "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
See again how the consubstantiality is demonstrated from this. For if you knew Me, He says, you would know My Father also. But from that which is different in nature, the other thing is not naturally recognized as different; for things that are of a different kind and foreign to each other do not signify one another, but things that share in the same nature are known through each other. Through one man, it is possible to see the whole nature of men; and through one sheep, the C whole genus of sheep; but one does not see lions through sheep, nor sheep through lions, nor angels through men, nor men through angels; for every animal is a demonstrative of its own nature. If, therefore, the only-begotten Word of God is a creature, and has been born from non-existent things and from some other nature, how does He, being believed in, demonstrate the Father in Himself? But if the Father is known through the Son, and he who knows the Son knows the Father also, let every blasphemous tongue be silenced, and, as the Prophet says, let it cleave to the throat. D We, however, the worshippers of the Trinity, receive from this the accurate knowledge of the consubstantiality, reasoning that the Father would not have been known in the Son in any other way unless He were of the same substance. And let us worship our Savior, awaiting the fruit of our worship, the giver of which is the Father Himself, according to the word of the Lord: "For if anyone," He says, "serves Me, My Father will honor him." And also the admirable John the theologian: "He who believes in the Son," he says, "has eternal life; but he who is disobedient to the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
Capitulum XVI. That the Lord taught in many places that his substance and the Father’s are one.
A But so that we may demonstrate their consubstantiality from another testimony as well, let us hear the Lord himself crying out and saying not only to the apostles, but also to the Jews: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me. And he who sees me, sees him who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that whoever believes in me might not remain in darkness." If, therefore, he who sees the Son believes in the B Father, where then is the "greater" and the "lesser"? For in the lesser, the greater is diminished and is not recognized. If, however, the Father is greater, how is he seen in the Son? But if he is seen in the Son, then clearly he is recognized as being in an equal. For things that are equal are demonstrative of each other. And again, after a few words, the Lord himself says to the apostles: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me; if you knew me, you would also know my Father, and from now on you know him and have seen him." Philip says to him: "Lord, show us your Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus says to him: "Have I been with you for so long a time, and you have not known me, Philip? He who sees me, sees also my Father; and how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words which I speak, I do not speak from myself; but the Father who remains in me, he himself does the works. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me: otherwise, believe me because of the works themselves."
What is clearer than these words? What is more evident than this doctrine? But indeed, as it seems, the veil of the Jews has passed into the mind of the heretics. Because of this, they do not wish to behold things clearer than the sun, drawing upon themselves a voluntary cloud of ignorance. But let us hear the Lord saying: "If you had known me, you would also have known my Father; and from now on you know him, and have seen him." C He says this to Thomas, by whom it had been said to him, "We do not know where you are going, and how are we able to know the way?" And he teaches him and the rest of the apostles at the same time that a man who has believed in him, while he sees him thus with the eyes of the mind, becomes also a spectator of the Father, since the Father is recognized in the Son. Philip, not understanding these things, asks him, saying: "Show us your Father, and it is enough for us." Therefore he is not praised, because according to the heretics he seemed to desire to see something greater; but rather he is reproved, as one who had not seen the Father in the Son: "For I have been with you," he says, "for such a long time, and you have not yet known me, Philip?" And yet Philip desired to see not him, but the Father. Why, therefore, is he reproved because he did not know the Son? With the addition of this reproach, the Lord reveals the cause of the matter: "For he who sees me," he says, D sees the Father.
has seen the Father." A And how, then, do you say, "Show us the Father"? "I am another," he says, "according to person, not according to nature. I carry the whole Father within myself; for I am the indistinguishable seal of the One who begat, the image of the Father’s substance, a natural image coexisting with the One who begat. When, therefore, you wish to see Him, by looking at me you will see both. Yet you will see them not with the eyes of the body, but with those of faith; and with the eyes of faith only to the extent of knowing the operations, not the nature or the substance; for this comprehension exceeds every mind. Therefore he added: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves." If, therefore, he speaks the same things as the Father, and the Father dwells in him and he in the Father, and he who has seen him has seen the Father, and he who knows him knows the Father, it is plain to all who have a mind that the nature of the Father and the Son is one, and that the Son possesses all things that are the Father's. For he would not have shown the Father in himself in any other way, unless he possessed everything that the Father has, except the fatherhood itself; for this is the property of the Father, just as sonship is the property of the Son.
XVII. Another demonstration that the Son is equal to the Father.
This equality can also be learned from another angle. For Jesus says: "Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him; and God will glorify him in himself, and will glorify him at once." C And again: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you." O the surpassing folly of the heretics! The one who glorifies, they say, is greater than the one who is glorified. And the Father, to be sure, glorifies, while the Son is glorified; therefore the Father is greater than the Son. But if the Son is not only glorified, but also glorified the one who glorified him, what room is left here for "greater" and "lesser"? Unless, perhaps, as would follow from the premises, the greater dignity passes to the one who glorifies, so that the Son becomes lesser when he is glorified, and greater when he glorifies. But to say such things is the height of madness and insanity. For we are not taught "greater" and "lesser" from these things, D but the equality of the Father and the Son. For we hear that the Son is glorified by the Father, and in turn the Father [is glorified] by the Son; and the Son is glorified by the Father, and he simultaneously glorifies the Father. For the one who has been glorified did not receive what he did not have, but [received] what he already had. This same thing he teaches us in the same place: "For glorify me," he says, "with yourself, O Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world was." If, then, even before the world was made, he possessed this glory, how does he ask to receive what he always had?
XVIII. That the dominion of the Father and the Son is one.
Then, having shown that he is not only glorified, but in turn also glorifies, he added: A "I have manifested your name to men." And a little later, stopping the mouths of the heretics: "All mine," he says, "are yours, and yours are mine." He is not, strictly speaking, dividing a common dominion, nor does he wish to show that some things pertain to him and others to the Father; but because those who omit no species of blasphemy against the Only-begotten say that he receives, but the Father gives, he demonstrates that he holds a dominion over all things equal to the Father. For "All mine," he says, "are yours, and yours are mine," teaching us not a division of dominion, but that the communion of dominion is one. B
But I feel that I have extended this discourse on the faith for a long time, even though I had promised at the beginning to contain its definition as if in a single chapter. For when I had undertaken to demonstrate the dignity of the Only-begotten from evangelical doctrine, I made the discourse longer than I had promised, although I studied brevity in the interpretations of the texts themselves. Therefore, having sent the pious Christians to the evangelical and prophetic books themselves, which all overflow with the theology of the Son, I will pursue the series of the argument concerning the Trinity that I have proposed.
XIX. Concerning the Holy Spirit.
We believe, therefore, as I have said, in God the Father without beginning, and in God the Son, coeternal by nature, C born of the Father, but existing always with the Father, according to the voice of the Gospels: "In the beginning," it says, "was the Word." We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the upright, the directing, the good, the Comforter, proceeding from God, not begotten; for the Only-begotten is one. Nor created; for nowhere in divine Scripture do we find him numbered among the created, but placed in the same order with the Father and the Son. We have heard, however, that he proceeds from the Father, but we do not curiously investigate how he proceeds, but are content with these boundaries which the theologians and blessed men have set for us.
XX. That the Spirit is placed in the same order with the Father and the Son.
For we have been taught by our Savior Jesus Christ himself that the Holy Spirit is the completion of the Trinity. D "Go therefore," he says, "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Moreover, he whom we confess with the Father and the Son is superior to all that is created. Wherefore also blessed Paul preaches him in a continuous series with the Father and the Son: "For the grace," he says, "of our Lord
Jesus, and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. A
XXI. The dominion of the Holy Spirit is demonstrated.
And again, Paul says: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." And proclaiming His power, he cried out: "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will," distributing B the gifts to those who believe. For through Him we have received the remission of sins; through Him we attain to liberty; through Him we enjoy the grace of adoption. "For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear," says Paul, "but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." And elsewhere: "For the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of sin and death." And in another place: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Now, He who sets others free is not a servant. For how could He grant to fellow-servants what He does not possess, what He is unable to attain, and what He would indeed wish to enjoy, C as is fitting, but cannot? But if He truly communicates liberty to those who believe and sets servants free, He is evidently not a servant, but a master, and with sovereign authority bestows liberty upon whom He wills. Wherefore also blessed Paul said, that "All these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." Wherefore the prophet in the Old Testament also, proclaiming His power, cried out: "The Lord hath sent me, and His Spirit." And God, reproving the Jews, says: "Ye have taken counsel, but not by me; and made agreements, but not by my Spirit," thus showing the Holy Spirit to be a sharer in sovereign authority. And finally elsewhere: "Therefore," He says, "I am with you, and my Spirit remaineth in the midst of you."
XXII. That the Paraclete is Creator.
Job also, believing Him to be Creator and Lord, and D not a minister nor a creature, says: "The divine Spirit, which hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty which teacheth me." But if He created human nature, He has the same substance with the Father and the Son; for in the creation of man God said: "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness." But if the image is one, it is evident that their substance is also one.
XXIII. That the Holy Spirit is from God.
That the Holy Spirit exists of the divine substance,
A itself, God teaches us through the prophet, saying B Joel: "In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." And the Lord Christ teaches us, saying to the disciples: "When they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And again Paul: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." And a little later: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." And elsewhere: "But to us, he says, God has revealed them through His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit who is from God." From these things it is excellently evident that the Holy Spirit is not of another nature nor of a diverse substance, but is in reality endowed with the divine nature. Wherefore he also knows the arcana of God, and knows whatever is of God, just as our soul knows the things that are its own. But if anyone perhaps thinks that the word "searches" denotes ignorance, he will find the same thing said of the Father also. "For he who searches hearts," he says, "knows what is the mind of the Spirit." C Since, then, the God of all does not search because He is ignorant, but knows all things perfectly before they come to pass; so also the holy Spirit of God does not search the deep things of God by reason of ignorance. For how would the cited words be consistent for one who is ignorant: that just as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him, so also "no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God"? For knowledge is opposed to searching; but the soul does not search its own things, but knows them supremely. Therefore, the Holy Spirit has the accurate knowledge of God: and just as "no one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father," so, he says, "no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Therefore, from what has been said, we are taught the communion of nature.
But because the disciples of the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius have exceeded all bounds of impudence, and (I speak of them) say that the Spirit of God is God Himself, the blessed Paul necessarily demonstrates the person of the Spirit: "For we," he says, "have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God; that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
Lord, who shall instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." Therefore, by saying, "We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God," He taught that the Holy Spirit is not of the same nature as the world, but exists of the divine essence. And in addition to this, He taught that He is speaking not of God the Father, but of the Holy Spirit, whose grace those who believe receive. Wherefore He said the Spirit is "of God," teaching that He has existence from the Father, and exists of that same nature, not indeed by generation, but in that way which He alone knows who understands the Son, and He who alone knows the Father, and He who alone understands the Father and the Son; a thing which we have learned from God, but the mode of which we have not been taught. Therefore let us be content with the measure of knowledge given to us, and not ignorantly pry into things that are incomprehensible. B
XXIV. That the great Apostle knew that the Holy Spirit is God.
That the Holy Spirit is of God, Paul teaches us again, saying: "Ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." For why are we called temples of God upon receiving the grace of the Spirit through baptism, if the Holy Spirit Himself is not God? And that the faithful are called temples of the Spirit, the same Apostle teaches us, saying: "Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, whom ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price." C Now, a temple proclaims the God who inhabits it. Wherefore he also said above: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." If, therefore, believers receive the grace of the Spirit through baptism, and having been deemed worthy of this gift, we are made the temple of God, then the Holy Spirit is God. For this reason, if those who enjoy the grace of the Spirit are and are called the habitation and temple of God, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature, and is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. But if He were a creature, D and of a different substance, those who obtain His gift would not rightly be called temples of God. But if those who enjoy some portion, however small, of His grace are called temples of God, we shall understand His fellowship from the appellation. The chief of the apostles also teaches this in the Acts, when he rebukes the theft of Ananias.
XXV. That the divine Peter also holds a consonant opinion regarding the Holy Spirit.
"Ananias," he says, "why hath Satan filled thine heart
to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to defraud [God] of the price of the field A?” And shortly after: “You have not lied to men, but to God.” For because he had thought to deceive the apostles, as being men, while he subtracted from the price of the property as much as he pleased, the prince of the apostles teaches him that those who possess the grace of the Spirit know clearly all things that have been done in secret. “You have not lied to us,” he says, “but to the Holy Spirit.” Therefore do not think that you have deceived men; for it is God who has been lied to by you; for you have not lied to men, but to God. Assuredly, you have not tricked us, but the Holy Spirit, who is God, having his subsistence from God, and being a sharer of the same nature. Luke also makes this clear in the Acts; for having said above that while the brethren at Antioch were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said:
XXVI. It is demonstrated in many ways that the Holy Spirit is God.
B“Separate for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them.” He proceeds to say that they, sent by the Holy Spirit, departed to Seleucia. And when he has related how, traversing Cyprus, Lycia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and Bithynia, they preached the Gospel, he adds: “And sailing from there to Antioch, whence they had been entrusted to the grace of God for the work which they had completed; when they had arrived there, and had gathered the Church, they reported how great things God had done with them.” And although he had mentioned the Spirit above, as the one who had chosen Paul and Barnabas for the work destined by Him, he names the Spirit again after their return, and twice attributes the name of God to Him: first, by saying C that they sailed to Antioch, whence they had been entrusted to the grace of God for the work which they had actually finished; secondly, when he says that they reported to the gathered Church the things which God had done with them. Certainly, the gift of miracles was from the Holy Spirit; He himself supplied wisdom and prudence; He himself imparted strength to those preaching; He himself inspired in them the discourse of instruction. Whence also Paul was saying: “To one indeed is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another, faith in the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing in one Spirit,” and the rest. Then, teaching that the Holy Spirit does not distribute these in the capacity D of a minister, but bestows them potently to whom He wills, he adds: “But all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” If, therefore, the Holy Spirit performed these things through the apostles according to His own will, while Paul and Barnabas reported to the gathered Church how great things God had done with them, the Holy Spirit is certainly God, according to the language of the apostles.
A This same thing happened at Jerusalem, as the most illustrious Luke relates: "The whole multitude kept silent, and heard Barnabas and Paul relating how many signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them." The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God, for it is the same One who miraculously performs signs and wonders. Hence also the Lord said in the Gospels: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Again, in the Acts, Luke says that Paul, having chosen Silas, departed, having been commended to the grace of God by the brothers; here, by this phrasing, he calls the Holy Spirit—who through the brothers at Antioch had separated him for the work to which He had called him—God once again. B Furthermore, the blessed Paul says in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "Those whom God has placed in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers and evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints." But taking leave of the brothers at Miletus, and calling to mind the grace that had been given, he says: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to shepherd the Church of the Lord, which He acquired with His own blood." C See once again from this, too, that the Holy Spirit is affirmed to be God. For since he had said there that God appointed shepherds, teachers, and evangelists, here he says of the Spirit: "In which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to shepherd the Church," teaching, clearly, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that it is the same thing to say God and Spirit, because of the communion of nature. For the Son and the Holy Spirit cooperate in the works done by God the Father; and God the Father likewise gives His consent to the things accomplished by the Son and the Spirit. And elsewhere, again, the blessed Paul preaches that the Spirit is God: "For if," he says, "all prophesy, and an unbeliever or unlearned person enters, he is refuted by all, he is judged by all; the secrets of his heart become manifest; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God, announcing that God is truly in you." For because prophecy is a gift of the Spirit, and secrets of the heart are made manifest through the revelation of the Spirit, D and because it is the property of God to know the minds of men, necessarily the one who is refuted by prophecy and judged will worship God, announcing that God is truly in you. They had, however, the grace of the Spirit. If, then, God was in them because they enjoyed the grace of the Spirit, it follows that the Holy Spirit is God and from God.
...and therefore He is called eternal. A XXVII. That the Holy Spirit is from God, uncreated, and therefore called eternal.
The most illustrious Peter also says in his Catholic Epistles: "If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of power and of God rests upon you" (1 Pet. iv, 14). The blessed John also says in his Epistle: "In this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit" (1 John iv, 13). But that which is proclaimed to be from God is not a creature, but exists from the substance of God. Wherefore the blessed Paul also calls Him eternal, and He who has had no beginning: "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who are defiled for the perfection of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself" (Heb. ix, 13, 14). If, therefore, the Holy Spirit is eternal, and God is also eternal, the conclusion is manifest. But the collection of all testimonies concerning the Holy Spirit, which proclaim Him to be both God and Lord, and rank Him in the same order with the Father and the Son, we leave to those who are studious: but we hasten to the end of this teaching. B
XXVIII. Summary of the Faith.
Therefore, we believe that the nature of the Trinity is one, one substance viewed in three persons, power indivisible, dominion undivided, one divinity and lordship. For thus both the unity is demonstrated in one and the same substance, and the Trinity is acknowledged, not in mere names, but in the hypostases. C For we do not say that there is one "trionymous" being, according to the contraction and confusion of Sabellius, Photinus, and Marcellus. Nor, again, do we posit three things mutually foreign and endowed with diverse substance, unequal and dissimilar, and one superior to another, which we might measure and weigh with mind and tongue, according to the division, diversity, and impious curiosity of Arius: but we confess three hypostases, yet one nature of the Trinity, incorporeal, unchangeable, immutable, having no end, immortal, infinite, incorruptible, uncircumscribed, illimitable, invisible, hidden, ineffable, indescribable, incomprehensible, impenetrable to touch and mind, living by its own nature, intellectual light, D fount of goods, treasure of wisdom, creator and governess of all things, the wisdom which guides the ship of the entire creation. This faith we hold; for we were taught this by men of theology. But to those who dispute by human reasoning, let us say: "That is your portion, that is your lot, but our portion is the Lord," following whom, the straight...
we do not abandon; for we have the divine Scripture as our teacher. Therefore we cry out rightly: "Thy law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths." Illumined by this light, let us recognize the footsteps of the fathers who have gone before us, and let us follow them, until we all attain to the resurrection of the dead in Christ Jesus the Lord, to whom be glory forever. Amen. (1)
OF SAINT CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN, AND THAT CHRIST IS ONE AND LORD ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES
A A. Does the discourse on the divinity of the Only-Begotten, which we have conducted, seem to you to have been weighed and worked out well and sufficiently for us?
A
B. Entirely so.
A. I think it has not lacked a minute examination at least according to my own judgment; but what is your opinion, Hermias?
B. I could rightly praise it as being correct and polished.
A. Since we have passed over a lengthier discussion of that matter, do you wish us to speak on those things which pertain to the incarnation of the Only-Begotten, and to explain its mystery as clearly as we are able—insofar as this can be performed by those who see in a mirror and in an enigma, and who know only in part, according to the measure of the gift of the bounty that the Holy Spirit has provided, as the divine Paul says? B
B. You speak excellently. For "no one says, Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit, and no one says, Anathema Jesus, except in Beelzebul." But since it seems that you wish to enter this arena and undergo so heavy a labor, know that you will provide me great utility beyond others. For I would most willingly understand the true and sincere word about Christ, which is exposed to no reproach. For some, intoxicated by various opinions, deform the beauty of those things which have been handed down concerning Him in both the New and the Old Testament.
A. There is nothing, friend, that the unskilled do not dare, and they rush most readily into the snare of hell, as it is written, C and into the net of death, not understanding what they say or what they affirm. But recount, I implore you, who among them are the notorious ones, and what are their extraordinary trifles?
B. Certainly. For some have dared to assert that the Word of God indeed appeared as man, but that He did not carry flesh from the Virgin. They invent only an imaginary appearance of the mystery. Others, feigning shame if they seem to worship a man, and refusing to decorate earthly flesh with divine honors, and laboring from excessive ignorance under a spurious and corrupted sense of modesty, say that the Word begotten from the Father was changed into the nature of bones, nerves, and flesh; these wretches receive the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin with great laughter, and judge this excellent and divine dispensation to be unseemly. Others also believe that the God Word, coeternal with the Father, was begotten late, and that He was brought into being scarcely at that time, when the first beginnings of his birth D
A according to the flesh were received.
There are others who have impiously rushed into such madness that they deny that the Word from the Father subsists hypostatically, but contend that the word is something merely uttered, as it is understood when spoken by a man. Such are Marcellus and Photinus. Others, however, it seems, believe that the Only-Begotten was truly made man and became incarnate, but they do not believe that the flesh which He assumed was perfectly animated by a rational soul possessing a mind such as ours. Rather, B by forcing the Word of God and the holy temple of the Virgin into a certain most absolute unity—as they suppose—they say that the Word dwelt in it, and that He made the flesh He assumed His own body, but He Himself occupied the place of the rational and intellectual soul.
Others again establish opinions altogether contrary to those of these men, affirming that Emmanuel is constituted and woven together from the Word of God and a rational soul and body, that is, simply from a perfect humanity; yet they have not kept his glory and honor entirely whole and uninjured. For they divide the one Christ into two, and by introducing a coarse sort of division among them, they show Him as though separated into two parts—declaring that the one who was born of the Virgin is one, a perfect man, and that the Word from God the Father is another. C They do not merely distinguish what the nature of the Word is and what that of the flesh, nor are they willing to dwell only on the differences between these (for in this they do not stray from the correct sentiment), but they constitute this one as man, and that one, indeed, they name the Son naturally and truly as God. Yet they wish to be called Christians, and indeed, by writing certain little treatises on this matter, they have dared to speak in these very words: "For the Word from God the Father is the Son by nature and in truth. But the other is Son only homonymously with the Son." And after other things, again: "The Word of God is not flesh, but has assumed a man. For the Only-Begotten is primarily and in Himself the Son of God, the Creator of all; but the man whom He assumed, not being God by nature, is called by the same name as Him, on account of the One who assumed him, who is truly the Son of God." D For that saying: "No one knows the Son except the Father" (Matt. xi. 27), signifies the one who is the Son from the Father by nature and in truth. But that which was said by Gabriel: "Do not fear, Mary; for you have found grace with God, and behold, you will conceive in your womb, and will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus" (Luke i. 30), applies to the man.
But these things are theirs. We, however, shall never think in this way. For the Word will never persuade us to abandon the direct path and cross over into another, to go astray into ways that lead us away from the truth. But do you explain to us your own sentiment, for I am eagerly waiting to hear it, and to recognize the very truth of the matter.
A. O difficult thing, and a task most heavy. For do you not know, my friend, that if anyone were to choose to make a long discourse upon each of these points, and a thorough investigation...
he would consume no small amount of time, and with difficult labors and inescapable toils, would he with difficulty accomplish it? B. It is true.
A A. Let us, then, omitting if you please long arguments, and examining each point very briefly, come, let us say, and before other things to the Docetists: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures," nor indeed the great mystery of godliness, that is, Christ, "who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." I judge that those who think otherwise must either condemn the opinion of the ancients and call the teachers of the whole world liars—to whom Christ himself said, "Go, teach all nations"—or, if they shrink from this crime, they must embrace the true and sincere doctrine concerning Christ, and, bidding farewell to their own rashness and ignorance, cling tenaciously to the Holy Scriptures, and, insisting upon the straight and in no way erroneous path of the holy ones, strive toward the truth itself. For I think the mystery of godliness is nothing other than the Word from God the Father himself, who was manifested in the flesh. For he was born of the holy Virgin, having taken the form of a slave. And he was seen by angels, who sang praises to the one born, saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men." And indeed, they also announced to the shepherds the Word of God who was born in the flesh for us: "Behold," they say, "there is born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign to you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
B If, however, the birth through the Virgin occurred, and the manifestation in the flesh took place, how is this not a futile babbling, and how is it not to be considered madness and insanity to assign the name of "phantasm" to such a manifest incarnation? For if it were a shadow and an imaginary appearance, and not a true incarnation, then neither did the Virgin give birth, nor did the Word from God the Father take hold of the seed of Abraham: he therefore has not become like his brethren. For we do not consist of a shadow or some imaginary appearance, but we dwell in bodies that can both be touched and seen, and, clothed in this earthly flesh, we are subject to corruption and the passions. If, therefore, the Word has not become flesh, he cannot even be of assistance to those who are tempted in that in which he himself suffered when he was tempted. For a shadow could not suffer any contrary affection. The whole profit of his passion for us truly vanishes into nothing. For what kind of back did he offer for us, or what kind of cheek did he present to those striking him, that he might endure the lashes of the Jews? Or in what way could anyone believe that he had his hands and feet transfixed with nails, if he did not appear in the flesh? Or what side, I pray, did Pilate’s soldiers pierce, showing to those who were watching blood mixed with water flowing out? And if anything more must be said, he did not die for us, nor indeed has Christ risen. For if this is not admitted as truth, faith is made void, and the cross is gone.
and the salvation and life of the world is undone, and the hope of those who have fallen asleep in the faith is destroyed entirely. A For it seemed to the blessed Paul to be so, who says: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to this present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles, and last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” And after other things, again: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God B that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if so be that the dead rise not.” For tell me, in what way could a shadow die? How then did the Father raise up Christ, if He were a shadow and a phantom, and not subject to the bonds of death? Away then with their vomit; rather, let us consider it a fable and the foamings of an unholy mind. For the disciple of our Savior forewarns us of such people, writing: “Many false prophets have gone out into the world. Hereby is the Spirit of God known. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” For if He did not become man, nor ascended in the flesh to the Father and God in the heavens, C He could not return from heaven to us, clearly as man and in the flesh. Or do I not seem to you to speak the truth? B. Quite so. A. But to think and to hold, out of immense dullness, that the Word begotten of God refused to be born of the holy Virgin, and rejected our nature, but rather contends that He was changed into earthly flesh, is the mark of those who blaspheme the dispensation and are determined to find fault with the divine counsels. For the Creator of the whole universe, and the Word of God who is abundant in mercy, emptied Himself, having become man for our sake, D born of a woman, in order that, since the children—that is, we—are partakers of blood and flesh, He also Himself likewise might partake of the same, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” For so the holy Scripture says. But they, this most excellent and most glorious counsel of God, as if of little
value, condemn, and as though they themselves were able to devise better things, they reject the decrees of his wisdom. For they do not think that the Word born of the Virgin ought to be believed, but rather imagine that the nature of the Word was transformed into this weak body, and they picture a change to him in whom no change can fall. A For the nature of God is firmly rooted and established in its own goods, and it remains immutably in its own state. For created nature, which was brought into being in time, is subject to change, and this can truly be said of such a thing. For whatever has received an origin of existence, it is also in a way innate to it that it can be changed. But God, who surpasses all understanding, and possesses an existence free from birth and death, is superior to all change; and just as he far exceeds all created things by the reason of his own nature, B and that, too, incomparably, so also in the things that are wont to happen to creatures established by him, he far surpasses them; and he is subject to nothing that could bring him harm. Therefore, the goods of the Divinity are firm and stable. Those of creatures, however, are subject to alterations and changes, and are close to corruption. And the prophet Jeremiah, understanding this perfectly and reflecting upon it most rightly, exclaims thus to God: “Thou sittest for ever, but we are perishing for ever.” For God sits as if on his own throne, always ruling and commanding all things, and no affection has power over him. We, however, since we are gifted with a nature most prone to alteration and change, perish for ever, that is, we are corruptible C and mutable in every time and age. The Divinity, therefore, can never be changed at any time, nor be moved from its firmness by any affection; on the contrary, corruptible and mutable nature—that is, created nature—cannot be endowed with essential immutability, nor boast in the possession of the goods of the divine nature. For it will rightly hear: “For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Now, that the nature of the Word is altogether immutable, while created nature is altogether mutable, anyone can most easily understand from David singing in the Spirit: “The heavens shall perish, but thou shalt remain, and all shall grow old as a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art always the same, and thy years shall not fail.” D Where, therefore, did the Word of God remain, if it is truly said that, having laid aside his firmness and stability, he was translated to what he was not, and was transformed into the nature of flesh and a corruptible state? Is this not rather delirium and madness, that having abandoned that which is firmly and immovably established, it has descended into what it was not, and has been transformed into the nature of flesh, and into that which is corruptible? B. It is indeed. A. For it will be possible with equal rashness to say, which is not inconsistent, that earthly nature also can ascend to the nature of the Divinity, and into one
A of all essences, form a constitution. For if the very nature of the Divinity, according to their thunderstruck ravings, has passed over into the nature of the flesh, nothing would hinder our own inferior nature from also overleaping the flesh and being transformed into the Divinity and into the highest essence. But we shall not yield our assent to their foolishness; rather, we shall rely upon the divine Scriptures, with the prophet saying: B "Behold, the Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," and with the blessed Gabriel confirming this prediction and declaring the divine will to the Virgin: "Fear not, Mary," he said, "for behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and shall call his name Jesus." We believe that Emmanuel was truly born of a woman; and we shall not reject the glorious and admirable dignity of our nature, thinking rightly.
B. You speak most correctly. For God laid hold of, not His own proper and peculiar nature (for nothing of benefit to us would have resulted from that), nor even that of angels, but the seed of Abraham, as it is written. For it was thus, and not otherwise, that the race which had slipped into corruption was to be restored. C
A. What then? Is not this also something to be wondered at besides these things, Hermias?
B. What do you mean?
A. For they have, as it were, bid farewell to the God-inspired Scripture, and, yielding their mind to seducing spirits, they have fallen into such folly and juvenile rashness as to think that He who is the creator of the ages, the Word co-eternal with God and the Father, received the beginning of His existence only at that time when He was born according to the flesh, and to imagine that He who precedes all ages and time is "late-born," so that finally, in the last times of the Incarnation, God became a Father, and that He through whom and in whom all things are, was, as it were, cast into the womb of the Virgin so that He might exist and subsist. Do you not think that D those who so readily embrace such old-womanish and detestable myths, and have filled their own minds with sheer stupidity, have arrived at the very limit of all evils? "Their throat is, in truth, an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
B. I agree; for the word of the Psalmist is true.
A. For is it not also necessary that He through whom all things were made should have pre-existed everything?
B. You speak rightly.
A. And what, then, would they do, when John writes: "In the beginning was the Word, and all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made"? And again: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen"
A with our eyes, which we looked upon and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us." And now Christ Himself declares His own existence's antiquity, which was invisible to the Jews. For when they said, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" He countered clearly, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." To whom, indeed, is that phrase attributed—without any addition, and also clearly that "I am"—what, I ask, can recognize the principle of His generation? Or in what way could He who was in the beginning, beyond all understanding, be received as having been called into existence in time? If anyone chooses to argue more learnedly against these matters, it would not be difficult, by bringing forward the words of holy Scripture, to rout their madnesses. But I, since these things are so manifestly false and shameful, have considered it superfluous to spend more effort in refuting them.
B. You speak rightly.
A. Therefore, let us betake ourselves to another (opinion) akin to the condemned one. For some adulterate the beauty of the truth, just like some currency, B lifting up their horn on high and speaking iniquity against God, as it is written. For they imagine the Only-begotten not to have His own existence, nor to subsist in His own hypostasis: but that the Word is simply a discourse and speech that consists only in utterance by God, and they say, poor wretches, that it dwelt in a man, and by composing Jesus in this way, they say He is holier than the saints, yet not truly God. Wherefore, as the disciple of our Savior says: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son, does not have the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." For the one is recognized in the other both by us and by the holy angels. C For no one could understand what a Father is unless he conceives in his mind a Son who subsists and is begotten; nor again could one understand what the Son is, unless he thinks that the Father has begotten. I consider it necessary, therefore, also to say truly: If the Son does not exist, then neither can the Father be truly grasped by thought. For where is there a Father, if He has not truly begotten? Or if He has begotten that which does not subsist, nor has any existence at all, that which is begotten will be absolutely nothing. For that which does not subsist is equal to nothing, or rather, it is nothing at all. And so God will be the Father of nothing. But, O miserable ones, I would say to such teachers: Your dogmas are empty trifles; or else respond to me as I ask: D In what way is the excessive love of God and the Father toward us (shown)? And if He gave for us the Son, who in your opinion does not exist, then He gave nothing for us, and the Word was not made flesh, and He did not endure the venerable cross, nor
did He abolish the power of death, nor did He rise again. For if He is nothing, and non-existent according to you, how then could these things have happened to Him? A The word of holy Scripture then has deceived those who have believed, and the firmness of our faith vanishes into nothingness. B. Absit! A. What then? Does not the divine word signify to us that the Son exists in the form of God, and call Him the image and character of the Begetter? B. Most certainly. A. And images are like their archetypes. B. How could they not be? A. Therefore, if the image were not hypostatic, and if the character could not be conceived of as existing in its own right, they would necessarily have to admit that the one whose character it is also lacks a hypostasis; and the disgrace of the image will redound even upon the archetype. B Do you agree? B. I agree. A. Furthermore, tell me: Did Philip, who was exceedingly studious of piety, desire to see the Father who is and subsists in hypostasis, saying, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us," or did he desire to see one who does not exist and lacks hypostasis? B. He desired to see the one who truly exists, of course. A. If then the Son is nothing, as One who does not subsist—according to the unrestrained audacity of those people—why did He present Himself to us as the image and exact knowledge of the Father, saying, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? I and the Father are one"? But I do not think that anyone would ever perceive the One who subsists in one who does not subsist, nor would anyone ever consider the same thing to be both subsisting and non-subsisting. Yet how shall the Father be in the Son, and the Son in turn in the Father, unless it be truly said that if the Word does not subsist in Himself, the Father Himself also runs the risk, having in Himself nothing, and being understood to exist in nothing? For that which does not exist at all, is understood to be nothing. C B. This is a harsh argument. For it contains in itself a great absurdity and harshness, the doctrine of our adversaries. A. Yet someone might well wonder in what way the Father created all things in the Son, when He had not yet attained to being. But if someone asks whether to those things which exist... D
BONAVENTURA VULCANIUS'S NOTES.
(5) Isid. epist. 63, lib. III: "Therefore he who says that the Son is posterior to the Father, from whom He shone forth without a beginning, the same person destroys that which characterizes the untainted essence, as far as it lies in him." That is: Wherefore he who states that the Son is posterior to the Father, from whom He shines forth eternally, even that essence which He marks with that character—insofar as it is within him—he overturns. For that which Cyril calls the archetype, Isidore calls the Father, that is to say the characteristic.A B. I would answer, that it is "being." For God is called Creator and is good, specifically by this name, that He granted being to those things which at one time were not.
A. You speak excellently. For thus the nature of things stands. The condition of creatures is therefore better than His by whom all things received their origin; if this one is said not to exist, while those things both exist and are known to be in their own being.
B. Far be such blasphemy! "For the Word of God is living and effectual," as it is written. Therefore He also said, “I am the life.”
A. But one cannot understand life, when it does not subsist. Yet it is life by nature. For it can in no way lie. It is therefore a wretched lie, and a delirium of a most foolish mind, that the Word who appeared from God should not subsist of Himself.
B. Absolutely. For He Himself said to Moses: “I am the One Who Is.” But how could one ever think that that which truly is, does not retain its own hypostasis?
A. Rightly, therefore, shall we detest the great madness of those who think thus.
B. By all means.
A. But neither, Hermias, do we approve of those who have learned to diligently pursue the truth.
B. Whom, I pray?
A. Those who say that the flesh united to the Word lacks a rational soul. For they clothe the Word only with flesh endowed with vital and sensitive motion, and bring Him into the world, attributing the faculty of mind and soul to the Only-Begotten. For they shudder, I know not for what reason, to confess that the Word is united to a man who fully possesses himself by reason of his humanity—that is, one who consists of soul and body—but, having ignored the tradition of the most ancient faith, they think they ought to follow their own private opinions and human reasonings, thinking otherwise than is certainly fitting. B
B. But what is their reasoning for such a dogma?
A. I will tell you. We, according to the Scriptures, say that the mediator of God and men is composed of our humanity, which is perfect according to its own nature, and of the Son who has naturally appeared from God—that is, the Only-Begotten. We assert, however, that from the meeting and ineffable concurrence of unequal and dissimilar natures, a unity is made. We acknowledge, C nevertheless, one Christ and Lord and Son, and in the same one we recognize and understand Him to be truly both God and man. We are accustomed, moreover, to preserve a completely indivisible unity, believing the same One to be both Only-Begotten and firstborn: Only-Begotten, indeed, as the Word from God the Father, and as having appeared from His essence; but firstborn, inasmuch as He was made man and is among many brothers. D As
A for He is one God the Father, from whom are all things, so also one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. For we recognize that He who is through whom are all things, the Word, is God by nature, even if He has become flesh, that is, man.
B. You have spoken most correctly.
A. But their dogmas do not very much agree with our sentiments concerning Him. For without doubt, they too accept Jesus Christ, thinking most excellently on this point. But they strongly recoil, as if it were highly impious, from dividing Emmanuel into two; yet, depriving the flesh of a human and rational soul, they say that the Word from God is united to it. And they have discovered a certain plausible reason, as they think, for this. For they say that things which come together B by composition for the constitution of one perfect being are wont to be seen as parts and from imperfect things, whereas that which is perfect by itself and in its own nature does not need composition from parts. Therefore, they say, we must by all means beware of positing a perfect man (the temple which is united to the Word), so that the composition which is understood in Christ may preserve its own perfect and irreprehensible reason. And they will add, I think, this other point: If, they say, we constitute Emmanuel from a perfect man and from the Word who is from the Father, it is no small fear, or rather it will be clearly necessary, that we think and speak of two sons and two Christs.
B. What then shall we answer them?
A. First, that we ought not to diminish the singular perfection of the most ancient faith, which has come down to us from the very holy apostles, by over-curious subtleties, nor yet to subject those things which exceed our intellect to exhaustive investigations, nor again to come forward C like some arbiters and, as those who set the boundaries, rashly say that some things are right, but others are not, or that they ought to be otherwise; but rather that we should leave the way of His own counsels to the all-wise God, and not rashly criticize those things which have been approved by God as right. For we shall hear Him saying clearly: "For my counsels are not as your counsels (4), nor are my ways as your ways, but as the heaven is distant from the earth, so is my way distant from your ways, and your thoughts from my thoughts." Then that which seems to them to have been found wisely will be discovered to be utterly stale and ignorant. For if anyone should choose to divest that divine temple of a rational soul, the union D of the two will not be from imperfect things; far from it. For it is, indeed, confessedly—as regarding the whole man, I mean the one from soul and body, solely and by itself...
as a part A is the flesh. But God the Word is not understood to be a part of anything, nor yet imperfect, O noble sirs. For He is most perfect in His own nature. Where, then, will there be a concurrence from imperfect things to one certain perfect thing? If it is indeed from a perfect Word and an imperfect flesh, in so far as it reaches the account of a man perfect according to his own nature. But we will by no means worship two Sons, nor will we speak of two Christs, even if we believe the gathering into unity of Emmanuel to have been accomplished from a perfect man and from God the Word. For just as, according to what seems to be correct to those people, if one were to say it is from flesh alone and the Word who appeared from God the Father, no process will persuade them to set the flesh as a part and, on the other hand, the Only-Begotten as a part, and to confess a duality of Christs, but they will receive Emmanuel as one Lord Jesus Christ (for they are seen to think exactly rightly on this); so too, even if we say that the Word from God, in an ineffable manner and one transcending the intellect, has been B together with and united to a perfect man—it being clear that he is one constituted of soul and body—we shall not conceive of a duality of sons, but one and the same, being by nature God and having appeared from the very essence of God and the Father, but in the last times of the age having become man, and having been born through the holy Virgin, and being worshipped by us ourselves and by the holy angels according to the Scriptures.
B. What then, if they should say that our state needed only the advent of the Only-Begotten? And that, since He wished to be seen by mortals and to dwell with men, and to show us the way of the evangelical life, He put on flesh similar to us by an admirable dispensation? For the Deity, in its own nature, cannot be seen.
A. Certainly they will be found to have been ignorant of the scope of the incarnation, and to have understood in no way the great mystery of godliness. For if the incarnation, or "becoming man," occurred for this sole reason, that He might be seen by mortals, and nothing else was added thereby to human nature, how would it not have been better for us also to embrace the opinion of the Docetae? For they, while clothing the Word with flesh and an earthly body at the same time, fabulously assert that He was seen as a man, yet miserable [though they are], they openly admit that He was the author of the best things. But truly, if the Word from God C brought no benefit to human nature, even though He became flesh, would you not consider it better to clear Him from carnal impurity, and to imagine that He used an earthly body only once, and thus fulfilled the scope He had set for Himself?
B. What then was the reason for His advent into flesh, or what was the mode of the incarnation, or for whose sake it was done, I would like to understand.
A. Come then, hear the sacred Scriptures, and directing the edge D of your mind keenly to the words of the holy apostles, see that which is sought. For the wise Paul thus
speaks to us, having Christ himself speaking within him: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." And again, explaining another way to us, he says: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Is it not therefore most manifest, and obscure to none of mortals, that the Only-Begotten became like us, that is, a perfect man, so that he might deliver our earthly body from the corruption that had invaded it, having for our sake descended in the economy of union into identity with us according to the law and rule of life, and making the human soul his own, he rendered it superior to sin by the firmness and immutability of his own nature, staining it as it were with a dye?
B. I do not think this matter unclear. For it carries within itself the likely—or rather, the true—reasoning.
A. Just as, then, because the Word who quickens all things became flesh, it overcomes the power of death and corruption; in the same way, I think, since it became the soul of him who knows not how to sin, it possesses henceforth a firm and immutable state in all good things, and is incomparably stronger than the sin that formerly held sway. For the first man is Christ, who "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," and is established as the root and as it were the first-fruits of those who are transformed into the newness of life in the Spirit, and who will transmit C the incorruption of the body and the firmness and stability of the Godhead, as in participation and by grace, to the whole human race. And knowing this, the divine Paul writes: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." For by the image of the earthy he meant the prone state toward sin and the death that was thereby cast upon us; but by the image of the heavenly—that is, of Christ—the firmness unto sanctification, and the recovery and restoration from death and corruption unto incorruption and life. We say, therefore, that the Word was united to the whole man. For surely he would not have deemed the better part in us, that is, the soul, worthy of no account, bestowing the toils of his manifestation upon the flesh alone. But the mystery of the economy was beautifully accomplished through both. He used them as an instrument: indeed, his own flesh for the works of the flesh, and for natural infirmities, and for all those things that are far from blame; and again, his own soul for human D and...