A "The God of gods shall be seen in Zion"; and, "God stood in the congregation of gods, and in the midst He judges the gods"; and, "You shall not speak evil of gods." According, then, to your wisdom, if whatever is God is also Spirit, then all the aforementioned men and gods are Spirits. But if Moses is a god, and each of the aforementioned men are gods, and are not Spirits, then it is not the case that whatever is God is Spirit, nor that whatever is Spirit is God. For indeed the demons of you heretics are spirits, and yet they are not gods.
3. B Inducting again the person of the Orthodox, he says: Let us concede that the Holy Spirit is not called God, but at least He is called Lord; for it is written: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." Then he continues: Say what follows: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." He is speaking of the Lord, he says, because the Lord is the Spirit. We answer him: Truly, it is said of you, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." For since the following text clearly indicates that the One of whom it is said, "Now the Lord is the Spirit," is the Spirit, you have deceived yourself, so that from your own mouth you might convict yourself, and hear: "Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant." C For what follows is: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." But the Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of the Lord, which is called Lord. For just as the Son, being Lord, is Lord, so the Spirit, being Lord, is Lord.
4. And again, having taken to himself the person, he asks himself: Is He not to be worshipped? Then he answers himself: He is not; for it is not so written. Then again, having assumed the person of the Orthodox, he says: If men worshipped men, for example, Nathan the prophet worshipped David—for it is written: "Nathan the prophet went in before the king, and worshipped him upon the earth" D—why shall we not worship the Holy Spirit before all men? And he again rejoins to himself: "You shall worship the Lord your God," and not the Spirit. The Spirit is not Lord, nor indeed God; how then shall He be worshipped, if He is not comprehended within the limits of those to be worshipped? For, "No one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit." For he who draws near to God must truly be brought through another to the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, I shall worship the Holy Spirit, through whom or in whom shall I be brought to worship Him? What then do you say to these things? Nathan the prophet will judge you in the day of judgment, as one who did not act against the law when he worshipped David. For you brought forward the passage as if you were obliged to condemn him, that you might appear to make him guilty of transgression.
We, however, do not accuse the prophet; heaven forbid! Rather, it is for this very reason that we say the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped. For the prophet would not have worshipped David if he had known him to be a mere man; but having been taught that he was the Christ of the Lord, anointed with holy oil, he worshipped him because of the efficacy of the Spirit in that oil.
B 5. Moreover, what is the reason that, as for "the deaf asp that stoppeth her ears, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers," when you hear the command: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God," you have not heard what follows: "And him only shalt thou serve"? You do this, that you might not hear the command: "Him only shalt thou serve." Whom? The Father or the Son? And in what way will you say "only"? If you are a Christian, you will say it is because of the identity of nature. If, then, the Spirit is shown to be of the same nature, then the verse "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because of the identity of nature. But if not, you will be forced, by accepting it [in reference to] a single person, either to reject the Son or to delete the Father. If, therefore, it is proven that the Spirit, who is poured forth from the Father through the Son, is of the same nature and divinity as the Son and the Father, then he will surely be shown to be worthy of worship and service. By the grace of this same Spirit, we will attempt to declare this very nature from the divine oracles. And truly, the passage: "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit," proves nothing against the worship of the Holy Spirit. For just as when we worship God the Father himself in spirit and in truth, we do not exclude the worship of the Truth, but we know that the Son himself is the Truth, and in worshipping God in spirit and in truth, we worship the Truth; so too we worship the Spirit, as the Truth. But if, because we worship "in the Spirit," you therefore do not worship the Spirit, and because we worship "in the truth," you do not worship the Truth, and you think that the dignity of the Holy Spirit is lessened because we confess the Lord Son to be in Him, then you will certainly also lessen the dignity of the Father, since "no man comes to the Son, unless the heavenly Father draws him to himself." For this is written in the Gospel; and the Apostle cries out: "God is faithful, by whom you were called unto the fellowship of his Son." And the Father himself says to the Son in the prophets: "Behold, proselytes shall come to thee through me." C If we are called to the Son through the Father, the Holy Spirit is not thereby lesser in dignity. We are introduced, you say, by the Spirit: read the Scriptures and learn that, just as we come to the Son through the Father, so we come to the Father through the Son. For these things are, as was said above, reciprocal. Just as, therefore,
A the Father did not dwell in the apostles before the Son was known, but rather they first knew the Son, and were taught, and were sent out two by two, as it is written, and their names were written in the heavens, and they were deemed worthy of the divine vision in the sight of the Resurrection—then the Holy Spirit was given to them from God, guiding them to the grace of the Spirit—and just as, in calling Jesus Lord, we say this knowing it by the guidance of the Spirit, so, being led by the Son to the knowledge of the Spirit, we were baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Son having clearly revealed the mystery of initiation into the Spirit.
6. But why do you refuse to worship the Holy Spirit, into whom you were baptized? What is greater, adoration or baptism? Is it not acknowledged that baptism is greater than adoration, since even catechumens worship the Father and the Son, yet they do not possess perfection unless they are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? If catechumens are not perfect Christians before they are baptized, but are made perfect when baptized, then baptism is surely greater than adoration, since B it grants perfection. And this is «our rational and living worship,» 88 which the Apostle speaks of: «Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, your rational worship.» We presented the same as a rational worship, having been buried together with Christ in baptism. The command, therefore, «You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve,» introduces the teaching of baptism.
To this, he raises an objection against himself on our behalf: "If He is neither Lord, nor God, nor to be worshipped, by what reason is He numbered with the Trinity?" Then he answers himself: "He is numbered with the name of the Spirit, not with the name of the Father, nor of God, nor of the Son." So, you too, name Him, and do not attribute to Him more than He has. He is content with His own dignity. And although you may wish to add more than He himself possesses, He does not permit it. For He does not assume anything for Himself from those things by which you glorify Him, beyond the prescription of Him who has honored Himself above all creatures.
To him we say: Number all the angels also with the Father and the Son, since you have heard from God Himself: «I said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.» 89 But do you not deem the Holy and Good Spirit worthy of being numbered in the name, while you are compelled C by what you have conceded to number men with God? We, however, do not number Him with the name—for that would be no great thing—but with the very nature itself, as we shall demonstrate later, after we have first refuted the empty babbling of your schedule.
In truth, however, as you even confessed against your will, if you wish to add anything to Him—I mean to the Holy Spirit—it is not permitted; and if you wish to take away, you harm yourself; for He is content with His own D dignity, if it is indeed permissible to use the word "dignity" when we speak of the Spirit. For the same can be said of the Father and the Son. For neither
A can you add anything to the Father and the Son, nor take anything away, even if you should wish to take it away; for you injure yourself in doing so. Since all things are perfect in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and nothing is imperfect, such that it needs to be supplemented from without. For you see that He is honored as being before all creation, as you yourself have written, wishing by this to show that He is not His Spirit in truth, but by grace, just as all other ministering spirits are indeed, but not by nature His spirits.
7. Following this, he brings forward again, as if spoken by us to him: "Is the Holy Spirit, therefore, not to be honored equally with the Father and the Son?" And again he answers himself: "He is not; since it is not even written." For indeed, concerning the Father and the Son it is written: B "That they may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John v. 23). He does not say, "and the Spirit." To these things, we reply to him: Blessed are the ears that have not heard you, and the souls that have been kept unwounded by your words. And how, while not considering the Spirit to be of equal honor with the Father and the Son, are you baptized into Him with equal honor? Or does it not seem to you that the Father and the Son are honored in the confession of baptism? And if this is not honor, why are we even baptized? Why do we risk ourselves every hour to keep the baptism spotless, struggling against the snares of the devil? And how does it not seem to you that the presentation of our bodies is more excellent than every sacrifice, while the Apostle says: C "That you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God" (Rom. xii, 1)? Moreover, every sacrifice is offered to the honor of God. But this sacrifice we have offered to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit in baptism, not in a different place, nor have we honored the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in any other way.
8. And as if he had been questioned by us, he asks himself again: "What then? Do you call the Holy Spirit a creature? Will He then be one of the creatures?" Then he answers himself: "If it is written, I speak; but if it is not written, I do not speak." And again he brings an objection against himself, as if brought by us, and says: "It is written that 'In Him all things were created'" (Col. i, 16). And he answers himself: "But the Holy Spirit, being unique, does not have communion with all things. For the communion of names does not bring about a communion of natures; D otherwise, all creatures would be of the same dignity." To these things we say again: If your heart had the fear of God, you would not have written wickedness, but you would have spoken sincerely what you think. But you are afraid to speak, not fearing God, but the crowd, just as the Pharisees, who did not dare to say whence the baptism of John was. But you, fearing, do not keep silent, but you cry out; and you cry out to those who know well what is "the poison of asps under their lips" (Ps. xiii, 3). For the Pharisees reasoned among themselves: "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Why then did you not believe him?' And if we say, 'From men,' we fear the crowd." This also he reasons for himself: "If we say, He is not a creature, they will say..."
'Why then do you not worship him?' And if I say, 'He is a creature,' I too fear the crowd. For all the people will stone us, they who have renounced the creature and adhere to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." What, then, do you do? By saying he is a creature, you hide your guile A and devise this, while pretending that the Holy Spirit is unique and not common to all. For the commonality of terms does not imply a commonality of natures. Since, therefore, there would be an equality of honor amongst creatures—which is to say, while he is a creature, he is not of equal honor to [other] creatures. As if someone were to say: "The sun is a unique star, and is not of equal honor to [other] stars." Every star is light-giving by day, even if it has nothing in common with other stars. And what is more impious than to call the Holy Spirit a creature, when the Son says: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you"? Since he himself says that the Spirit is the Father's, how can you call it a creature? And how do you not hear the Father saying: "In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," and further: "Behold my Servant whom I have chosen, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him"? And in addition to these, Peter says: "You yourselves know the message that was spread throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power." Does the Son, then, receive anointing by his own creature? And how is it not foolish to say this? And the Son himself says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach good news to the poor." And Peter also says in the Acts of the Apostles as follows: "Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear." Therefore, does he whom he himself created receive [it] from the Father? And did he not have authority over his own creature? But you will say: "Is the Holy Spirit then greater than the Son?" We answer you therefore: Far be it! No one among us says this. But it was necessary for him, having taken the form of a servant, to be anointed, no longer with oil made according to the old commandment of God, but with the oil of gladness B above his fellows. "For because of this," says David, "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." "Because of this"—what [does this mean]? Because, being God and Son, he took the form of a servant.
9. Since we have promised to show that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and the Son, let us earnestly endeavor to demonstrate this, after establishing a dialogue between two persons, with the favor of the Spirit himself. Meeting someone who thinks the same as the author of this pamphlet, we said as follows: It is said by the Apostle that God alone has immortality C: "For he alone," he says, "has immortality, light D...
inhabiting inapproachable" A (1 Tim. vi, 16). Maced. Yes. Orth. Do the angels, and principalities, and powers, and thrones, and dominions also have it? Maced. They have it. Orth. How then does God alone have immortality? Maced. Because God himself is immortality; but the angels, archangels, and all heavenly beings are immortal by participation in immortality. Orth. Does the Son of God also have immortality, or not? Maced. Certainly he does. Orth. In the same way as the Father, or as the heavenly beings? Maced. As the Father. Orth. How then does the Father alone have immortality? Maced. Because the substance of the Son in no way differs from the substance of the Father. Orth. Is the Son, then, also called God alone, as is the Father, because of the immutability of his substance? Maced. I say that the Son possesses immortality in the same way as the Father. Orth. Does the Holy Spirit also possess immortality? B Maced. He does. Orth. Does he possess it in the same way as the Father and the Son, or as the angels, and principalities, and powers, by participation and grace? Maced. As the Father and the Son. Orth. Is the Holy Spirit, therefore, of the same nature as the Father and the Son? Maced. God forbid! Orth. Then it is not the case that God alone has immortality. For another nature has been found possessing it in the same way as God himself.
10. Maced. Again, therefore, I say they are three not in one, but in three hypostases. Orth. Why then do I say one nature? Maced. Because the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit possess the immortality of the Father in the selfsame way. And just as Paul, and Peter, and Timothy are of one nature and three hypostases, so I say the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases and one nature. Maced. But other men exist before men; therefore, another nature also exists before the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. C Orth. God forbid! Maced. Why then do you say, "In the same way as in the case of men"? Orth. In the case of men—Paul, Peter, and Timothy—other men exist before them, and others before them; but before Adam no other exists, save God himself. But before the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit nothing exists; but the Son is born of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds. Maced. Is the Spirit, then, not of the Son? Orth. All things that are the Father's are also the Son's. For the Apostle also testifies that the Spirit is of both the Father and the Son, speaking thus: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. D But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus Christ from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also vivify your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. viii, 9-11). And the Son himself names him the Spirit of his Father. Maced. How? Orth. "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And the Father himself also calls him his own Spirit through the prophet saying—
A in you.” Why, the Father himself testifies that he is his own Spirit, through the prophet saying: “In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” Maced. It is the Son who is speaking.
11. Orth. Read the Apostle, so that you may hear for yourself. For he speaks thus, writing to his disciple: “But when the grace of God our Savior appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” Maced. We cannot speak of one nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Orth. Do you not yourself acknowledge the Father to be holy, concerning whom it has been said: “The Holy One, who rests in the holy ones”? Maced. Yes. Orth. So, do you call the angels holy in the same way as the Father? Maced. Angels are holy by participation in holiness; but the Father is B holy by nature. Orth. Is the Son holy in the same way as the angels are holy by participation, or as the Father? Maced. As the Father; for I profess him to be like him in all things. Orth. Do you say the Holy Spirit is holy in the same way as the angels, or as the Father and the Son? Maced. As the Father and the Son. Orth. Is he therefore of the same nature as the Father and the Son? Maced. And if truly, as you say, there is one nature—yet the Son sits at the right hand of the Father; where does the Spirit sit? Orth. With Christ himself. For if we, as Paul says, are to sit together with him, it is clear that C the Spirit also [is there]—for it is through him that we [are made fit for this]. Maced. Where is it written that we are also to sit together? Orth. It is written in the Epistle to the Ephesians: “And when we were dead in trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ, and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places.” But it is impossible for anyone to sit together with Christ who has not become a temple of the Spirit. But if the temple sits together, what would you say regarding the inhabiting Spirit? Maced. The Spirit is apostolic; for he is sent. Orth. But is the Son not also sent? Maced. Yes. Orth. Was he then sent from place to place? Maced. No; for I say that the Son and the Father are everywhere. Orth. And do you not say that the Holy Spirit is everywhere? Maced. Yes. Orth. If the Father is everywhere, and the Son is everywhere, and the Spirit is everywhere, then the Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and the Son. Maced. Since the devil also is everywhere, is he of the same nature as the Father and the Son? Orth. The devil is not everywhere; for he is neither in heaven nor in all the earth; but just as some D tyrant, being in a certain place, by sending his subjects through his own commands, is said to rule everywhere—wherever his ministering powers are—and in his person [hypostasis] he is in one place, but everywhere by the operation of his will; and wherever he may hold sway, he is said to be—so also the devil, in his person...
A he comes from place to place, but by the operation of his will he is everywhere on earth, his will operating within "the sons of disobedience, through the principalities and powers, and the world-rulers of this darkness." But the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are, in substance, and power, and glory, everywhere and in all and through all. If this is so, then there is one substance of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Maced. The Father and the Son are in substance, and will, and power, and glory everywhere and in all, but the Spirit is there where he is sent. Orth. When, therefore, he came down into the upper room, where the disciples were, and sat upon each one of them, was he not also in heaven? Maced. When Gabriel was sent to Mary, was he not also in heaven? Orth. In substance, no—in thought, yes. Maced. I say the same of the Spirit. Orth. And how do you understand him who says: "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world; and that which holds all things has knowledge of the voice"? And what else possesses the knowledge of God but the Spirit, of whom it is said: "A spirit of knowledge and piety"? Maced. That Spirit is one of sanctification. Orth. Does the Father not also sanctify? Or is it not written in the Gospels: "Father, sanctify them in your truth"? And through the prophet he says: "I am the Lord who sanctifies them." Maced. Yes, both the Father and the Son sanctify. Orth. If the Father sanctifies, and the Son sanctifies, and the Spirit also sanctifies, then he is of the same nature as the Father and the Son; for those who have the same operation also have the same nature. B
12. Maced. We say the Holy Spirit is a guide. But he who is a guide leads to another. Orth. Does God not lead, then? Maced. Where is it written? Orth. Who is it that sits upon the cherubim? Maced. God. Orth. Hear, then, what David says: "You who shepherd Israel, pay attention; you who lead Joseph like a sheep, you who sit upon the cherubim, manifest yourself." Do you hear that God both shepherds and leads? Maced. Yes, God shepherds and leads; but he leads to himself. The Spirit, however, leads not to himself, but into all truth. Orth. Does God not lead into all truth? Maced. But he himself is truly all truth. Orth. Therefore, he is the guide of the same way as the Spirit is a guide. And for those whose operation is the same, the nature is also the same. For you cannot say that the Spirit leads in one way and that God leads into all truth, when the Lord Jesus said that the Spirit himself leads us into all truth. Maced. But I have said that God is all truth and that he himself leads to himself; the Spirit, however, leads not to himself, but into all truth, that is, to God. Orth. And if God leads to himself, what is the need for the guidance of the Spirit? Maced. First the Spirit leads, and then God. Orth. If he who is a guide leads to someone else, C D
A but to himself. But if this is so, even the Spirit, when guiding, leads both to himself, and to the Father, and to the Son. For all that truth to which we are led is nothing other than the guidance into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and if the Father guides, he leads to himself; and if the Spirit guides, he leads to himself. Maced. But I said that the Spirit leads first, and then God. Orth. But if the Holy Spirit provides this same guidance to God, theirs is the same operation, the same nature. Maced. But this is what is sought: whether the Spirit guides first, and then God. Orth. I said that it makes no difference whether the Spirit performs it first, or God first, which is not something common; for rather, according to your argument, God will be found in most cases to have been the one guiding prior to the Spirit. For we say that the guidance of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one and the same. And since you divide the time and the guidance, tell me, I ask, by whom was Adam led first, while he remained in paradise before the transgression B to work it and to keep it? By the Father, or by the Son, or by the Holy Spirit? Maced. By the Spirit. Orth. And yet it is said: "And God placed him in paradise to work and to keep it." Therefore, even against your will, you confess that the Spirit is God, since you say he leads first. Maced. God leads in the Spirit. Orth. And how then is it written: "You led your people like sheep by the hand of Moses and by [the] arm of Aaron"? Is the hand of Moses the Holy Spirit? Maced. If the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, the Spirit must be able to generate and to create. Orth. Do you say that the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, or do you not even say this? Maced. I do not call it one; rather, I call it like. Orth. Do you mean "like" as of gold and copper? Maced. God forbid! Orth. As what, then? Maced. As if of gold and gold. Orth. Then this is one nature. Do you, then, in general call the Son so like the Father as gold is to gold? Maced. Yes. Orth. If, therefore, the Son wishes, being of the same nature as the Father, is he able to generate a Son? Maced. Yes, he is able, but he does not do this so that we might not be taught a generation of gods. Orth. Nothing, therefore, stops the Holy Spirit from being of the same nature as the Father and the Son, yet neither generating nor creating, so that we might not be taught, as you say, a generation of gods or a multitude of gods. C For what the Father wills, the Son creates, and the Spirit sanctifies. And this is that which is said: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." Neither does the Father, needing help, create through the Son, nor does the Son, needing help, create through the Spirit, but this is so that from the things created the identity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit might be shown. Moreover, that the Holy Spirit is able to create, has been shown from the
A Lord’s body, the angel having said: "For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit." Maced. But the Father is Holy Spirit, and the Son is also; and when he says, "It is of the Holy Spirit," he speaks of the Son, and not of the Spirit of whom we are speaking. Orth. Read the place of the Gospel, that you may hear the angel saying to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee." What kind? The one of whom we speak, or the Son, or some other Holy Spirit? For the holy angels also are holy spirits. Maced. He calls that very Spirit, into whom we are baptized, the Holy Spirit. Orth. Therefore, Gabriel says that the Lord’s body was born from this Spirit. For it was not that one came upon her, and another worked the grace; but that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit, clearly of the one who came upon her. Maced. And how does it say, "Wisdom has built herself a house"? B Orth. This is what we say: that all the works of the Father are the Son’s, and those of the Son are said to be the Spirit’s, since the power of the Father and of the Son is one, working in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul says: "And God has set some in the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers." And again the same: "Sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the elders of the Church," and says to them: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers, to tend the Church of Christ." You see that those whom God set, the Holy Spirit also set, and whom the Spirit set, God also set; and the Spirit did not set some and God others, but those whom God set, the Spirit C set. And if the Spirit set those whom God set, hence it follows that the operation of God and of the Spirit is the same. But those whose operation is the same, their nature is also the same. Maced. But it is God who works all things in all. For it is written: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who works all in all." Orth. Recite what follows, that you may hear: "But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge according D to the same Spirit; to another faith in the same Spirit; to another the grace of healings in the same Spirit; to another the working of powers; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another kinds of languages. But all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one individually as He wills." And He wills the things which the Father and the Son will; and for this reason we speak of one will. And those whose will and operation are the same, their nature is also the same. 14. Maced. Is the Spirit, then, God? Orth.
A You have confessed this yourself from the very consequence of your own words. But know this: that to be God is posterior to nature. For even we, if we become imitators of God, according to Paul, become gods; but we cannot become of the same nature. Maced. Do you then say that the Spirit himself is God by imitation and grace? Orth. Far be it from me to attribute anything adventitious to the Spirit! For I do not say that holiness, or incorruptibility, or immortality, or goodness, or any other of the things considered in God, are adventitious to the Holy Spirit; but by nature he is holy, by nature good, by nature incorruptible, by nature immortal, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of God and flows from him, or proceeds from him. Maced. Does he always then proceed from him? Orth. In order that you may not think that the procession began or has ceased, it is said: "Who proceeds from the Father," so that you may not seek for a beginning or an end of the procession. You will find the same thing signified also concerning the generation of the Son. B For he did not say, "He begat me before all things," but "He begets me," so that you may not seek for a beginning or an end of the generation. Maced. Are there, then, two Sons? Orth. Far be it! Maced. If both the Son and the Spirit are truly from the Father, they are two brothers. Orth. But the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. Maced. And what is the difference between generation and procession? Orth. Do not curiously inquire into the difference; for it cannot be comprehended, but think on those things which you have been commanded, and do not examine beyond these. You are commanded to believe that the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds; but all other things—heaven, earth, sea, and what is in them, rational and irrational—are creatures, created by the command of God himself: "For he spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created." C Maced. Nor do I say that the Spirit is a creature; but yet I do not call him God. Orth. Know one thing: that you yourself are not God by nature for this reason, because you are a creature; and so, if you were not a creature, you would be God by nature.
15. Maced. But it is nowhere written that the Spirit is God. Orth. Grant that the name "God" is not written. But do you confess his nature, and his divine operations, and that is sufficient for me for the confession of his divinity. Maced. Why do you say what is not written? Orth. It is indeed written, but do you confess the nature; and even if it were not written, nature itself bears the name that follows it; for when the Spirit is confessed to be subsistent, sanctifying, and uncreated, he is God, whether you will it or not. D Maced. Where is it written that the Spirit is God? Orth. Where it is written that he is similar in essence. Maced. But our Fathers spoke of the "consubstantial" concerning the Son. Orth. Did they say what was not written, moved by the meaning of Scripture, or by their own authority? Maced. Moved by the meaning of Scripture. Orth. And the meaning of Scripture teaches that the uncreated Spirit is from God, and
A vivifying and sanctifying, is a divine Spirit. Maced. We too call it divine, but not God. Orth. But what is the divine Spirit, being uncreated, other than God? Maced. Divine is one thing, and God is another. Orth. If Scripture says, "The divine Spirit which created me," does it not speak of the Holy Spirit? Maced. By no means; for it is God who created man. Orth. But is not the Spirit also [God]? Maced. Is God, then, a divine Spirit? Orth. Yes. If God is called a divine Spirit in Scripture, and neither an angel, nor an archangel, nor any other power is called "divine" in Scripture, but only God and his Spirit are called "divine," it follows that "the divine" is nothing other than God. And Paul also says this in the Acts: "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven B by art and device of man." Do you see that God is the Divine, and the Divine is God? Job also called the Spirit "divine," thus saying: "As the Lord liveth, who has so judged me, and the Almighty, who has embittered my soul; as long as breath remains in me, and the divine Spirit is in my nostrils, my mouth shall not speak iniquity." When he says "As the Lord liveth," he denotes the Father; when he says "the Almighty," he denotes the Son; and when he says "the divine Spirit," he denotes the Holy Spirit.
16. Maced. Do you then say three equals? Orth. Not by paternity, not by filiation, but by nature. Maced. How can this be? Orth. As has been shown. Maced. How has it been shown? Orth. Because the Spirit, just like the Father and the Son, is everywhere by substance and power and will and glory; just like them, he leads to all truth; just like them, he sanctifies; C just like them, he works all things in all. But of those whose operation is the same, their nature is also the same. Maced. How, then, is it said: "He shall not speak from himself, but whatsoever he hears he shall speak"? Orth. Because the Son also says: "The Father who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak." This, in fact, most especially shows the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be of the same nature. Maced. How? Orth. Because every nature that has been created, if it be rational, speaks from itself: as when Abraham says, "Let not the Lord be angry, if I shall speak yet once more"; and Moses, "I am slow of speech and slow of tongue," and, "I pray thee, Lord, choose another"; and as Jeremiah, "I am young, and I cannot D prophesy," so that God says to him, "Do not say, 'I am young'"; and Jonah, having deliberated by himself, went up into a ship to flee from the presence of the Lord. But not so the Spirit; for he is not of such a nature as to have a will diverse from God, but all things that he might speak are the oracles of God. And for this cause it is said, "He shall not speak from himself." For indeed, concerning the Son, the same thing is said, because there is not in him any other will which is not the Father's. Maced. Has the Spirit, then, no will of his own? Orth. Alienated from
to God. Maced. But how does he not have a will of his own? Orth. The will of God is the will of the Spirit. For he is not ignorant of the will of God; but what the Father wills, that also the Spirit wills; for he knows all things that are of God, as the spirit of man knows the things of man. A Maced. And yet the Son also says: "I did not come to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me." Orth. And what was the will of Him who sent him, which he came to do? Maced. The salvation of the world. Orth. In doing this, he does not perform his own will, but the will of Him who sent him. Maced. He himself says that he did not come to do his own will, but the will of Him who sent him. Orth. It is necessary, then, that there be established in him a will, which he restrained, that he might do the will of Him by whom he was sent. Maced. Far be it from me to say that the will of the Son is contrary to the will of the Father. Orth. Therefore, there is one and the same will of the Father and the Son. For the Son indeed wills to save our race through the cross and death, and the Father wills this too. But when he says, "I did not come to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me," he refers all things to the Father; and even when he says, "The Father who sent me has given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak," he honors the Father as Father. But if this is not the case, how does the Son, in whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden, not know what he should speak? Maced. I grant this, that the Son, as Son, has one will of the Father. But the Spirit, unless he hears and receives, does not speak from himself. Orth. Just as, therefore, the Son, having all things in his nature, as Son says, "I do nothing of my own self," in order that he may ascribe the principle of good things to the Father; so also hear concerning the Spirit what he says: for since he has all things in his own nature as the Spirit of God, he refers them to the Cause, saying: "He shall not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he shall speak, and he will announce to you the things to come." And the saying, "He will receive of mine," that is, clearly, of the Father. For he adds: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he receives of mine and will announce it to you." But he said "to receive," not as if he were ignorant, but as referring the operation and grace of the Spirit to the Cause. Maced. If it is thus, I accept this well; for the Spirit ministers to us the grace of God. B C [Dialogue 1 continues] ... D 17. Orth. Again you name it as a ministry, since you refuse to call the Spirit of God a cooperator. Maced. You will never persuade me to call the Spirit of God a cooperator. Orth. The Apostle Paul calls the apostles cooperators of God, and do you fear to call his Spirit a cooperator? Rightly does that apply to you: "There they were in great fear, where there was no fear." Maced. Even if I say that the Spirit is a cooperator with God, I will not, however, glorify him in the same way as God. Orth. If, therefore, Paul says concerning those...
who have believed A that "You are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God, and a co-heir of Christ," do you then deem yourself worthy to be admitted into the fellowship of the inheritance, but not the Spirit? Do you not hear: "If we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him," but not the Spirit? "If we have died with him, we shall also reign with him," but not the Spirit? Maced. Do you call the Spirit a King as well? Orth. "If death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned," how then does the Spirit of life not reign in us? Maced. We say that the Father is King, and the Son, but is the Spirit a minister? Orth. You do not even understand your own heresy. For a minister, even if he is not a king, is of the same substance as the king. Therefore, you yourself confess that the Spirit is of the same substance as God. Maced. By no means. Orth. But that which is not of the same substance is a creature, and mutable, and variable. Yet you professed a little while ago B that the Spirit is immutable and invariable and uncreated. Therefore, the Spirit is of the same substance as God and his Son. Maced. Is then the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit one and the same person? Orth. Far be it from me to say that! For if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same person, it would not be said by us that they are of the same substance. For no thing is said to be of the same substance as itself.
18. Maced. Where is it written that the Spirit is God? Orth. When the prophet says, "And all will be taught by God," of whom does he speak? Maced. Of the Son. Orth. And yet the Son says: "Do not think how or what you should speak; for the Spirit himself will teach you what you ought to do." But if those who are taught by the Spirit are called taught by God, what else could the Spirit be? Ask yourself. Maced. Those who are taught by the Spirit are called taught by God because God C teaches them through the Spirit. Orth. He did not say: "All will be taught by God himself," but without the article. Maced. Are there then three Gods? Orth. Far be it! One God is the Father, and one God is the Son, and one God is the Holy Spirit. Maced. Are there then three Gods? Orth. Do you not yourself confess the Father to be God, and the Son to be God? Or not even this? Maced. I confess the Father to be God, and likewise the Son. Orth. Do you then say there are two Gods? Maced. Far be it! Orth. Just as, therefore, when you call the Father God and the Son God, you do not say there are two Gods; so, in confessing the deity of the Spirit, do not say there are three Gods. "For hear, O Israel: The Lord your God is one Lord." Maced. One therefore is God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Orth. One God, not indeed as trinomial, but as those who are D perfected in Christ, one in concord and in nature. Maced. I also speak of one concord. Orth. Speak also of nature, so that you may be blessed. Maced. I cannot say one nature. Orth. Say then that they are dissimilar. Maced. I do not say this either. Orth. You are, therefore, neither cold, according to the scriptural...
DIALOGUE I AGAINST THE MACEDONIANS
A nor cold; for if you were cold, you would call the natures dissimilar; but if you were hot, you would call them similar in all respects. Maced. I say that the nature of the Son differs in no way. Orth. But is a nature that differs in no way from a nature, the same nature? For he is likewise immortal, likewise holy, likewise incorruptible, likewise immutable. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are likewise those things which have been mentioned. There is, therefore, one nature, by the account of identity. Maced. But I say that the Son is subjected to the Father, and how can I speak of one nature? Orth. Do you speak of subjection by nature, or by economy and disposition? Maced. By nature. Orth. Therefore, do you speak of the nature as dissimilar? Maced. God forbid! Orth. When the Prophet says: “You have subjected all things under his feet, sheep and all oxen, and furthermore the cattle of the field,” does he say that the nature of irrational creatures is subjected to the nature of humans? Maced. Yes. Orth. But is the nature of cattle dissimilar to the human nature? Maced. Yes. Orth. If he says: “He has subjected peoples under us and nations under our feet,” does he not speak not of nature to nature, but of the slavery of sin subjected to the freedom of the faith? Maced. Yes. Orth. Are the cattle, therefore, subjected to us in one way, and the nations in another? Maced. Yes. Orth. If the Scripture says: “Servants, be subject to your masters according to the flesh, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward,” does it not hint that cattle are one way, nations another, and servants another? For cattle are subject by nature, nations by faith, and servants by law. For it is possible for servants to be superior in virtue to their masters. Maced. It is admitted that there are other and other modes of subjection. Orth. And not only that, but we ourselves are subject to one another C through love, not like cattle naturally, nor like nations by faith, nor like servants by law. Maced. Neither as cattle, nor as nations, nor as servants, but through the love of the Lord. Orth. The Son, therefore, being subjected to the Father, is he subjected as cattle are to humans by nature, or as servants by law, or as a sinner by faith, or as the Son by love? But the Son, being subjected to the Father, has the same nature, not by the nature of the Godhead, but by the economy of humanity. For the one who is subjected has a certain will, which he suppresses in order to do the will of the one commanding; but the will of the Father and of the Son is one, by the account of the Godhead.
19. Maced. How then is it written: “Becoming obedient unto death,” and, “When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all”? Orth. For having taken the form of a servant, existing in the form of God, it was necessary that, having assumed the subjection of the servile form, he should be subjected for our sake to his own Father, not by the nature of the Godhead, but by the union of the servile form which he took. And why do you think that the nature of the Son is diminished from the fact that he is subjected to the Father? If, therefore, you hear that the Word of God is subjected, will you therefore also consider [him] inferior to humans in nature? Maced.…
Where is it written that he was also subjected to humans? Orth. Mary was human, and Joseph was human, and he was subjected to them, as it is written in the Gospels. For when they had found him in the temple, the evangelist says, they said to him: "Child, why have you treated us like this? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you in distress." And he said to them: "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" And he went down to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. Was the Only-Begotten of God, therefore, the Savior of the world, B inferior to Joseph and Mary? Maced. By no means, God forbid! Orth. In the same way, even if he is said to be subjected to the Father, he is not thereby diminished according to his nature; but as the Son, who was pleased to take the form of a servant, he also took on the subjection of the servile form; for being in this, he was also subjected to Mary. Maced. But he himself called the Father his God. How then can the same nature be one [for both]? Orth. Is the Son of God God by nature and man by the assumption of flesh, or not? Maced. He is. Orth. Therefore, by reason of his divinity, God is his Father, but by reason of his humanity, [God is his] God. Maced. I say that God himself is of both natures. Orth. Remember that saying of his: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." (John xx, 17). Is it not so? Maced. It is so. Orth. Is he therefore his Father in the same way as he is ours? Maced. No. Orth. But is he his [Father] by nature, and ours by grace? For having become partakers of Christ, we who were far off by nature were found near, so that God is called our Father. Maced. That is so. Orth. Just as we, therefore, having become partakers of Christ, have God as our Father, so also the Son, being the Word and God, having partaken of blood and flesh, had God as his Father, so that he could say: "From my mother’s womb you are my God" (Ps. xxi, 11). And the Word was made from the womb of his mother when the Virgin conceived and bore Emmanuel, and in this way he is subjected, having taken the form of a servant. Maced. He himself says: "My Father is greater than I" (John xiv, 28). Orth. And the word "greater" is used in many ways in holy Scripture. Maced. Do you also refer this word "greater" to the flesh? Orth. Let us see with the fear of God what the mind of Scripture is, and in how many ways it uses the word "greater." Maced. Let us see. Orth. In the Gospel, the Son says: "The Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John x, 29, 30). And it is said concerning Esau: "That the greater shall serve the lesser" (Gen. xxv, 23); and, "Saul was greater than all the people" (I Reg. x, 23); and, "Charity is greater than all" (I Cor. xiii, 13); and, "The mustard seed, when it has grown, is greater than all herbs" (Luc. xiii, 19). These things are written, or not? Maced. They are written. Orth. Do you therefore say that Esau is greater than Jacob in exactly the same way as you say Saul was [greater] than other men, or as charity is [greater] than hope and faith? Maced. I do. Orth. You speak well. For Saul, in the stature of his body...
was said to be greater than other men; but charity is said to be greater than faith and hope, as it is the cause of the growth of the other virtues; for when we love, we believe, and when we believe, we A hope. Maced. I admit this too. Orth. Do you then speak of the Father as greater than all, in the same way as charity is [greater] than hope in quality, or as Esau [was greater] than Jacob in time, or as Saul [was greater] than the other men in stature? Maced. No. For the Father is greater than all by an incomparable excellence. Orth. If, therefore, the Father is greater than all by an incomparable excellence, [it is] neither as Esau [was greater] than Jacob in time, nor as Saul [was greater] than the other men in stature, nor as charity is [greater] than faith and hope in quality. Maced. How then? Orth. Because he who is greater than all by an incomparable excellence is likewise and in the same manner greater than all, and not more so to one and less so to another. Maced. You speak truly. Orth. Do you then, in the same way, say that the Father is greater than the Son, [as he is greater] than horses, and dogs, and all brute animals, and inanimate matter? Maced. No, God forbid! Orth. Therefore, he is not greater than all by an incomparable excellence. For he is [only] Father to the Son. Maced. By comparison, then? Orth. I said: as Father to the Son. For, while excelling B the others with an incomparable excellence, he is not greater than the Son with an incomparable excellence, but [greater] as Father to the Son. If, however, he is not greater than him with an incomparable excellence, he is not greater by nature; for [otherwise] he would be incomparable. And if he is not greater by nature, neither is he by stature, for he is without stature; nor by time, for he is timeless; nor by quality, for he is without quality. Therefore, he does not call the Father greater than himself in any other respect than as the Son, who took the form of a servant and honors his own Father. Maced. I admit this. Orth. The nature of the Father and the Son is therefore the same, since he does not call the Father greater than himself by an incomparable excellence. For he would not be the Son if he did not possess the same nature. And if this is so, he is not then subjected by nature, but as the Son who took the form of a servant. C
20. Maced. You speak well concerning the Son; but not well concerning the Spirit. For even if the Spirit is not created, he is yet made. For all things were made through the Son. If all things, then certainly the Spirit, too. Orth. If he is made, he is also created. For if what is made is not created, and all things were made through him, then all things are certainly not created. But if this is so, how shall we understand that which was said by Paul: "All things D were created in him"? Maced. But all things are not held in equal honor. Orth. Even if they are not held in equal honor, all things are nevertheless created. But one creature does not differ from another in so far as it is a creature. Maced. Does Gabriel, then, not differ from a horse, or any other of the brute animals? Orth. In so far as he is a creature, he does not differ; but in so far as he is an angel, a ministering spirit sent for service, not only to the brute animals, but also to us men.
A and of the angels, being an archangel. For the eye, in so far as it is an eye, is more honorable than the other members of the body; yet it is not the body.
Maced. We say that he has his being from God through the Son. Orth. Are not all other things which do not have their being from God through the Son, creatures? Maced. Yes. Orth. Therefore the Spirit is also a creature. Maced. I do not call him a creature, since it is not written. Orth. Do not call him formed, since it signifies exactly the same thing. Maced. But it is written: “All things were made through him,” and it is written: “All things are thy servants.” Orth. Do you therefore call the Spirit a servant? Maced. God forbid! Orth. Therefore he is not numbered along with all these things. Maced. Do you then say there are three that are not made? Orth. But not without cause, nor without a Father. For even if the Spirit is not made, yet he is not without a cause of his origin; for he has God as his cause, whose Spirit he is. And although the Son is not made, yet he is not without a Father; for he has God as his Father, from whom he is also begotten. But the Father is both not made, and has neither cause nor Father. B Maced. So the Spirit was not made through the Son? Orth. God forbid! For how does the Father speak of placing him upon the Son, if he were made through the Son himself? Maced. Where is it written that the Father places the Spirit upon the Son? Orth. “Behold my beloved Servant, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will place my Spirit upon him.” Maced. He does not mean the Spirit by this. Orth. Is there then another Spirit of the Father? Maced. The Father himself is Spirit; and when he says, “I will place my Spirit upon him,” he means his power. Orth. When therefore he says, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him,” does he mean his power? Maced. No, but he means the Spirit himself, the Paraclete. Orth. He spoke, therefore, of one thing to the prophet to be placed upon him, and of another to John. Maced. What he said to John that he would place upon him is the Paraclete; but what he said through the prophet, he calls his own power. Orth. Does God have two Spirits? Maced. God himself is Spirit; and his power is also called Spirit. Orth. This power is the Spirit, subsistent. Maced. I do not understand what is meant by subsistent; he said he would place his power. Orth. His power, which he said he would place, subsists in itself. Maced. It is God himself. C Orth. And yet, when he had said to John: “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, like a dove, and remaining upon him,” and when John had seen it, he added the voice signified by the prophet: “This is my beloved Son, in whom my soul is well pleased.” Do you see that the same words are placed in both cases, so that we may not think that one Spirit was spoken of through the prophet, and another to John? Next, learn from Luke what is written. For after the Spirit had descended and remained upon him, and the voice had been uttered, he says: “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” Maced. So the Holy Spirit is the fullness of Christ?
A Orth. The evangelist says that Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit. Maced. Therefore he says the Spirit of the Son is greater. Orth. God forbid! Maced. If he filled the Son, if he is led by the Spirit, he is greater than he. Orth. And again I say, God forbid that this should be said! But just as when you hear that the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, neither do you conceive of a place in God, nor do you consider the Son to be greater, but you understand the identity of nature from the surpassing honor; so if you hear that Jesus is full of the Holy Spirit, do not think of it as a fullness of deficiency, nor consider the Spirit to be greater; but, from the surpassing honor and union, understand the identity of nature in three perfect hypostases. As to the fact that the Spirit is upon the Son himself, hear him also saying to the Jews: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me,” and Peter: “That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power.” Maced. I am unlearned; I will bring my teacher, and he shall dispute with you. Orth. May you obtain the pious reflection to take God as your teacher! So that you might not be following men, but God, who said: “Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Amen. B
OF THE SAME ATHANASIUS
C Another disputation against a Macedonian, on the question: Did the Word of God possess an ensouled body?
MACEDONIANUS. You are not only wrong in saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, but also in affirming that the Lord, having become incarnate, had a soul. ORTHODOXUS. We do not only act piously by saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, but also by confessing that, having become incarnate, he had a soul. Nor do you do anything great by denying the consubstantiality, if you deny that he had a soul. For this is the characteristic of those who speak of different substances and dissimilarity. For in order to say that the substance of the Only-begotten is subject to suffering, they call it inanimate, and from this they construct the dissimilarity. Maced. But we do not say there is dissimilarity, but we do say it was inanimate. Orth. Do you admit that at the time of death He began to be sorrowful and troubled, as is written in the Gospel according to Matthew, and in the Gospel according to Mark, “He began to be amazed and troubled”? Maced. Yes. Orth. Is it the Godhead that is troubled and amazed at death, or the inanimate body? Maced. Clearly the Godhead incarnate. Orth. Is the Godhead of the Son, then, dissimilar to the Godhead of the Father? Maced. God forbid! Orth. If it is troubled and amazed at death, how can it be similar and unchanged to Him who is neither troubled, nor sorrowful, nor amazed? D Maced. Because He had a human body, He is troubled.
Orth. But is a body without a soul not troubled, not amazed, and not sorrowful? Maced. But instead of a soul, it had divinity. Orth. Did the body cause the divinity to be amazed, or the divinity the body? Maced. Because of the body, the divinity was amazed. Orth. Was the divinity then troubled by the body, just as our ruling faculty is? Maced. God forbid that I should say so! Orth. You must admit, then, that there was a soul that was troubled. Maced. God forbid! Orth. How then can you listen to the angel saying to Joseph: "Take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt: for Herod will seek the young child's life [soul] 13;" and again: "Arise, and take Mary thy wife, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life [soul] 14;" and the Lord Himself says: "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life [soul] for the sheep 15;" and again: "When I will, I lay it down, and when I will, I take it again 16?" Maced. But when we hear the Father saying: "Your new moons and your sabbaths my soul hateth 17," shall we on that account say that the Father also has a soul? Orth. B You have not considered the passage which you have brought forward. For you cannot demonstrate that it is the Father who is saying these things. Maced. Whose voice is it, then? Orth. It is the Son of God, who said: "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider 18." Maced. Is this He who says: "Your new moons and your sabbaths my soul hateth?" Orth. Certainly. For He hated them at the time when He became man and established the New Covenant. Maced. But did He have a soul when He was seen by Isaiah? Orth. Just as He had neither corporeal hands and feet, nor even corporeal garments before the incarnation, when He said: "They pierced my hands and my feet: and upon my vesture did they cast lots 19," but was speaking of things that were to come to pass, so also when He spoke of a soul, He said: "My soul hateth." Maced. Let it be, indeed, the voice of the Son: but does the Son speak also when He says: "Behold my servant, my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him 20?" Orth. It is confessed that it is the Father here, not the Son, who is speaking; yet the Father does not speak in this way because He has a soul, but calls the soul of every holy person His own soul. Whosoever, therefore, is an anima that is well-pleased in the Son, this, He says, is My soul. For just as a just man is called a man of God, so also a just soul is called a soul of God, and is one. C Maced. What then is "well-pleased" (εὐδοκία)? Orth. The prophet Isaiah interprets "well-pleased" as "accepted," where he writes: "Jacob my servant, I will take hold of him: Israel mine elect, my soul hath accepted him. I have put my Spirit upon him." Whosoever, therefore, is an anima that has accepted Him whom I show to you as My servant, this is My soul. D Maced. We improperly say that the Father has spoken the word
A regarding the Father, for neither does the Father speak, having a soul: "In whom My soul is well pleased," nor does He speak of the soul of men, as you imagine. Orth. Let us grant that it is said improperly concerning the Father; is it also said improperly concerning the Son? Maced. Yes. Orth. If then the Father is also called a man, it is said improperly; and if regarding the Father, shall we then say that the Son is also a man improperly? Maced. Where is it written that the Father is improperly a man? Orth. The Son Himself in the Gospels calls him a man. Maced. Read me where He calls him a man. Orth. When He says, "A certain man made a marriage for his son," what kind of man does He mean? And when He says, "A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen," what kind of man do you understand? Maced. In the parable, the Father. Orth. Therefore, since in parables He calls the Father a man, and in that same parable B He also says that He Himself, as Christ, the man sent after the servants, was sent, should we say that the Son Himself also took on humanity improperly? Maced. God forbid! Orth. But if we hear of the "face of the Father," which the angels of the little ones behold, as it is written in the Gospels; and if we also hear of the "face of the Son," which shone on the mountain and which the servant struck—shall we understand the meanings in the same way; or shall we name the body's face as one thing, and the other, which is the hypostasis, as a face called improperly? Maced. By common consent, it is attributed differently to the Father and differently to the Son. Orth. Then, if soul is attributed improperly to the Father, it does not follow that it is also attributed improperly to the Son. It is the madness of the Manichaeans to teach that the Son of God was not made man. Maced. We confess that He was made man; but that He assumed a soul, we do not. Orth. Do not say only that He was made man, but also that He was made flesh. For if He did not take an ensouled C body, He was not made man either. Maced. Why so? Orth. Because a soulless body, that which has not participated in a rational soul, is not a human body. But why, like "the deaf adder and the one stopping her ears, which will not hear the voice of the charmer," do you so hear Peter saying in the Acts of the Apostles that "neither was His soul left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption"? And the prophet Isaiah cries out: "If you give your soul for sin, you shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord will prosper in His hand to remove the pain of His soul, to show Him light, and to form the understanding, to make righteous the innocent one who serves well many; and He Himself shall bear their sins. Therefore He shall possess many, and divide the spoils of the strong. For the reason that His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the lawless, and He Himself bore the sins of many, and was delivered up because of their iniquity." D Maced. And we know that it is said in many places in Scripture that He had a soul; but it is said improperly, not truly. Orth. Whatever, therefore, of human things are said of Him, such as are—
hearing, sight, sense of smell, voice, taste, desire, sadness, amazement, anxiety, walking,—are these said in a figurative sense, and not truly? Maced. All these things previously mentioned are said truly; but "soul" is said in a figurative sense. Orth. And He who deigned to be united to a body composed and fashioned of bones, and nerves, and veins, and arteries, and other members and parts—did He not have a soul? Maced. What need had Life for a soul? Orth. And what need had He for flesh, He who was seen by our fathers even without flesh? Maced. He had need of flesh, in order that He might be crucified. Orth. And in order to be saddened, and to be anxious, and to be terrified, and to be in Hades, He had need of a soul. For this is what "taking the form of a servant" signifies, not only to appear in a body, but also to take on the passions of servitude. Maced. He took the form of a servant when He took on flesh. B Orth. Is the form of God the perfect form of God? Maced. Yes. Orth. Therefore, the form of a servant is the perfect form of a servant. It is for this reason that there is also amazement, and sadness, and anxiety, because the form of the servant is perfect. And this is that sheep which, having sought and found it, He carries upon His shoulders—not an inanimate vessel, but an animate living creature—permitting it to have passions, not indeed those of sin, but those of nature, lest it be thought to be a fantasy, and the Manichæan rave. Maced. Let us grant that your discourse on the soul is beautiful; but what is the reason that you call the Son consubstantial with the Father? Orth. Because whatever definition you give for the substance of the Father, that same definition we posit for the substance of the Son. Maced. But that is not consubstantial, but similar in substance. C Orth. To say "similar in substance"—if I may use the expression—is rustic wisdom; just as if someone were to say that being of the same character is the same as being "similar in character," or being of the same species the same as "similar in species," or having the same glory the same as "similar in glory," or having the same opinion the same as "similar in opinion." Maced. By no means; but "similar in substance" is used concerning incorporeal beings, while "consubstantial" corresponds to corporeal beings. Orth. I said it was rustic wisdom; for it would have been more appropriate for you to say that "similar in substance" applies to bodies, in which similarity falls, but that "consubstantial" applies to incorporeal beings, in which identity falls—for "constantial" is of the same substance. Maced. But consubstantial things have a pre-existing substance. Orth. You do not speak the truth; for Eve is consubstantial with Adam, and yet they do not have a pre-existing substance of humans. Maced. But they have the earth as a pre-existing substance. D Orth. Yet they are not consubstantial for this reason, because they are from the earth, but because they admit the same definition of substance. Maced. But for this very reason I say they are consubstantial, because they are from the same substance, namely, from the earth. Orth. Then you must also say that dogs, and serpents, and all other living creatures are consubstantial with humans; and not only brute animals, but also plants and whatever else has sprung from the earth. For all earthly things are called by the same name, but they do not admit the same definition of substance. Maced. I am not a follower of Aristotle. Orth. Neither am I. Maced. But Aristotle said that the definition of substance for homonyms, or those which share a common name, is different. Orth. You