I became. A Orth. You have learned, then, that he who speaks of the Father as bishop, and the Son as presbyter, and the Spirit as deacon, speaks of them as consubstantial. And by saying this, you have considered yourself a Christian until the present time. But if he who says this is not judged by you to be a Christian, then you have condemned yourself, and by your own mouth you have been judged not to be a Christian. Anom. Is, then, he who speaks of consubstantiality not a Christian? Orth. He who speaks of consubstantiality is a Christian; but he who thinks that one who speaks of consubstantiality is not a Christian, and yet says it himself, will find that he is condemning himself, like that wicked servant, condemned out of his own mouth. Anom. For how was I found to be saying this? Orth. You said, "We speak of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit as bishop, presbyter, and deacon." Anom. I confess that I said: as bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Orth. But bishop, presbyter, and deacon are consubstantial; therefore, you have confessed that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial. Anom. Do you wish, then, to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are like spiced wine mixed together? Orth. Do you not even know that it is you who say this? Anom. How? Orth. Because you term the nature of the Father one thing, and that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another, as if of wine, honey, and pepper. But we say: If the Father is wine gladdening the heart, and the Son is wine gladdening the heart, B and the Spirit is wine gladdening the heart, in such a way that the Father is above honey and honeycomb. You, therefore, and not we, compare the Father and Son and Holy Spirit to spiced wine, since you introduce dissimilar natures.
OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS, ATHANASIUS: DIALOGUE II ON THE HOLY TRINITY, IN WHICH AN ORTHODOX PERSON AND AN ANOMOEAN ARIAN LIKEWISE DISPUTE.
C ANOMOEAN. 1. To all who are of sound mind it is admitted, that that which is from another is posterior in origin to that from which it is, as from a cause. Orthodox. Not entirely. Anom. Are you not from your father, and posterior to your father D?
A Orthodox. I am from my father, and am after my father, and am outside of my father; but the light is from the sun, and it is not after the sun, nor is it outside the sun, but it is with the sun, and in the sun, and together with the sun; and the fragrance is from the ointment, and is neither after the ointment, nor outside the ointment, but it is with the ointment, and in the ointment, and together with the ointment; and the intellective faculty is from the mind, and it is not after the mind, nor outside the mind, but with the mind, and in the mind, and together with the mind; and the volition is from the one who wills, and it is not outside the one who wills, nor after the one who wills, but with the one who wills, and in the one who wills, and together with the one who wills; and wisdom is from the wise, and is neither after the wise, nor outside the wise, but with the wise, and in the wise, and together with the wise; and power is from the powerful, and is neither after the powerful, nor outside the powerful, but in the powerful, and with the powerful, and together with the powerful. B Thus, therefore, we conceive of the Son of God as being from God, and not after God, nor outside of God, but with God, and in God, and together with God.
Anom. But the volition, and the wisdom, and the power are not a substance subsisting in itself; the Son of God, however, is a substance in his own hypostasis.
Orthodox. Even in this, corporeal sons cannot be compared to Him; for although I am indeed a son of my father, I am not his wisdom, I am not his power, I am not his volition, I am not his word, I am not his radiance, I am not in the Father myself. My Father is not in me, nor do I work as my Father works. But the Son of God is not only Son, C but also power, and wisdom, and Word, and volition, and radiance, so that from the fact that He is Son, that which is subsistent might be understood; and from the fact that He is wisdom, and power, and Word, and volition, and radiance, that He is understood to be with the Father, and in the Father, and together with the Father, and not second, nor after the Father, nor outside the Father. For because of this the prophet cries out, saying: "O Lord our God, give us peace; for You have rendered all things to us. O Lord our God, we know none other beside You." For the Son is not known apart from the Father, but in the Father, and with the Father, and together with the Father, as radiance of glory, as character of hypostasis, as wisdom of the wise, as power of the powerful, D as Word of the mind.
Anom. But the radiance of the light is not a son; the character of the hypostasis is not a son; the wisdom of the wise is not a son; the power of the powerful is not a son.
Orthodox. The power of the powerful is indeed not his son; and the wisdom of the wise is not his son; and the word of the mind is not his son; and the radiance of the glory is not its son; but the Son of God is...
and is the Son of God and his Word, and he is the Son of the wise and his wisdom, and he is the Son of the powerful and his power. And for this reason, when we hear "Son," we understand that which subsists in itself; and when we hear "power," and "Word," and "wisdom," we are taught that it is inseparable and coeternal.
3. [ANOMOEAN]: Do you therefore say that there are two unbegotten A things? [ORTHODOX]: I speak of a Father and a Son; but what is "unbegotten," I have not been taught by the divine Scriptures. [ANOMOEAN]: Is it not confessed, then, that the Father of Christ is not created? [ORTHODOX]: That is confessed by me as well. [ANOMOEAN]: But what has not come to be and exists unbegottenly, exists; it is therefore unbegotten. [ORTHODOX]: That he did not come to be, I know; but to call him "unbegotten," I have not been taught by the divine Scripture, but rather [to call him] Father. [ANOMOEAN]: If he who exists before the ages did not come to be, he exists unbegottenly; and he who exists unbegottenly is unbegotten. [ORTHODOX]: But Scripture did not say "the unbegotten," but it said that he is the Father. That too I say: what Scripture said, and not what falls into the thought of men. For there are many other things that fall into our thoughts, which we refuse to say B about God, as unbecoming, since not even Scripture has said them. [ANOMOEAN]: Such as what? Tell me, I pray. [ORTHODOX]: It is clear that we pray that we may progress toward something better; but God does not progress, for nothing is lacking to him. [ANOMOEAN]: Nothing at all is lacking to him. [ORTHODOX]: He has no need, then, to progress. [ANOMOEAN]: He has no need. [ORTHODOX]: None of us, because he does not progress, calls him "non-progressing," but we refuse the expression as unworthy of God. In the same way, we do not say that "the unbegotten" is worthy of God; for if it were worthy, the divine Scripture would have said it.
4. [ANOMOEAN]: Say then, has God come to be? And by whom has he come to be? [ORTHODOX]: If for this reason it is necessary to call him "unbegotten," because he came to be by nothing, then call him also "unbelieving," because he believes in no one; and call him "impious," because he worships no one. But if the thought suggests these things, while piety does not allow us to say C them, so also with "the unbegotten," even if it seems to fall into our thoughts, yet piety does not allow us to say it. If it were not so, Scripture would have said it by all means. [ANOMOEAN]: Do you not, then, call the God over all "unbegotten"? [ORTHODOX]: If it is written, I say it; but if it is not written, I have no necessity to say it. And that one should not by all means say what falls into our thoughts, it is possible to know also otherwise. It is confessed by all of us that God is invisible, as the holy Paul says: "To the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God" (1 Tim. I, 17). D But he who is incorruptible is not corruptible to himself, while incorruptible to others, but he is incorruptible both to all and to himself. [ANOMOEAN]: Certainly so. [ORTHODOX]: Therefore, since the invisible has been joined to the incorruptible,
let us also say that God himself is invisible to himself (7). B And they have falsified the Gospels according to you, saying: "He who is from the Father, he has seen the Father." But if he who is from the Father sees the Father, and the Father himself sees himself—which he is, and is said, and is believed to be invisible—it must be referred not to himself, nor to the Son who is from him, nor to the Holy Spirit who is from him, but to all creation.
5. Anom. Now I learn that what is acknowledged by all men, this you do not believe. Orth. What is that? Anom. That God is unbegotten, all men who have a right mind acknowledge, but you do not accept it. Orth. I do not say that it is inadmissible for us to acknowledge that he is unbegotten, but that even if it seems to fall under our thoughts, nevertheless, since the expression is nowhere found in the holy Scripture, it is not necessary to use it. For if it were necessary, the holy Scripture would have said so. Anom. Let us say then that he is begotten? Orth. He who says he is begotten (8) acts impiously. For the Scripture has told us what things are begotten, and who the maker of them is. But he who says he is unbegotten, which the Scripture has not said, speaks superfluously. Anom. If he is not begotten, he is unbegotten. Orth. Even if human thought prompts us to conceive this, yet the holy Scripture has not taught us so; but you hear it saying: "As far as the east is from the west, so far do your thoughts differ from my own thoughts." But if Eunomius thinks he has discovered what God is, from the fact that he is not begotten and has no maker, let him also call him godless, since he has no God. C But if it is not right to say this, even if it does fall under our thoughts, then let "unbegotten" not be said either, even if it does fall under our thoughts. Anom. Did God then come into being? Orth. He did not come into being. Anom. Is he then unbegotten? Orth. Does God have a God? Anom. Certainly not, he who is unbegotten. Orth. He is therefore godless. And do you see (10), how childish and servile your thoughts are? Therefore, rather following the holy Scripture, let us say Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, God; and we do not fear to suffer shipwreck concerning the faith. For the "unbegotten" is the discovery of a flying eagle seeking food (11), whose track cannot be found fixed in any place; for it has no place in the Scripture where it may set its feet. Anom. Take, read the epistle of Aetius, and speak against it. Orth. You read it yourself. Anom. There are also scholia of Eunomius with it. Orth. And read those as well. D They are one with it together with the scholia of Eunomius.
A 6. Scholia of Eunomius, and the response of the Orthodox to them.
Volition and will are not the same as the substance of God; for the will both commences and ceases, but the substance neither commences nor ceases. But that which commences and ceases cannot be the same as that which neither commences nor ceases. Besides, if the will were the same as the substance of God, it would be necessary that, since there is one substance, there should be one will; yet, according to the teaching of the divine Scriptures, it is found that there is not one will, but many wills, since Scripture says, “Everything that He willed, He did;” He willed many things, therefore, and not just one thing. It is more B evident to see this in the creation of the world. He willed the world to be, and it came into existence according to His will, and that which was made continues. But that perseverance is one thing, and the will for its creation is another; for He declared that He would also transform the world. Because, therefore, He willed it, He transforms it. And not only are the wills many, but they are also diverse. For He willed the heaven, He willed the sun, and He willed the earth. Since the things willed are diverse, it is necessary that the wills concerning them should also differ; and this applies likewise to intelligible things.
Orth. If, therefore, even according to you, the will—or rather, the volition—is not the same as the substance, and all things that have been made are works of His will, acknowledge the Son to be from the substance; for thus you will acknowledge Him as the Only-begotten, because He alone is from the substance. For if the Son is also of the will, He is not the Only-begotten, since many things have been generated by will. For it is written: “By His will He brought us forth by the word of truth.” There are not many wills, as you imagined; for it is not because the works are diverse that the wills are also necessarily diverse; but just as God, by a single will, making man out of diverse limbs and parts, created eyes, ears, nostrils, hair, intestines—and arranged the structure of the intestines in various ways—the spleen, the liver, the kidneys, and whatever else is in us: so also does He create the whole world by a single will.
7. Anom. If the Father is greater than the Son, and if He is greater, in what is He greater? Is He greater in bulk of body, or according to the nature of ingeneracy? And is that which is unbegotten a substance, or is it nothing?
Orth. It is written that the Father is greater than the Son, C but not in bulk, nor in time, nor in nature, but as the Father of the Son who assumed humanity. Because of this incarnation, the Apostle also says that He was made lower than the angels, writing: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.” Because of this incarnation, He was also in subjection to Mary and to Joseph. “For He was being in subjection to them,” as is written in the Gospel. D Anom. But by nature—
A as it is written in the Gospel. Anom. But is that which is greater by nature in respect to the unbegotten something, or is it nothing, as we said before? Orth. It is nothing by nature, for it is not a substance. If, therefore, He is greater in respect to the unbegotten, and the unbegotten is nothing, then He is greater in respect to nothing. But he who is greater than nothing is equal in all things. For the Father is surely not inferior to the Son. Anom. Do you therefore say that the unbegotten is equal to that which is begotten? And how then is it true, the word of Him who says: “The Father who sent me is greater than I”? Orth. Being unbegotten, in the case of God and the Father, is not a substance, but is indicative B of the fact that God has no Father. And because of this, no one is greater than another simply because he does not have a father. For neither Adam had a father, nor Eve; yet they are consubstantial with us. But how, while philosophizing about the unbegotten and the begotten, did you, as if forgetting yourself, add: “The Father who sent me is greater than I”? For you ought rather, staying consistent with yourself, to have said: “The Unbegotten who sent me is greater than I.” But this is not written; therefore you do not speak correctly. “Do not argue much, lest you be confounded.” For you are not wiser than Daniel, much less than the Spirit, who taught us that the Father is God, but not that He is unbegotten.
8. Anom. For if by size the Father is greater, the Unbegotten will be composite, even though He is simple and without form; since a mass is a composite and divisible thing, for every mass consists of parts and has a composition of parts, which C to say regarding God is absurd. Orth. To attribute composition and mass to God is indeed absurd, truly absurd. But the Son also, even if you are unwilling, is God, non-composite, simple, and without form even as He is; and to speak of composition and mass in His regard is absurd. If this is so, then "greater" will not be found in these things. But He who is acknowledged to be equal to the Father in simplicity, and in the fact that He is neither composite nor has a form, and in His divine nature—He calls the Father greater, having taken the form of a servant and honoring His own Father. You hear Him, therefore, saying: “But I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.” And: “The Father honors the Son,” having seated Him at His right hand, and drawing all to Him. For the Son Himself says: D “No one comes to me, if the heavenly Father does not draw him to me.”
9. Anom. Furthermore, if there is something which is unbegotten, is this the whole of it or a part? But if it is a part, it is again unlike itself, since one part of Him is unbegotten, but the other is not. But if the whole nature is unbegotten, and the Father is greater in every way, the matter immediately falls into a change of substance. For if the whole substance is unbegotten, and no part of it is begotten—
the Son is truly unlike Him in that, because He is not unbegotten, and it follows from the reason of the whole essence that He is unlike the Father. What do you say then, except that He is not unbegotten, and in that He is not unbegotten, He is surpassed by the Son? A But "unbegotten" will be nothing greater than the Son, which is said to be outside the substance of the Father. And if the superiority is outside the Father’s substance, then equality is in the substance itself. But it is greater for the Son that it is unbegotten, which to all is nothing; and the equal will be in the Son, that thing being unbegotten, while these are begotten. Orth. We must not seize what is not written, but the kingdom of heaven. Why then do you seize what neither the Scripture grants you, nor we? For none of us grants you that the Father is greater because He is unbegotten. For not even the Son said, "He who is unbegotten is greater than I," but "the Father," to whom He was about to go. For He speaks thus: "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I." B He goes, however, in that He took the form of a servant; but in that He is God, He has the Father in Himself, saying, "I in the Father, and the Father in me," and, "I and the Father are one; he who has seen me has seen the Father. The Father who dwells in me, He does the works." Do not, therefore, sow tares in the field of divine Scripture, that he is unbegotten and unlike; but if you wish to philosophize on these words, philosophize rather on the names of "incorruptible" and "immortal." For these are the seeds of the field of Scripture: as if it is immortal, it is either entirely so or in part; but if in part, then He will be unlike Himself again, if indeed one part of Him is immortal and the other not. But if the whole nature is incorruptible and immortal, and the Father is altogether immortal and incorruptible, then the Son also will immediately be found to be the same in substance. C For if the whole substance is incorruptible and immortal, and no part of it is contrary to this, surely there is identity in the whole essence. How then does anyone dare to say He is unlike? You say He is the image of His energy or efficacy. But if energy is the same as substance, then the Son will surely be the image of the substance. We ask, therefore: Did He beget, or not? They say, yes. From the substance, or from his will? Not from the substance, he says, but from the will. For you yourself say that goodness and will are either another thing than the substance, or the same as the substance. If you say they are the same, D and that the Father begat from his will and goodness, thus you also say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father: which you by no means wish. But you also say that all things were made through the Son from the will of God. But if will is the same as substance, then all things will be consubstantial with God, whether they be reptiles, or things that swim, and all the rest of the things: "For all things whatsoever He willed, He made in heaven and in earth." Thus, therefore, if from what you say the Son is the image of efficacy,
is He not also in no way different in substance? A If, therefore, you attempt to overthrow those who are of your own opinion, you have refuted them; but if you are attempting to overthrow the true doctrine, you do not appear to me to have even heard it. For the Apostle said that the Son is the image of His substance: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance," or the character of the hypostasis. For the character of the hypostasis is nothing other than the image of the substance. And that the will and the substance are not the same, this is our argument. For this reason we say that the Son is a begetting from the substance, but we ourselves are from the will. According to you, also, the will is not the same as the substance; but the substance neither began nor ceases. Therefore, the image neither began nor ceased. But the will both begins and ceases. Keep, therefore, for yourself those who say that the will and the substance are the same. We, for our part, will and confess and believe the Son to be consubstantial with the Father. And for this reason we also believe Him to be the Only-Begotten: because He alone, as has been said before, was begotten from the substance, while all others are from the will. But when we say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, we do not say that He is consubstantial with Himself, for no one is consubstantial with himself. B But if you in truth confess that all things were made from the will of the Father through the Son, and with the others you also say that the Son was made, you must also allow that He was made by Himself: which, if it is absurd, then the Son is not of the will. For if "whatsoever the Father does, these also the Son does in like manner," the Son will also make another son, in order that He may perform all things in like manner to the Father. But if He did not do so, nor does He do so, He Himself is not a creature. For He speaks truly when He says: "Whatsoever the Father does, these also the Son does in like manner." But the Son does not make Himself; therefore He is not a created thing. But you will say: Christ did not say, "All things which He has made," but "which He does"; understand that it is the custom of Scripture to use the present tense for past things, as in that: "Who makes His angels spirits," and in another: "Who established the earth upon its stability," and: "Who makes the Pleiad, and the evening, and Arcturus, and the secret places of the south."
10. Anomoean. Before all things and above all things, one must ask them what the "ungotten" signifies. If it declares the substance, which is true, such will be the discrepancy. Orthodox. And we, before all things, ask what "begotten" signifies. For if it declares the substance, which is false, all begotten things will be consubstantial; but if not all begotten things are consubstantial, which is true, then the begotten is not substance. And if the begotten is not substance, neither is the unbegotten substance. But if the unbegotten is substance, and the begotten is not substance, then begotten things are without substance. What then do you say of the disparate? For that which is not
to that which is, is neither similar nor dissimilar. A We, however, say that the Son is indeed begotten, but not made. For "begotten" is that which has a father, while "made" is that which has a maker.
From the Epistle of Aetius, the teacher of Eunomius
Since, in the time of the persecution brought upon us by the Chronitae, some of those aforesaid, perverting along with other theories a little work of ours laboriously and specially composed regarding the begotten God and the unbegotten God, published it after corrupting it with additions and subtractions, and having altered the sequence of the argument; and since after this it came to us, someone of our earnest followers having brought it to me, I was compelled, B both as a father and as one clearing it up again, to send the work to you, O all you pious contestants, both men and women; so that you might know how the little discourse was spoken by us according to the sense of the Scriptures, through which you might be able to restrain every man attempting to argue against you regarding "begotten" and "unbegotten" by means of concise reversals, and most of all the aforesaid Chronitae; having separated [the argument] into the form of a questioning of questions and a solution of solutions, because of the ready grasp and clarity of the arguments, having made the beginning concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten.
11. Orth. C Do not boast because you were persecuted, if indeed you were persecuted. Even the Son himself persecuted those who had turned the house of His Father into a house of trade: if so, then it is not altogether praiseworthy if one suffers persecution. Nor is it for this reason that Aetius calls us "Chronitae," or "temporalists," because we have the beginning of our faith from a certain time. Not at all. But it is because we say that the Son is begotten from the Father; yet to the Arians, "to be begotten" is temporal. But whom do you call Chronitae? Those who from the holy apostles down to today praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or your own, who appeared yesterday and today, and who labor under heresy, having abandoned the holy name of the Father and the Son, and who rise up against Him who taught to baptize into the name of the Father, D and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, [alt-version omitted]
and who think themselves wiser than Him who taught the Father to be Father and Himself to be Son? But pray, let us grant that some have added or inserted something into this wickedness of yours that has been written; what do you say now? What greater blasphemy do you devise, you who say that the Son is dissimilar in substance? Can you say anything more than this? Do not both Jews and Greeks say the same thing—they who do not believe Him to be God—and is it for this reason that they say these things concerning Him which you say, setting before us the words "unbegotten" and "begotten," and having abandoned the Father and the Son, which is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles B foolishness? And do you wish to be yourself the father of those who fight for a begotten and an unbegotten God? But if it were even granted to you to baptize in the name of the "unbegotten" and the "begotten," what will you do when the Spirit is to be named? Will you call Him neither begotten nor unbegotten, or perhaps also "begotten"? And how, according to your opinion, does that which is begotten differ in substance from the begotten, if the begotten is a substance?
42. *Anom.* If God cannot cause that which is begotten not to be begotten, He could not even cause that which is not begotten to be begotten. *Orth.* Even if it is impossible for Him to make the begotten unbegotten, just as it is impossible for Him to lie, still, the faculty of begetting is not taken away from Him, nor C the faculty of speaking the truth. For the One who begets does not beget an "unbegotten," but God; for God has begotten God, and has neither made an unbegotten out of a begotten, nor a begotten out of an unbegotten. *Anom.* The unbegotten God is superior to every cause. But if He is superior to every cause, it is evident that He is also superior to generation. For He has not received His being from another nature, nor did He provide it for Himself, not on account of the weakness of His nature, but because He transcends every cause. *Orth.* Truly, that saying, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1, 22), is spoken against you who war against the Son of God. For if, since the unbegotten God is superior to every cause, He is for that reason superior also to generation, then generation is a cause and not a substance. But if generation is not a substance but a cause, state the substance! And what cause do you wish to be the cause of the Son? Is it generation, or the Father Himself? But the Father is, as you think, the unbegottenness. This, then, will be the cause of the Son; but if the Father Himself is not the cause, D the unbegotten God is for this reason superior to generation. But if He is superior to every cause, it is evident that He is also superior to generation. For neither did He... the unbegotten God; for this reason He would be superior even to generation itself. Nor did anyone... He transcended every substance. Truly that which is said... and no more. And it is not. The Father. If, therefore, the Father... And the Father is... Accordingly...
A of the Son, but the generation; of this, then, will the Son be the in-generation, and it itself the Father of him. If, therefore, you are baptized into the Father, you have been baptized into generation, and into the Son thereof. For perhaps you have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. Anomoean: How, then, could anyone allow that the nature which has received subsistence differs in nothing in substance from that which provided the subsistence, if such a hypostasis does not allow of generation? Orthodox: If the nature that received subsistence had come in from outside, it could not be invariable; but if it has been generated from him as the radiance of glory and the character of the hypostasis, it possesses invariability. B For "He who has seen me has seen the Father," not saying that he himself is the Father, but of such a kind as the Father is.
13. Anomoean: If God abides forever in a nature not generated, and that which is generated is perpetually generated, the perverse doctrine of consubstantiality and similarity of essence will immediately be abolished. It is established, however, that substance is devoid of all comparison, if each nature abides unceasingly in the proper property of its nature. Orthodox: You confess that what is generated is truly generated; it will, therefore, be consubstantial, though not ungenerated. For we have shown that the ungenerated is not a substance. For if the ungenerated were a nature, the generated would also be a nature. If the generated were a nature, all generated things would be of the same nature. But if not all generated things are of the same nature, the generated is not a nature; and if the generated is not a nature, neither is the ungenerated a nature. That the Only-Begotten is consubstantial with his own Father, we hear him saying: "All things whatsoever the Father does, these also the Son does in like manner." For where the operation is the same, the substance also is the same. Anomoean: If God is ungenerated in substance, that which is generated was not generated by a separation of substance, but by a power bestowing subsistence upon it. For no pious reason allows one to say that the same substance is both generated and ungenerated. Orthodox: That which is generated was not generated by a separation of substance—for that would be to speak of a corporeal substance—but it was generated from the incorporeal substance, as is fitting for God, as a radiance of glory. But if he himself also is by power, just like those who have received him—for it is written, "He gave them power to become children of God"—how do you call him the Only-Begotten and God by nature, when there are many such sons and gods by power? And yet no one says that the same substance is both generated and ungenerated; for it has been shown that neither is the ungenerated a substance, nor is the generated. Anomoean: If the ungenerated was generated, what prevents the generated also from becoming ungenerated? For rather, the inappropriate is D...
impelled toward that which is its own. Orthodox: The ungenerated neither generated, nor was generated; for it is not a substance. But God did generate, even if the Jews B are unwilling to agree with you. But if He did not generate, the appellation of "Father" would also be superfluous. Yet by saying, "For rather every nature is impelled toward that which is its own," you have taught that the ungenerated is not nature; for that which is impelled is impelled toward something else. But if he is neither Son of what is his own, nor of the nature, say this to the Jews; for you will bring them happy news, that they crucified him who was neither Son of his own nature nor being, since he said that God was his own Father.
14. Anomoean: If God is not wholly ungenerated, nothing prevents him from having generated substantially. But if he is wholly ungenerated, he was not substantially separated for generation, but bestowed subsistence upon the generated by power. Orthodox: If God is wholly generated, nothing prevents C him from having generated substantially. But the Son, as you yourself perceive, is wholly generated. Tell me, therefore, whom he generated substantially. But if he generated no one substantially, and is himself generated; it does not therefore follow, because he is generated, that he generates substantially. But if the Son, by the fact that he is generated, does not beget; then neither does the Father beget, because he is ungenerated; but, since he is God, and glory itself, he has as radiance that Son whom he generated, a God subsisting in himself. For if he did not generate from his substance, he is not Father in substance. And why do you baptize in the name of the Father, who is not Father in substance? But having begotten from his substance, he was not divided as you thought; for the substance is not a body. Anomoean: If the ungenerated God is wholly endowed with the power of generating, that which is generated is not substantially generated, since the whole of his substance has the power to beget, but not to be begotten. Orthodox: According to your wisdom, if the whole light is endowed with the power of generating, it does not generate the radiance D substantially, but receives it from outside, since the whole has the power to beget, but not to be begotten; but if the light does not receive the radiance from outside, but generates it from its own substance, God likewise did not acquire a Son from outside, but, the Son having been generated from his substance, He remains indivisible, since he is incorporeal.
15. Anomoean: But if we say that it is the transformed substance of God that is the generated thing, the substance of God is not immutable, since a change properly formed the Son. Orthodox: If the light, being transformed...
becomes radiance, the light is not free from change, for the change itself produced the proper formation of the radiance. But if the light becomes radiance without being transformed, but the light remains light and is the cause of the radiance; and God remains God and is the Father of His own radiance, not having received it from without, but having generated it from His own substance: for this reason, He is also truly Father. Anom.: If the substance of God were immutable and superior to generation, one would have to confess that the Son exists only in name. Orth.: If you knew that generation is not substance, you would also know that the Son, and any other substance whatsoever, is something superior to generation. For if generation were substance, all generated things would be consubstantial. Therefore, generation is not substance, and consequently it is not superior to substance. For if generation were superior to substance, it would, according to your wisdom, be superior even to the Son. But if this is absurd, it is clear that substance is superior to generation. Therefore, you do not think anything great of the Father, if you say that His substance is superior to generation. And how, if you have been baptized into a bare name, do you think your baptism is secure? Do you not possess it only as far as a bare name? For if "Son" and "Father" are bare names, you were baptized into a bare appellation when you were baptized into the name of the Father and the Son. B
The following appendix in the manuscripts of the illustrious Palatine library coheres in continuous writing with the preceding. FELCK.
16. Anom.: If the generated thing, C existing after generation in a manner like seed, assumes something from without—that he became a man, so to speak, and the Son is perfect—not from what he was generated, but from what he assumed: for things that assume in accordance with the nature of their being, inasmuch as they consist of the things assumed, naturally admit the name of "perfect" in a different way. Orth.: If the radiance is in the light in the manner of seed, then you must say that the Son is in the Father; but if it is foolish to affirm that, then it is also foolish to say that the Son is in the Father in the manner of seed. The Son, however, is perfect, not being perfected by progress, but having been generated perfect from perfect; for this reason, He is called not only radiance but also the character of the hypostasis, and not of the operation. Now, the character of the hypostasis is not perfected by D progress, but possesses perfection in its very being, just as a man is the character of a man’s hypostasis, not by progress, but by the very identity itself. Anom.: If the perfect generated thing exists in the unbegotten, it must be generated from those things from which it existed in the unbegotten, and not from those from which the unbegotten generated it; for it is not possible for a generated nature to be in the unbegotten; for that would be for it both to be and not to be; for it was a generated thing, and it was not a generated thing, which is a profanity to impute to God.
A Orth. If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that commanded all nations to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you would not attempt to obstruct the name of the Father and of the Son, being puffed up in vain with will-worship against Him who taught the true confession. But since, thinking yourself wise, you do not want the Father to be Father, that you might not seem to be wise in your own eyes, hear from us that the Son was, and is, and shall be perfect in the Father. For "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this was in the beginning with God," even if you do not want it, Aetius. And He was not before, and then generated; nor was He generated when He was not; but He is a co-eternal offspring, as the radiance of eternal light. But a generated nature and an unbegotten nature do not have their difference in nature, but in the being generated and the not being generated. For see, even Adam was not generated through a woman; but we have been generated; and we do not have the difference in nature, but in the having been generated and the not having been generated through a woman.
17. Anom. If God, the Almighty, existing of an unbegotten nature, does not know Himself to be of a generated nature, but the Son, existing of a generated nature, knows this which He is, how could they be consubstantial, the one knowing Himself to be unbegotten, the other generated? B Orth. If you consider the unbegotten and the generated to be the natures themselves, and Gabriel also knows himself to be of a generated nature, how would Gabriel not also be consubstantial with the Son? But if, being of a generated nature, Gabriel does not know himself, it is evident that being generated is not a nature. If, however, being generated is not a nature, neither is being unbegotten a nature. But do not call the Son "made" [genēton], the Maker of all things; but call Him "generated" [gennēton], as it is written. For "generated" [gennēton] is that which has a Father, whereas "made" [genēton] is that which has a maker. Our maker, then, is God through the Son; but of the Son, the Father is not a maker, but a Father; for no one is the maker of his own son; for then he would no longer be a father, but a maker. For a maker is one who brings something from the outside into existence; but a father is one who generates from himself. When you hear that God is called a maker, do not imagine fatigue or the hardship of labor; and when you hear that He is called Father, do not seek after a flow, but think of it in a manner worthy of God, so that you may become a god, and not die as a man. D Anom. If "unbegotten" does not represent the substance of God, but is a human concept, God would owe thanks to those who devised that incomparable name, for He Himself does not carry the excellence of the name in His substance. Orth. If "unbegotten" represents the substance of God, and this is the incomparable name of God, how is it that the divine Scriptures did not teach us this? But was Paul, the vessel of election, mistaken, who taught that the imperishable and the invisible belong to Him alone, and not the "unbegotten"? And since you
wish to be wiser than the divine Scriptures, tell me, I pray, whether these do not denote the very hypostasis of God as being incorruptible, invisible, and free from falsehood; for if they do not denote it, he was mistaken when he said: "To the only incorruptible, invisible, and wise God." A For if that which is incomparable is not contained in these, then He is not the only incorruptible and invisible one; but if He alone possesses that which is incorruptible and invisible, that which is incomparable is contained in these, and not in your conception.
18. Anom. If the "unbegotten" is considered extrinsically B toward God, those who have observed the one observed are superior, having acquired for Him a name more excellent than nature.
Orth. Do not insolently exult as if you had discovered the name of God, lest perchance you hear: "And you, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be brought down to hell." That you think more highly of these things than is fitting is evident from the fact that the divinely inspired Scripture proclaims that God said: "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being their God, and I did not declare My name to them"; yet you say that you have found it. C That "unbegotten" is not the name of God is clear from the Lord saying: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." For whatever you say is the name of the Father, you will be compelled to grant is also that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For if it is one thing for the Father, and another for the Son, and another for the Holy Spirit—and you have, as you supposed, found the name of the Father—then name also that of the Son; and if you name that of the Son, name also that of the Holy Spirit, so that you may then hear: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." For that which the Scripture does not say, you will never find. But if you think that "unbegotten" belongs to the Father, and "begotten" to the Son, which of these, then, will you assign to the Spirit?
Anom. Even if the begotten is immutable by nature, it is so because of Him who begot; but the unbegotten is a substance, and therefore it is immutable by its will, D and not because of a dignity in its substance.
Orth. And if the Son of God is not immutable by the dignity of His substance, in what does He differ from other rational powers, since they too possess immutability by the will of Him who created them? And how is it that you hear Him saying: "All things that the Father has are mine," if He does not possess immutability by the dignity of His substance? Accordingly, it is distinguished from the substance of the begotten; but if the unbegotten signifies nothing, then much more does the begotten signify nothing. And how will you distinguish nothing from nothing? But if the utterance of "unbegotten" is contrasted with the utterance of "begotten," then...
A it happens that the hope of Christians also vanishes, being situated in a certain variety of utterance, and not in natures existing as the meaning of the names requires. Orth. Even if it were granted to you to say of God that He is unbegotten, we say that "unbegotten" then signifies not having had [His] substance begotten, just as "truthful" signifies not having a lying substance. But neither is the truth-fullness the substance, nor is the unbegotten [the substance]. For if the unbegotten is substance, then the truthful is also substance; but the Son is also truthful; therefore He is also unbegotten. But He is not unbegotten; therefore, according to you, He is a liar. Therefore the truthful is not substance. Just as, then, the truthful is not substance, so also the unbegotten is not substance; for if the unbegotten is substance, then the begotten is also substance; and if the begotten is substance, all begotten things are consubstantial. But that the unbegotten and the begotten are indicative of substance has been discovered by your own utterance, which deserves to be rebuked like a surging sea. B For the Spirit of truth proclaimed to us the Father and the Son, the names indicating for us their relations; and you will not deny that He is God by nature and in truth; but how is He Father, if He has not begotten by nature and in truth? So that even your own hope—you who devised that "unbegotten" and "begotten" are indicative of substance—which permits the utterance to be silenced [(74)], will not be found in the day of judgment, when those things solely are found which the Holy Spirit has spoken.
20. Anom. If the unbegotten substance is greater than the begotten, possessing that superiority from itself, the Son—being superior only by [your] utterance—will know those who call Him so to be better than himself, and not the one who is addressed as his God and Father. Orth. You are, to be sure, the one who addressed the Father as unbegotten, and laid it down to the Jews that this is His substance; for the divine Spirit nowhere taught this. But that you will not be found better than the Son, but rather worse than the devil who taught you such things, is acknowledged. C Anom. If unbegotten substance is better than being begotten, having that which is better from itself, the unbegotten God is self-substance; for it is not by willing, because He wills, that He is better than being begotten; but because the unbegotten God, being self-substance, by no reasoning permits one to conceive generation in relation to Himself, pushing every investigation and every thought to be carried toward the begotten [(75)] one. Orth. Every substance is better than being begotten; for substance and being begotten are not the same. That being begotten is not substance is clear from this: from the fact that not [all] things that are D begotten [(76)] are consubstantial. If, then, begotten things are not consubstantial, then being begotten is not substance; and if being begotten is not substance, neither is unbegottenness substance; but if unbegottenness is substance, and being begotten is not substance, why do you speak of "unlike"? For in that which is not, there is neither like nor unlike. But if the privation of being begotten is substance...
is substantia, ortus autem substantia non est, cur tu dissimile dicis? cum ens non enti nec dissimile sit nec simile.
A 21. *Anom.* If "unbegotten" in God denotes a privation, and to be "unbegotten" is nothing, what reasoning will distinguish that which signifies no species from that which is not? Or who will separate the existent from the existent, that is, the same from itself? *Orth.* If "incorruptible" and "immortal" are indicative of a privation, let "unbegotten" be so as well. Let us then use the same arguments: if "incorruptible" signifies a certain privation in God, and this very "incorruptible" is nothing, what reason will distinguish that which signifies no species from that which is nothing? Or who will separate nothing from nothing, or the existent from the existent—those things which are indicative of a privation, namely, incorruptible, and immortal, and unbegotten? And if "incorruptible," "immortal," and "unbegotten" signify the same thing; and the Son also is incorruptible and immortal, then He too is unbegotten. But if He is not unbegotten, being incorruptible and immortal, then "unbegotten" and "incorruptible" or "immortal" do not signify the same thing. But if they do not signify the same thing, and you maintain rather that "unbegotten" itself is the substance, then, according to you and the arguments of your wisdom, there will be an unbegotten substance, yet not immortal, nor indeed incorruptible.
*Anom.* If privation is the removal of habits B the attributes given to God, such as "unbegotten," will be either the privation of a habit or the habit of a privation. But if it is the privation of a habit, how will that which is not in God be numbered among the things of God? But if "unbegotten" is a habit, there must be presupposed a begotten substance, so that in this way, having assumed the habit, it may be named "unbegotten." But if the begotten substance participated in the unbegotten substance, and having undergone the loss of a habit, was deprived of generation, then the substance would be begotten, but the "unbegotten" would be a habit. But if "begotten" signifies something, it is manifest that it also signifies a habit, whether it has now been transformed out of a substance, or is that very thing which is said to be begotten by someone.
*Orth.* Let us again use the same arguments; for someone might assert the very same thing concerning these, namely, "free of falsehood," "immortal," and "incorruptible," since these are used in the same way as "unbegotten." We will concede this to you, although the Spirit of truth has not spoken in such a way. We shall say, therefore: If privation is the removal of a habit, then that which is predicated of God, "free of falsehood," is also either a privation of a habit or the habit of a privation. But if it is a privation of a habit, C how will that which is not in God be numbered among the things of God? But if "free of falsehood" is a habit, there must be presupposed both falsehood and a false substance, so that in this way, having assumed the habit, it may be named "free of falsehood." But if a false substance has participated in an "unfree of falsehood" substance, having undergone the loss of a habit, it has been deprived of falsehood; then the substance would be false, and "free of falsehood" would be a habit; and your arrogant wisdom has discovered such great impiety of matter. D
B 22. Anom. If the begotten is equally a habit as is the unbegotten, substances will indeed be prior to habits; yet habits, even if they are posterior to substances, are nevertheless more honorable than them. Now the unbegotten is the cause of the begotten, insofar as it denotes its being. But if the begotten brings along the cause of its own substance, then the term "begotten" would signify a substance, and not a habit; yet since the unbegotten nature introduces nothing into itself, how then would the unbegotten nature not be a substance, but a habit? Orth. Nothing is more honorable than substance, most wise sir; yet we do not call the "unbegotten" in God either a habit or a substance. We have learned that He is not begotten by His own self, and this not from divine Scripture, but from human nature and understanding. Therefore, the "unbegotten" is not the cause of the begotten: for the fact that God is not begotten is not the cause of the Son, but substance is the cause of substance, just as light is of its radiance. Nor, furthermore, does the offspring bring along its own substance; for if this were the case, all things that are begotten would bring along the same substance—the angel, and the horse, and the dog, and man. For all are begotten in a similar way, yet they are not of the same substance. If this is so, then "to be begotten" is not the same as "substance." And even if the unbegotten does not introduce anything, yet it is substance nonetheless; for indeed, even "not experiencing falsehood" introduces nothing, and yet it is not a substance; for if "not experiencing falsehood" were a substance and the "unbegotten" were a substance, then "not experiencing falsehood" would be the same as the "unbegotten." But the Son is true, being Truth, and therefore He is unbegotten—but according to you He is not unbegotten, yet He is "free of falsehood"; therefore, "free of falsehood" and "unbegotten" do not signify the same thing. And if they do not signify the same thing, then the "unbegotten" is not a substance, since neither is "free of falsehood."
23. Anom. If every substance is unbegotten, such as that of God Almighty, how will you say that one is passible and the other impassible? If by the attribution of the unbegotten nature, quantity and quality persist, and if it exists at all, it ought to be superior to every mutation. If, however, it is subject to passion, so that it retains the immutability of substance, we shall be forced to abandon to chance those matters concerning the things aforementioned; or (what certainly follows from this) we must say that the one which produces is unbegotten, but that the one which is changed is begotten. Orth. Indeed, it was not necessary for us to answer your poorly connected propositions and inductions; nevertheless, so that you do not seem wise in your own eyes, learn to refrain from blasphemies. Since you say that the substance of the Son is subject to passion, do not expect to inherit impassibility from Him; for if we have become partakers of it, we remain free from passions. Therefore, that which provides impassibility to others is itself impassible. D Whoever, therefore, says with you that every substance is unbegotten is no Christian; for we do not have the same reason for existing as the works have to the Worker. For this reason we also say that the Son is the radiance, so that we may not think Him to have the same
A reason for existing as we do, who exist from non-existence by command.
Anom. If the non-begotten nature is the cause of the begotten nature, but that which is non-begotten is nothing, how can that which is nothing be the cause of that which has come into being?
Orth. The nature of God is the cause of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of all creation; but of the Son it is the cause as Word, of the Spirit as breath—for it is the breath of the Almighty that has taught me—and of creation as a work. For from the magnitude and beauty of created things, their Maker is contemplated by analogy; and it is not a spoken word emitted through the vocal organs, nor any breath dispersed and emitted through respiratory organs, but rather a living and active Word: "For all things were made through Him," and the Spirit also is living and active: "One and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one as He wills." B Now, that which is non-begotten is not the cause of the begotten; for it is not the fact that God is not begotten that is the cause of substances, but the substance is the cause of substances, as has been said. For if that which is non-begotten were the cause, and the Son is also the cause of created things, then He would be non-begotten; but according to you, He is not non-begotten, yet He is a cause; therefore, the non-begotten is not the cause.
24. Anom. If "non-begotten" is a privation, and privation is the loss of a state, and the loss is either completely destroyed or transferred to something else; how is it possible, when a state is transferred or destroyed, to name the substance of God by the appellation of a non-begotten nature?
Orth. If, being truthful, He is truthful by the privation of falsehood, and being incorruptible, He is incorruptible by the privation of corruption, then say that the "non-begotten" is also by privation. But you who dare to name the substance of God in such a way are the one who wars against God. For since He Himself says, as was said before: "I appeared to Abraham, C and Isaac, and Jacob, being their God, and My name I did not reveal to them," you take upon yourself great things. For either you have obtained the knowledge of this name from revelation, as one who has surpassed them, or you have grasped the name of His substance even against the will of God.
Anom. If "non-begotten" signifies a privation that does not belong to God, why do we say He is non-begotten, but do not say He is begotten?
Orth. If "incorruptible" signifies a privation that does not belong to God, why do we call Him incorruptible, but do not call Him corruptible? But if "incorruptible" is not indicative of privation, then neither is "non-begotten," nor indeed is it indicative of substance. For if "non-begotten" is indicative of substance, then "incorruptible" will also be indicative of substance; and if "non-begotten" and "incorruptible" were the same as the non-begotten, and the Son were truthful and incorruptible, He would therefore also be non-begotten. But D He is not non-begotten according to you; therefore "truthful" and "incorruptible" will not signify the same thing; but we say that "non-begotten" signifies that God has not been begotten, and "incorruptible" that He is not corrupted, and "truthful" that He does not lie.
25. [Anom.] If "non-begotten" is spoken of God as a bare name, but a bare utterance elevates the hypostasis above all begotten things, then human utterance is more honorable than the nature of the Almighty, inasmuch as it has adorned the Almighty God with an incomparable eminence. [Orth.] We do not say that "non-begotten" is a bare utterance, nor yet a substance. For if the "non-begotten" were a substance, then "begotten" would also be a substance. But if the "begotten" is a substance, all begotten things will be consubstantial; therefore "begotten" is not a substance. And if "begotten" is not a substance, then "non-begotten" is not a substance either. Moreover, "non-begotten" is not a bare utterance; for it signifies that God has not been begotten, just as "free from falsehood" signifies that one does not lie, and "incorruptible" signifies that one is not corrupted. [Anom.] If a cause has been allotted to every begotten thing, while the non-begotten nature is without cause, then "non-begotten" does not signify a cause, but signifies substance. [Orth.] If "non-begotten" signifies substance, and "begotten" also signifies substance—and substance in no way differs from substance, in as much as it is substance—then indeed "non-begotten" in no way differs from "begotten." [Anom.] In the begotten, substance is present as a cause; but the hypostasis of the non-begotten, possessing immutability against every cause, is itself an incomparable self-subsistence, not manifesting incomparability from without, but existing precisely as incomparable and inaccessible because it is non-begotten. [Orth.] If you say that the substance of God is incomparable and inaccessible because of the title "non-begotten," then the Son, who according to you is not non-begotten, will be neither incomparable nor inaccessible; therefore it is not because He is non-begotten that He is incomparable. But how is the Father incomparable, to Him who says: "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will"? Or how is He incomparable, to Him who says: "For all things that the Father does, these also the Son does likewise"? Or how is He incomparable, to Him who says: "All things that the Father has are mine"? And in other places: "Mine are yours, and yours are mine"? And finally, how is He incomparable, to Him who says: "That they may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father"?
26. [Anom.] If the Almighty falls short of everything by reason of the non-begotten, which is the cause for begotten things of their persistence, and if "non-begotten" does not denote a cause, whence then will the nature of begotten things have its preservation? [Orth.] If the Almighty surpasses every nature because of the "non-begotten," then the Son, who according to you is not non-begotten, does not surpass every nature. Therefore, it is not because of the "non-begotten" that the Father surpasses every nature; rather, by the same reason that the Father surpasses every nature, by that same reason the Son also surpasses every nature. The Father surpasses by the nature of the Godhead; by this, the Son also surpasses every nature. [Anom.] If none of the invisible things pre-exists itself seminally...
but remains in that nature which it has been allotted, how does that non-genitus God, who is free from such allotment, now behold His own essence as posterior in the begotten, and now as prior in the unbegotten, in a certain order of prior and posterior? A Orth. Indeed, none of the invisible things pre-exists itself seminally; but in the power of the Creator, according to the divine Scriptures, things that are not are as though they were. But the Son, existing in the essence of the Father, both is and shall be, as the brightness of glory and the mark of the substance, considered together with Him who begat Him without passion and beyond time, from eternity, an immutable image of substance, will, and glory, existing prior to the pre-eternal ages. But God, the non-genitus, knows His own substance to be non-genita, just as He knows it to be free from falsehood, incorporeal, and immortal; and He does not behold His own substance now as non-genita and now as genita, but that which He sees Himself to be, that He also sees as the image of Himself. B Yet, who He is according to substance, He has revealed neither to us nor to those before us. For He says, as was spoken before: "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, your fathers, being their God, and My name I did not make known to them."
27. Anom. Let any thought of knowing Himself in generation and in non-generation be taken away from Him. For wherever it might be granted that He extends His own substance in the non-genitum and in the genitum, He is ignorant of His own substance, being driven about by generation and the exclusion of generation. But if that which is genitum has partaken of a non-genita substance, but remains in the nature of the genitum eternally, in whatever nature it remains, it knows itself, being ignorant, clearly, of the non-genita substance. C For it is not possible for Him to have knowledge concerning Himself of both the non-genita substance and the genita. But if the non-genita is to be despised because of a propensity for change, the dignity of nature will be that immutable substance, since it is confessed that the non-genita substance is superior to every substance. Orth. Even if God remains non-genitus, this is not His nature. We know indeed that He is not genitus, but what His nature is, we do not yet know: for He also remains incorporeal, yet this is not His nature; but we know that He does not have a body. So also He remains free from falsehood, and this is not His nature; but we know that He does not lie. D Yet who He is according to nature, He has not revealed. For if the things mentioned are His nature, He lied when He said: "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, your fathers, being their God, and My name I did not make known to them," for they appear to have known the things mentioned before. But He is free from falsehood, and cannot lie; therefore, He did not reveal the name of His nature. How then do you say "the non-genitus"? But if He did not reveal His name, much less did He reveal His own nature.
A Anom. If there were many non-genita, they would possess a nature in no way dissimilar; for there would be no participation in some common and proper nature, such that one might act while the other was acted upon. Orth. That universal proposition is false in a certain sense; for not every non-genitum, O Aetius, is exempt from every cause. For that is non-genitum which does not have a maker, yet not everything that lacks a maker is exempt from every cause: for it is possible for something to have no maker, and yet to have a cause, namely, a father or a provider. Therefore, even if it is granted to you that God is non-genitum because He does not have a maker, by the same logic we also say the Son is "not made," because he certainly has no maker of his origin. We do not, however, say that he lacks a cause: for he has the Father, not as a maker, but as Father. And we also call the Spirit non-genitum, for he does not have a maker, but he does not lack a cause: for he has God as his cause, not as a maker, but as his fount. B For just as a fount does not make the water it provides from outside, but has it gushing from itself; so also God is the fount of the Holy Spirit, as has been said, and his provider, not receiving him from without, but causing him to gush from Himself. For it is written: «My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water» (Jer. 2:13). And the Apostle says: «He who supplies the Spirit to us and works miracles among us» (Gal. 3:5). That this living water is the Spirit, Christ taught, saying: «He who drinks from the water that I will give him, as the Scripture said, rivers of living water shall flow from his belly» (John 7:38). And the evangelist adds, saying: «He said this about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were about to receive» (John 7:39). C Whence, therefore, is this water? It is manifest: from that fount which said, «They have forsaken Me, the fount of living water.»
29. Anom. If every substance is non-genitum, and none is distinguished from another, because no one has dominion over another—and thus, in a way, one might rightly say—could one be changing and the other changing (something), when they do not permit God to subsist from a non-subject substance? Orth. Since it pleases you to write so obscurely, ignorantly, and perplexingly, we also will speak our turn again. He who says that every substance is non-genitum is insane, along with those who say the Son is dissimilar to the Father. For how would God be the author of substances if they do not exist? D For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are a non-genitum substance, as has been said: and this is stated even from your own reasoning. But that the non-genitum is not a substance is also found from those things which you write. For if, when every essence is non-genitum, none differs from the other, it is a total necessity that the genita substances also must not differ from themselves. But if they differ...
between the begotten substances themselves, it is not the case that generation is a substance. But if generation is not a substance, then neither is ingenerateness a substance. A *Anom.*: If every substance is ingenerate, it is completely immutable. But if a substance is immutably disposed, acting and being acted upon must be attributed to chance. Yet, as there are many ingenerate and immutable things, they will differ from one another by number. For one thing could not be different from another if they did not differ either in general or in some respect, since every variation implies participating in a cause. *Orth.*: The Son is immutable regarding the Father, even if you are unwilling. However, He is not immutable on account of this—on account of being ingenerate—but He is shown to be so because of the identity of operation, since the Son performs everything that the Father also performs. B "For whatever things the Father does, these also the Son does in like manner," and the Spirit likewise does without any dissimilarity. For whatever the Father operates, He also operates, just as He wills. But if the operation is the same, the nature is immutable. If you think that what is immutable is so because it is ingenerate, it follows that everything begotten is also immutable. Therefore, it is not immutable on account of being ingenerate, but as we have already discussed in the preface: "It is for the flying eagle to seek food, and it has no footprint." For it has nowhere to set its feet, so that it too may hear with Moses: "But you, stand here with me." For he does not stand with the Son of God who calls God begotten and ingenerate, but rather he who baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For this is our faith which is believed, and Aetius flies about, still seeking food and a place to stand.
OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS, ATHANASIUS, DIALOGUE III ON THE HOLY TRINITY, IN WHICH THERE IS A DISPUTATION AGAINST THE ORTHODOX BY A HERETIC HOLDING THE OPINIONS OF THE PNEUMATOMACHIAN MACEDONIUS
S. P. N. ATHANASII DIALOGUS III DE SANCTA TRINITATE, IN QUO EXSTAT HAERETICI SENTIENTIS CUM MACEDONIO PNEUMATOMACHO DISPUTATIO ADVERSUS ORTHODOXUM
MACEDONIUS. ORTHODOX. If you believed rightly in the Son of God, you—
A would also know how one must believe in the Spirit. Maced. We believe in such a way, as the blessed Lucian does. Orth. I wish to know if you believe even as the blessed Lucian does. Maced. Is it because you also believe thus? Orth. We, for our part, believe in such a way, as all the holy martyrs. For they themselves also believed thus, as the holy apostles. Maced. Do you believe, therefore, as the blessed Lucian does? Orth. I said that I believe not only as the blessed Lucian, but also as all the holy martyrs, and the apostles. Maced. Do you subscribe, therefore, to the confession of faith edited by Lucian? Orth. What do you condemn in that which was edited by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia, that you should seek another? Maced. But what do you condemn in that of Lucian? Orth. I condemn that addition of yours, and I can demonstrate that it was added by you against his opinion. Maced. Did you yourselves not add anything to the Nicene [creed]? Orth. Certainly, but nothing repugnant to it. Maced. You added something at any rate. Orth. Those things, clearly, about which there was no inquiry at that time, and which the Fathers have now piously interpreted; but you added an appendix which tends toward impiety, and not even in this way do you follow it. Maced. We believe B thus, as Lucian. Orth. What if I show that you do not even believe thus? Maced. How will you show that? Orth. Is it not written in it: "The Son is the image of God’s substance, counsel, power, and glory, without dissimilitude"? Is it not written? Maced. It is. Orth. But substance not differing at all from substance, is it not the same? Maced. It is similar. Orth. But is not "similar" something other than "the same"? Maced. We say of the same kind and similar, but not the same. Orth. Do you thus say the Son is similar to the Father, as an angel to an angel? Maced. Yes. Orth. But is the substance of the angels the same? Maced. We say of the same kind and similar, but not the same; wherefore we call him *homoiousion* (of similar essence), and not *homoousion* (consubstantial). C 2. Orth. Do you say God from God? Maced. Yes. Orth. And light from light? Maced. Yes. Orth. Is this God and Son from this God and Father? Maced. Yes. Orth. Is this light, which is the Son, from this light, which is the Father? Maced. Yes. Orth. Is this substance from this substance? Maced. No. Orth. How then is it not different from that one? Maced. Because it is another, but similar. Orth. That which is not from the same substance cannot be the Son, nor, at any rate, can it be another of the same kind, having [that similarity] without difference. Maced. Where is it written that the Spirit is God? Orth. When I have refuted you—that you do not even believe as that exposition of faith which you objected [to me] has it—then I will say where it is written. Tell me, therefore, at last, whether you confess the Son of God to be an image of the substance, and counsel, and power, and glory of the Father, not different. Maced. Yes, yes, yes; I have said it D a third time. Orth. Do you therefore say that the power and glory of the Son and of the Father are the same? Maced. I do not; for the exposition of Lucian does not call the counsel, and power, and glory the same. Orth. You do not, therefore, speak the truth regarding justice.
Counsel that is not different from counsel is the same counsel; and power that is not different from power is the same power; and glory that is not different from glory is the same glory. Maced. I say it is invariable, I do not say it is the same. Orth. You confess with your voice that it is not different, just as those who called Him Christ, yet did not believe that He is Christ. For if they had believed, they would not have said, while striking Him: “Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that struck You?” (Matt. xxvi, 68). Maced. I said that I confess the Son to be an image not different from the Father in substance, counsel, power, and glory. Orth. Do you mean another similar substance, another similar counsel, another similar power, and another similar glory? Maced. Yes. B Orth. So there are two gods? Maced. One and one. Orth. Is this one similar, from that one? Maced. It is so. Orth. Then is He from the substance? Maced. No. Orth. Did He therefore bring Him into existence out of things that were not? Maced. He is certainly something from things that were not. Orth. Do you confess that the angels and all creation are from God? Maced. Yes. For it is written: “All things are from God.” Orth. From His substance? Maced. By no means. God forbid! Orth. Do you therefore think that the Son is as the other things? Maced. I call Him Only-begotten, but not from His substance. Orth. One who is not from the substance cannot be a Son who is nowhere different in substance. Maced. Are not the angels not different from one another in substance? Orth. Yes. Maced. Is not an angel from another angel, as far as substance is concerned? Orth. True. But no angel is the father or son of an angel. Now the blessed Lucian, when he said that the Son is an image of the Father’s substance, and counsel, and power, and glory, in no way different, by using the term "Son" showed that He is C from the substance itself, and by "not different" showed His identity. Maced. I say He is in no way different, but not from the substance, nor the same substance, nor the same power, nor the same glory. 3. Orth. Does the Son have another power and another glory than the Father? Maced. Another similar one. Orth. How then is it written: “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. i, 24), and how does the Son say: “When the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father” (Matt. xxv, 31)? Maced. Does the Father have His own glory, and His own counsel, and His own power, or not? Orth. He has. Maced. And the Son likewise His own, or not? Orth. The very glory and counsel and power D of the Father is that of the Son. For this reason the Son says: “All things that the Father has are mine” (John xvi, 15). Maced. So the Son does not have glory, does not have counsel, does not have power, does not have deity, unless He receives it from the Father. Orth. Is this glory, and this counsel, and this power, and this deity, of the Father and of the Son? Maced. God forbid that I should say so! Orth. How then does the Son say: “All my things are His, and His are mine”? Maced. He speaks concerning the apostles. Orth. I know myself that concerning the disciples
He spoke these things; but He joined all things to the disciples, no longer saying, “Mine are Thine,” but rather, “All my things are Thine, and Thine are mine.” Since, if the Father possessed none of the aforementioned things before the creation of the world? Maced. Yes, He possessed deity, glory, power, counsel, incorruptibility; but He was not speaking of these. Orth. Hear the very voices of the Lord; they stand thus: “All my things are Thine, and Thine are mine, and I have been glorified in them.” Maced. For in the disciples He has been glorified. Orth. Did He not, therefore, possess glory before the world existed? Maced. He possessed it, certainly; for it is written: “Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world existed.” Orth. Is He to come in that same glory to judge the living and the dead, or in another? Maced. In that same one. Orth. But He says in the Gospels: “For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father.” This glory, therefore, is of the Father and the Son. And that there is one glory, He says in another place in the Gospel: “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He shall sit on the throne of His glory.” You hear, if you have ears, that He calls it both His own glory and the Father’s. B
4. Maced. Can you show me wherein it is written that the Spirit is God? Why do you lead me about so much? Orth. If indeed the holy apostles first recognized the Spirit, and only then the Son, then you are right to seek knowledge concerning the Spirit before the knowledge of the Father. But if the Son was revealed to them first, and subsequently the Holy Spirit, you too must first recognize the deity of the Son, and thus you will learn also the knowledge of the Spirit. Maced. I know and believe that the Son is God, begotten of God the Father, whole from whole. Orth. Therefore, from the substance? Maced. No. Orth. Do you then say that He is whole from whole, just as any of the angels and the other created things? Maced. But the Son is the only-begotten God. Orth. Do you call Him only-begotten for that reason, because there is no other like Him, or because He alone is begotten from the substance? Maced. Because there is no other one like Him. Orth. Say then also that the Holy Spirit is the only-begotten Son, for there is no other Spirit like Him. Maced. God forbid! Orth. He is not, therefore, called only-begotten because He alone is such, but because He alone is begotten from the substance. Maced. Is the Spirit, then, not from the substance of God? Orth. Truly, He is. Maced. Therefore the Spirit is also a Son. Orth. No, the Son is indeed begotten from the substance, and for this reason is the only-begotten Son; but the Spirit proceeds from the substance. For it is written: “The Spirit proceeds from me,” not, “He is begotten of me”; and the Son says: “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,” and not, “He is begotten.” Maced. And what is the difference C D
between generation and procession? Orth. He who knows this difference knows also the mode of generation and procession. But that no one knows the mode of generation, the prophet cries out: “Who shall declare his generation?” (Isa. LIII, 8). Maced. Why then do you say that the Son is begotten from the substance, but the Spirit proceeds? Orth. I say what is written. Speak as I do, and you are free from danger. Maced. Where, then, is it written A that the Son is of the substance? Orth. Do you not also confess that it is written that all things are from God? Maced. Indeed I confess it, but are all things from the substance of God? Orth. By no means, God forbid! But because, while all things are from God, this one is the only-begotten Son regarding many sons, it is clear that he is from the substance. 5. Maced. Is the Spirit also the only-begotten Son? Orth. Far be it, I say, to say this! But as, although there are many sons, we have known this one to be from the substance, because the Father said: “This is my beloved Son” (Matth. III, 17), so we have known the Spirit to be from the substance because, while there are many spirits, the Father said: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon B all flesh” (Joel II, 28). For otherwise he cannot be separated from the other holy spirits and joined to the Father, except by the consideration of substance. Maced. Is the Father then the one who says: “I will pour out of my Spirit”? Orth. Certainly. Maced. From where do you conclude this? Orth. The apostle Paul says: “But when the grace of God our Savior appeared, not by works which we have done on this earth, but according to his great mercy, he saved us by the laver of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us C abundantly through Jesus Christ” (Tit. III, 4, 5). Who poured him out through Jesus Christ? Clearly he who said: “In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit.” Maced. Does the Son, then, not give the Spirit? Orth. You heard that the Father gives the Spirit through the Son. Indeed, when the Father has said, “In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit,” the Son, having risen from the dead, says: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Joan. XX, 22). Maced. I said long ago, do not distract me with these circumlocutions; but if you can show it, tell me where it is written that the Spirit is God. Orth. Confess that the divinity of the Father and of the Son is one—that is, the substance, and the counsel, and the power, and the D glory—and then you will learn about the Spirit. Maced. Where is one divinity written again? Orth. Do you confess that in him dwells all the fullness of the divinity, or not? Maced. It is so written. Orth. Do you confess the divinity of the Father to be one, and the divinity of the Son to be another? Maced. Yes. Orth. Is the divinity of the Father therefore in the divinity of the Son? Maced. Yes. Orth. Are there then two divinities? Maced. The God and Father, and his divinity, is one God; and the God and Son, and the divinity of him is one God. Item, God and
his divinity is one God: and there is (as I said before) one and one God.
444 6. Orth. When therefore God says through the prophet Isaiah: “I am God, and there is no other beside me who saves; I have announced, and I have saved, and I have reproached, and there was no stranger among you” 69: of these, which one do you wish to be the one and the one that you speak of? Maced. The Father saves through the Son. Orth. One God, then, is the saving Father and Son. Maced. The Father and Son are therefore the same thing. Orth. Far be it from me to say this! But just as we who have been perfected in Christ are one, not by the confusion of the hypostases, but by having regard for the agreement and the nature, or substance: so I call the Father and the Son one God, having regard for the substance and the agreement. Maced. We also confess one agreement. Orth. Speak also of the divinity, and be saved. Maced. I do not speak of one divinity. Orth. If you hear God again saying in the same prophet, “I am God, and there is none other. By myself I swear, surely righteousness shall proceed out of my mouth; my words shall not be blotted out, because to me every knee shall bow” 70, of these which are one and one, whose words do you say these are? Maced. The Son’s. For the Apostle says: “In the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Amen” 71. Orth. One, then, is the divinity of the Father and the Son. Maced. How? Orth. For it says: “I am God, and there is none other.” Either, having become witless, you will deny that the Father is God, or in confessing the Father to be God, and likewise the Son to be God, and hearing him also say, “I am God, and beside me there is no other,” you will confess one divinity, and will not be in danger [(4)]. Maced. I do not speak of one divinity. Orth. If, therefore, you hear B the prophet speaking in the name of all the saints, “From of old we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen a God, beside you,” what will you answer them? Maced. He speaks of the Son. For we have not seen any other God save the Son, who became man. Orth. But indeed, “He who has seen the Son, has seen the Father” 72. One therefore is the divinity of the Father and of the Son. Maced. I do not speak of one divinity.
7. Orth. Since God says near the same prophet, “I am the first God, and I am for things to come” 73, which one of those whom you think to be one and one do you judge to have said this? Maced. The Father. Orth. Then you do not call the Son God? Maced. I said God from God. Orth. Therefore, if the Father is God, and the Son is God, but God says, “I am the first God, and I am for things to come,” D then there is one divinity. Maced. Even if you say more, you will not persuade me to say one divinity. Orth. Unless there be one divinity of the Father and the Son, there is one divinity of the Father, and another divinity of the Son. Maced. Certainly. Orth. But one divinity and another are not one God. Maced. For I do not say one God, the Father and...
A Son. Orth. If you hear the prophet saying, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Egypt labored, and the trade of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over to you, and they shall follow you bound in fetters, and they shall worship you. For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel,” whom do you say has said these things? Maced. The Son. Orth. But if those who follow him also worship, praying in him, is he the true God? Maced. Yes. Orth. Yet in worshipping him, we do not worship a strange God, nor two Gods; for it is written: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.” And if, in worshipping him, we also worship the Lord God the Father, and serve him only, then there is one divinity of the Father and of the Son. For so also we shall say: “You are God, and in you is God, and there is no God besides you.” Maced. If God is in him, how is there one divinity? Orth. Because he adds: “And there is no God besides you.” And Jeremiah says: “This is our God; no other shall be accounted equivalent to him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward he appeared upon the earth, and conversed with men.” If this one who appeared upon the earth is our God, and no other shall be accounted equivalent to him, then there is one divinity of the Father and of the Son. B 8. Maced. If there is one divinity, and the Father’s is unbegotten, but the Son’s is begotten, is it brought about that the divinity is begotten-unbegotten? Orth. You have proposed a ridiculous notion. For because a husband and wife are not two, but one flesh, according to the word of the Lord, is this flesh male-female? Maced. But the flesh of the husband and of the wife are from one underlying matter, namely, from the earth. Orth. Since, therefore, the Scripture says concerning those who believed, “They had one heart and one soul,” and the multitude of believers consisted of men and women, was this soul therefore male-female? And when Paul says, “You are one body and one spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling,” do you call this hope male-female, because we, both men and women, have the same hope? Maced. I say again, we do not speak of one divinity. Orth. If, therefore, God says through David: “Hear, O my people, and I will speak to you, O Israel, and I will testify to you. If you will hear me, there shall be no new God in you, nor shall you worship a strange God. For I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” whom do you say spoke this? The Father or the Son? Maced. You argue with me like a Jew from the Old Testament. Orth. Christ said: “Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify about me.” Maced. Then from the New Testament is it not possible to find Christ? Orth. Quite the contrary. But I fear lest, like a Manichaean,
A you strike out the Old Testament, not believing that the same God spoke both that and this. Maced. I know that the same God ordained both the Old Testament and the New; but I wish to learn from the New, since it taught the three hypostases more clearly.
9. Orth. If then you hear Paul saying, “For from him and through him and to him are all things,” of whom do you say these words are spoken, one by one? Maced. Of the Father. Orth. Are not all things through the Son? Maced. All things are through the Son also. Orth. How then is it not from him, and through him, and to him that all things are? Maced. The Father has the “from whom,” and the “through whom,” and the “to whom.” But the Son has B the “through whom,” but he does not have the “from whom.” Orth. Read the passage itself, so that you may know that the holy Apostle said “from him” and “through him” and “to him are all things” regarding both the Father and the Son. For if you were to fix this upon one person, the Son will be found not to know the things of the Father, nor to be his counselor, or the Father will be found not to know the things of the Son, nor to be his counselor. Maced. Tell me, where is it written: God is the Spirit? Orth. Learn first that the Old Testament also clearly taught the three hypostases. Maced. Tell me, where is it written? Orth. In Genesis: “God appeared to Abraham, who was sitting by the oak of Mamre; and behold, three men stood above him.” Maced. And do you say that those three men are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Orth. Do not be troubled, C but let us read with the fear of God. For Scripture says that “God appeared to Abraham, and behold, three men stood above him.” The three men were God. Maced. God was one of them, to whom he also speaks; but the other two were angels. Orth. Scripture says as follows: “But God appeared to him by the oak of Mamre, as he was sitting at the door of his tent at midday; and having lifted up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood above him; and having seen them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and worshipped toward the ground.” Whom did he worship toward the ground, if not the men? Maced. I said that the two angels were with God, and he worshipped, clearly, God, not the angels. For indeed, having risen, he said: “Lord, if I have found grace in your sight, do not pass by your servant.” Orth. This is precisely what we are saying, that he calls the three hypostases Lord. Maced. Far be it! D
10. Orth. Hear, then, what follows: “Let water be taken, and let them wash your feet; and refresh yourselves under the tree: then I will take bread, and you shall eat, and after this you shall continue on your way.”
And they said to him: “Do so, as you have said.” Is this written, or is it not?
Maced. All these things are written.
Orth. Now the servant of the Lord, by calling himself their servant, confessed the same lordship of the three. For he did not say: “Since you have turned aside to your servant,” but, “Since you have turned aside to your servant(s),” whose feet he also hastened to wash.
Maced. And what is absurd about him washing the feet of angels? For he did not yet know that God had appeared to him, but thought he was receiving some stranger men into his hospitality.
Orth. Let us grant that Abraham thought so, as you say: would the angels not have said to him, “Do not treat us with the same honor as him”? And how did Abraham think he was receiving stranger men into his hospitality, when he fell to the ground, and worshipped, and saw them above himself? For it is so written: “Having lifted up B his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood above him,” and not before him.
Maced. It had not yet been revealed to him that some were angels and one was God.
Orth. Then, at that time, he received them with equal honor for: “Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said to her: ‘Hasten and knead three measures of fine flour, and make hearth-cakes.’ And Abraham ran to the cattle, and took a tender and good calf, and gave it to his servant, and he hastened to prepare it; and he took butter and milk; and the calf which he prepared, he set before them, and they ate. And he stood before them under the tree.” Is this written, or is it not?
Maced. Yes.
Orth. And the angels ate together with God.
Maced. It was a vision; but that they were angels, read what follows, and you will find it. C
11. Orth. And we also know that he calls the two angels afterwards; but again, in what follows, the Scripture calls them Lord. For it is clear that both the Son and the Spirit are termed angel, not only here, but also in other places. But he is called "angel" improperly, just as in the Gospel, when it says: “A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen;” and then after this it says: “He sent his servants, and after the servants, the one whom he had, his son.” It is clear that he calls the Father a man. And again, “A certain man made a marriage for his son;” and there too he calls him a man; but the usage of Scripture shows him to be God. But the Scripture teaches most manifestly that one of these two angels was the Son.
Maced. How?
Orth. For after they had eaten, and Abraham had been blessed, D and he had received the promise of Isaac, thus it is written, and if you have patience, I will tell you.
Maced. Tell me.
Orth. “And the Lord said: ‘I will not hide from Abraham my servant [what I am about to do. Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation...]’”
and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.’” And a little later: “And the Lord said: ‘The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is increased towards me, and their sins are very great. Descending therefore I will see if they are fulfilling everything according to their cry which has come to me; but if not, that I may know.’ And the men having turned from there, came to Sodom. But Abraham was standing before the Lord. And drawing near, Abraham said: ‘Wilt thou destroy the just with the impious, and shall the just be as the impious? If there be fifty just in the city, wilt thou destroy them, and wilt thou not spare the whole place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from thee to do this thing, to slay the just with the impious, and the just shall be as the impious! Far be it! Shall he who is judge of all the earth not do judgment?’ And the Lord said: ‘If I find in Sodom fifty just in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.’ And thus having subtracted five, and again five, he reached ten: ‘And God said: I will not destroy for the sake of those ten.’ And the Lord departed as he ceased speaking to Abraham: and Abraham also returned to his own home.”
12. Maced. Do you hear that the next phrase follows? Orth. “And those two angels came to Sodom.” Maced. Do you hear that those two were angels? Orth. I said beforehand that, just as He calls the two men—who were not men by nature—so He also calls those two angels; and they were not angels by nature, but improperly, from the fact that they announced the counsel of God. But let us hear what follows. For we are taught more from the ruin of the city. Maced. Speak. Orth. “And those two angels came to Sodom in the evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And seeing them, Lot stood up to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground; and said: ‘Lo, lords, turn aside into the house of your servant, and spend the night, and wash your feet, and rising up early you shall go on your way.’” B Do you hear that he bowed down to them, and calls them lords, and confesses himself to be their servant? Maced. He thought they were men, and being hospitable he bowed to them and calls them lords. Orth. But if they had been angels, they would have said to him: “Worship the Lord thy God. For we are thy fellow-servants.” Maced. Indeed, in what matter was he sinning by worshipping angels? Orth. I have often heard you say that one should not worship the Holy Spirit. Maced. For it is not lawful. Orth. Why then do you say now: “In what matter was the holy Lot sinning, worshipping the angels?” Maced. For surely he did not worship them as the Lord God? Orth. Read what follows in order. Maced. Read it yourself. Orth. After what we have read, it adds that he entertained them; and the men of that place came, seeking to...
A satisfy their wickedness against them. But Lot offered his daughters, rather than those men, to their outrage. And when the Sodomites persisted in that impious intent, the angels drew Lot into the house and struck them with blindness. Is it not written thus? Maced. It is. B Orth. Then it is written: “And those men said to Lot: ‘Have you here a son-in-law, or sons, or daughters? Or if there is any other you have in the city, bring him out of this place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their cry has risen before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.’” Are they not themselves Lords? Orth. If, then, the Saviour says in the Gospels, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and elsewhere, “As the living Father sent me, and He who sent me gave me a commandment as to what I should say or speak,” is he no longer acknowledged as Lord because he was sent? Maced. The Son is undoubtedly Lord; but is the Spirit also? Orth. Here, perfectly, he is worshipped together and called Lord together with the Son. Maced. But have you already demonstrated that it was the Son who was speaking to Lot? Orth. Restrain your spirit, and you will acknowledge it. Maced. I know that you are leading me around, since you cannot say where it is written: “God is the Spirit.” Orth. Let us first know who these men were who appeared, and then the Holy Spirit himself will grant that we find whatever we seek. Maced. I, as the Scripture holds, call them angels. Orth. I also call them angels and men; but, as we have already agreed between us, that one of those three men was the Lord God, so also will diligent investigation discover who those two were. Maced. Say what you will. Orth. I will read what follows. Maced. Read. Orth. “And when it was early dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying: ‘Rise and take your wife and your two daughters, whom you have, and go out, lest you perish with the sins of the city.’ And they were troubled, and the angels seized his hand, and the hand of his wife, and the hands of his two daughters, because the Lord spared him. And it came to pass when they had led them out, they said: ‘Save your own soul, and do not look back, nor stay in all the surrounding region. Flee to the mountain, lest you be caught up.’ And Lot said to him: ‘I pray, Lord, since your servant has found mercy before you, and you have magnified your justice which you do upon me, to save my soul—but I shall not be able to be saved in the mountain, lest evils overtake me, and I die. Behold, this city is near, for me to flee there, and it is small. I shall be saved there. Is it not small? And my soul shall live.’” C You hear, if you have ears, that having recognized their community and unity, falling down before them he said: “I pray, Lord,”—not “Lords.” For he knew that no one is able to serve two
masters; and there are A two, because the one wills this and the other that. Say therefore also yourself to the Son and to the Spirit: “I pray, Lord,” since your servant has found mercy before you—not “before you” (plural), lest you divide the lordship. For if he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, how is it possible for the Spirit to be separated from Him who supplies it? Maced. It has now been demonstrated that those angels were the Son and the Spirit. Orth. The holy Lot therefore said to those who were angels by nature: “I pray, Lord, since your servant has found mercy before you, and you have magnified your righteousness, which you are doing towards me, that my soul may live.” Maced. Certainly. Orth. Listen therefore also to what follows: “And he said to him”—it no longer says “the angels,” but evidently the one confessed as Lord—“‘Behold, I have marveled at your appearance, and at this word of yours, not to overthrow the city concerning which you have spoken. Hasten therefore to be saved there. For I shall not be able to do anything until you have entered there.’” And he no longer said, “We shall be able,” although at the beginning they had said, “We are destroying the city,” because he thought them to be men and angels. But when he recognized their lordship, he no longer calls them “Lords,” but says “Lord,” saying, “I pray, Lord.” Then they too converse with him as one. For they do not say, “We have marveled at your appearance,” but, “I have marveled.”
Orth. Certainly. Maced. How then does he say, “No one has ever seen God?” Orth. For this reason they appeared as men, since that which is God by nature, no one has ever seen, nor can see. Maced. I say that it was the Son who appeared to Abraham. Orth. Do I depart again from the reading? Maced. Read. Orth. “‘The sun rose over the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. B And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and sulfur from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew all those cities.’” Which Lord? It is clear that it is he who had said to Lot, “I have marveled at your appearance, and at this word of yours, not to overthrow the city concerning which you have spoken. Hasten therefore to be saved there. For I shall not be able to do anything until you have entered there.” Maced. One of them was the Lord; were not they two? Orth. I said that Lot had conversed with those two as if with one. For those two say: “If there is here for you a son-in-law, or sons, or daughters, lead them out with you. For we are destroying this city.” Sometimes therefore he says “We” on account of the hypostases, but at other times he says “I” on account of the nature. “Understand therefore,” as it is written, “you senseless in the people, and you fools, at some time get understanding.” For just as Abraham, having recognized the three hypostases, calls Him Lord; and Lot, having recognized the two, similarly calls Him Lord; so do not divide the C indivisible, nor separate the inseparable. Maced. Can you tell me, where
it is written that the Spirit is God? Orth. You have learned thus far that the Old Testament also knew the three hypostases; and, not forgetful of the things previously mentioned, it says: "The Lord your God, the Lord is one," in order to reduce the deity to one. Hear, therefore, Job saying: "Who alone stretches out the heaven, and walks upon the sea as upon solid ground." It is clear that he speaks prophetically of the Son. For it is He who walked upon the sea. B Maced. Behold again, the Son alone walked upon the sea. Orth. But I said that "alone," when attributed to the deity, usually declares the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But there are certain things which are proper to the Son alone. For He alone became man, He alone was baptized, He alone was begotten of the Father, He alone was crucified, and all such things; and this not by being separated from the Father’s hypostasis, but as being one who was in Him and had Him in Himself, He makes the incarnation His own proper act, that the hypostases may be rightly distinguished. And so that you may not think that the Old Testament alone knows to proclaim the one and only God, hear the Savior Himself saying: "It is written, You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." And in other places, having been asked which commandment is the greatest in the Law, He said: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your heart, and with all your strength; and your neighbor as yourself." Does it follow that, because He did not say "the Lord your God and His Son," we must not love the Son, or rather that we should not love the Son and the Holy Spirit together with the Lord your God? Maced. Yes. But tell me, where is the Spirit said to be God? Orth. First learn not to separate the Spirit from the communion of the Father and the Son, but to love the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son with all your strength and with all your soul, and then you will find the knowledge of God. Maced. I do indeed love Him with all my heart, and with all my soul and mind; yet I do not theologize Him. Orth. For how can you theologize the Spirit, you who do not wish to confess the same substance, and glory, and counsel, and power of the Father and of the Son? Rather, you have been found speaking things contrary to the faith of the blessed Lucian. Maced. I believe as the blessed Lucian does, and I confess an image of substance, and counsel, and power, and glory that is unchanged; yet I do not say it is the same substance, nor deity, nor the same counsel, nor the same power, nor glory. Orth. Therefore, you contradict both yourself and the blessed Lucian; and just as the Manichæans and Phryges, and all such heresies C say, "We believe as the holy apostles believed," but when they are examined, they are found to say the contrary; so you also do. And one may hear the Jews say, "We believe as the blessed Moses and the prophets [believed],"
whom, however, if you interrogate, they are found to have crucified the very one of whom the prophets prophesied. A
16. Maced. We say that the Son is the unchangeable image of the substance, and of the counsel, and of the power, and of the glory of the Father, yet we do not say that he is from the substance of the Father, nor the same substance, and same counsel, and same power and glory. It remains for you to say, if you can, where it is written that the Spirit is God. Say on, why do you kill me little by little? Orth. Since I showed that you contradict yourself—as the hearers know, and those who read these things afterward will recognize—then I also showed that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, is both God and Creator and Life-giver. Maced. If you show me even one of these, I shall become a consubstantialist. Orth. To whom did God say: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness"? B Maced. God the Father says this to the Son, who is God. Orth. From the very fact that it was accomplished, we can understand to whom he spoke what was afterward accomplished. Is man made according to the image of God, or not? Maced. He certainly is. Orth. Tell me then: Can man be the image of God while not being perfect? And can he be perfect, whom the Holy Spirit has not sanctified? Maced. Are all men, therefore, in possession of the Holy Spirit? Orth. If all are perfect according to the image, all also have the Holy Spirit. Maced. All have that which is according to the image. Orth. How then does Saint Paul say: "That you may be according to the image of him who created you," and elsewhere: "As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly"? C Maced. Are we not all, then, according to the image? Orth. Those who sin are not; but those who mortify the actions of the flesh, and put on that new man, created according to God, they alone possess that which is according to the image. For such was Adam before the transgression. That man, therefore, created according to the image of God, was created by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For he said, "Let us make," so that he might declare the cooperation, not "Make!" lest you again call him a subordinate worker and minister.
17. Maced. Do you call the Holy Spirit a helper and fellow-worker of the Father and the Son? Yet Holy Scripture calls even the holy apostles helpers. Orth. "Indeed, for the salvation of those who are saved," but not for the creation of things. The apostles, therefore, are called fellow-workers for the salvation of men, since they were and are the temple of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit himself cooperated for the creation. Maced. Can you really demonstrate to me that the Spirit cooperated for the creation of men? Orth. It has already been demonstrated. Maced. How? Orth. Because we see that man, created according to the image, exists with the cooperation of the Spirit. D
A Maced. I say that every man is according to the image of God. Orth. Do you say this by potentiality or by operation? Maced. And what is meant by potentiality, and what by operation? Orth. Potentiality is that which can come to be; but operation is the one who exercises the beauties of the image. Just as an infant is by potentiality a rational and mortal animal, but by operation becomes so when fully grown, whereas before this it was so by potentiality; so too is each one by potentiality according to the image of God. But if one should strip off the mortality which Adam put on through the transgression, and put on the new man of incorruption, which Adam stripped off and was found naked, then he becomes by operation according to the image of the Creator, such as the apostles became, whose very shadow performed wonders. Maced. Were the apostles, then, not according to the image before this? Orth. Do you call the outer man, who the Apostle said is perishing, the one according to the image, and not rather the inner man who is being renewed? Maced. I speak of the inner man, who is being renewed; for I do not attribute human form to God. Orth. God, of whom man is the image, is invisible, is He not? Maced. Certainly. B Orth. It is necessary, then, that the image of the invisible God be also invisible, and that the man who is according to the image of the invisible image also be invisible. Maced. If I admit that the man who is according to the image is the one in the hidden man, I still do not say that the Holy Spirit made him. Orth. Do you maintain, then, in general, that Adam was holy in Paradise? Maced. Yes. Orth. Was he created as such, or did he become such from virtue? Maced. He was created as such. C 18. Orth. Then the Holy Spirit co-created man with the Father and the Son. Maced. But could not the Son Himself create a holy man? Orth. Indeed He could. Maced. Why, then, do you say that the Holy Spirit made him? Orth. Just as the Father, being able to create man, creates with the Son, in order that the identity of nature might be shown; so also the Son, being able to create a holy man, creates with the Spirit, in order that it might be shown that the work performed is the work of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus, indeed, even man who had fallen, and had been likened to senseless beasts, He did not renew without the Spirit; but as the Prophet says: “Send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth.” Maced. We also say that our renewal takes place by the Spirit; for the Spirit is of holiness. Orth. “To the pure, all things are pure.” Since you did not speak that with simplicity, by the Spirit, I am necessarily compelled not to remain silent. Tell me, then: does our renewal not take place through the laver of regeneration? Maced. Yes. Orth. How, then, are we baptized? Is it into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Maced. Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. D Orth. Why, then, do you say our renewal is by the Spirit?
A Macedoniu. It is not so, for it is written: "According to his great mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Orth. I said beforehand that "to the pure, all things are pure." For among us, according to the purpose of Scripture, "through whom" is the same as "from whom." Indeed, the holy Apostle says: "God is faithful, by whom you were called into the communion of his Son." Even here, "by whom" is placed for "from whom." Confess, therefore, that our creation came from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For one did not create and another renew, but it is God who created with the Son and the Holy Spirit. And for this reason, in the beginning, he said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," B so that by their cooperation, the identity of their nature might be shown.
19. Macedoniu. Show me more clearly that the Holy Spirit creates. Orth. What we have just said is sufficient for a sane mind to have a clear demonstration; but since you wish to be persuaded by a multitude of testimonies, hear Job saying: "The divine Spirit is he who made me, and the breath of the Almighty is what teaches me." Macedoniu. It is Elihu who says this, and he did not say simply, "Who made me," but he speaks thus: "My heart is pure in words, and the understanding of my lips is pure in thought. The divine Spirit is he who made me think pure thoughts." So, "the divine Spirit made me," that is, he made me to think purely. Orth. Nonetheless, you admit that the Spirit is altogether divine. Macedoniu. But Job did not say this; rather, it was Elihu, whom God rebuked. Orth. But did he rebuke him because he called the Spirit divine? Macedoniu. Yet God did rebuke him. Orth. What, then, if you hear Job himself saying: "The Lord lives, who has so judged me, and the Almighty, who has embittered my soul. Truly, as long as my breath is in me, and the divine Spirit remains in my nostrils," what have you to say against Job himself? Macedoniu. C I also call the Spirit divine, but not God. Orth. But what else is a divine Spirit than God? Macedoniu. Far be it! Orth. Tell me, then, has Scripture called any of the divine powers a "divine Spirit"? Read the whole Old and New Testament, and see if any of the holy angels is found called a divine Spirit. Macedoniu. For no other spirit is of such a kind. It is unique. Orth. Therefore, you also confess that there is no such spirit among created things. Macedoniu. I confess it. Orth. Let us see, then, whether it does not have communion in nature with the Father and the Son. Macedoniu. If this is demonstrated, then God himself will also have been demonstrated. Orth. It has already been demonstrated that he is divine. Macedoniu. But not D God. Orth. If we hear the Apostle Paul saying that God is nothing other than divine, it is necessary to agree that the divine is God. Macedoniu. Not...
entirely. A For if, since God is Spirit, the divine Spirit 30 is God. But where is it written that God is divine? Orth. In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul speaks thus: "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine is like unto gold or silver, or graven by art and device of man." 20 Maced. I have already said, that even if I grant that God is Spirit, it does not necessarily follow that the divine Spirit is God. Orth. If none of the created things is a divine Spirit, nor a Spirit of holiness, but these are common to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature. Maced. Prove then that, just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, and the Son likewise, so also the Spirit gives life. Orth. Paul says: "But you are not in the flesh, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. B If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. If Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwells in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you." 19 Maced. It is not written so, "by the inhabitant," but "because of the inhabitant." Orth. If I show that it is written "by the inhabitant," will you be persuaded that the Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and the Son? Maced. And if one or another corrupt copy is found among you, will you persuade me by that? Orth. We can show that it is so written in all the ancient copies. But since you think this is disputed, be assured by another proof from Scripture. Maced. State it, for this is in controversy. Orth. The same holy Paul says: C "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new testament, not of letter, but of spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 20 Maced. To give life is said to mean leading from sins to righteousness. But it does not raise the dead, as Christ raised them. Orth. Did the Apostle Paul raise Eutychus when he was dead, or not? Maced. But it was not Paul who raised him, but Christ who spoke in Paul. Orth. Yet Paul says that "Christ has wrought in me the signs by the power of the Holy Spirit." D For he speaks thus: "For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me, by word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient, by the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." Maced. For could not Christ have performed signs and wonders without the Holy Spirit? Orth. Not
in the same way could the Father create all things without the Son? Maced. Yes; but it was so that the Son might also be shown to be the creator. Orth. By the same logic, the Son, being able to perform signs and wonders, performs them in the Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit might also be shown to be doing the same things as the Father and the Son, and thus He, too, is shown to perform them in the Spirit, just as the Son does. A
21. Maced. We cannot call the Spirit God. Orth. You say that the divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and the apostles, do you not? Maced. I do. Orth. Therefore, the Spirit who breathed into them is God. Maced. God forbid that I should say that! Orth. If the Scriptures, having been breathed into by Him, are God-breathed, what else could the Spirit be but God? Maced. That Spirit ministered the doctrine of God to us, and for this reason that doctrine itself is called God-breathed. Orth. Since the sanctification by which the Spirit also sanctifies us is the sanctification of God, is it therefore not the sanctification of the Spirit Himself? Maced. Certainly, it is also the sanctification of the Spirit Himself. Orth. Just as, therefore, sanctification is from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so also is the holy Scripture. The doctrine, therefore, is of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Scripture is confessed by the holy Paul to be God-breathed: God, therefore, is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore it is also said among the prophets: "And they shall all be taught of God." Maced. Whoever is taught by the Father is said to be taught of God. Orth. Just as he who is sanctified by the Father and the Son is sanctified in like manner also by the Holy Spirit, so he who has learned from the Father learns also from the Son and from the Holy Spirit; B inasmuch as when Christ said: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you," the holy Paul says: "Do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?" You hear that what the Spirit speaks is the doctrine of Christ, and that what Christ and the Spirit speak is the doctrine of the Father. And if this is so, then what the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit speak is Scripture breathed by God.
22. Maced. When, therefore, the Father says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," it is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit who say this. Orth. Some voices are the proper voices of the Father, and some are the proper voices of the Son, and some are the proper voices of the Spirit; and there are also some that are common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, as you said before, the Father says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," this is the voice of the Father Himself. Likewise, when He says: "Behold my beloved child, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him," C and D
A such like, these are the voices of the Father. But when the Son says (36), "They pierced my hands and my feet," and as many as are such like, these are the voices of Christ. So also there are voices proper to the Spirit; as when Agabus says: "Thus saith the Holy Spirit: The man to whom this girdle belongs, so shall they bind." But all these are called inspired by God, because the voices of the Father are God’s, and the voices of the Son are God’s, and the voices of the Spirit are God’s. Maced. God forbid! Orth. Therefore, say that some are inspired by God and others are not; and blame the holy Paul, who wrote that all Scripture is divinely inspired. Maced. Do you mean, then, because some words of the saints are in them, and also those of impious and sinful men, that for this reason the impious and the sinful are also gods? Orth. But the Spirit wrote the voices of the Father, and of the Son, and of the saints, and also of the impious and sinful, through the prophets and apostles. For they themselves were not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of the Father. Maced. Show me where the Holy Spirit is clearly called God. B 23. Orth. Do you confess that you are the temple of God, or not (38)? Maced. Yes. For it has been said by the holy Paul: "Know you not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have of God?" Orth. But every temple is a temple of God; therefore, the Spirit is God. Maced. I do not call the Spirit God. Orth. Then you are not a temple either? Maced. I am the temple of God. Orth. And is it not also the temple of the Spirit? Maced. I am certainly also the temple of the Spirit. Orth. Therefore, the Spirit is also God. Maced. Since angels also dwelt in the saints, as the prophet says: "Thus saith the angel who speaks in me," do I therefore call the angels gods? C Orth. You cannot show that he who spoke in the prophet was one of the created angels. For it has already been demonstrated that both the Son and the Spirit are an angel. Even if it were granted to you that he who spoke in the prophet was one of the created angels, the prophet was not the temple of the angel. For every temple is a temple of God. Since you mentioned this, tell me where in Scripture the prophet, or the apostle, or any man at all, is called the temple of an angel or of any creature. Maced. Is the Spirit God, then? Orth. Whether you wish it or not. Maced. Then there are three gods. Orth. Is the Father God? Maced. Yes. Orth. And is the Son also God? Maced. Yes. Orth. Are there then two gods? Maced. No. Orth. So then there are not even three? D Maced. But one and one. Orth. If one and one are not two, then one and one and one are not three. Maced. Is there not therefore one God, from whom are all things, and one Lord, through whom are all things? Orth. Say also one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things. Maced. Where is this written? Orth. In David: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit"
of his mouth all their power." A Maced. But the Spirit of his mouth is not the Holy Spirit. Orth. Then neither is the Word the Son. Maced. He does not point in that place to the subsistent Word, nor to the subsistent Spirit. Orth. So that it may be granted to you that God also has an articulated word, tell us: is it the subsistent Word that established the heaven, or the articulated one? Maced. I call the articulated one his command. "For he himself spoke, and they were made; he himself commanded, and they were created." He spoke B and he commanded the Son, the subsistent Word; and the Son, having received the command, created. C But he commanded the Son, that is to say, the subsistent Word.
24. Orth. The heavens, therefore, were not established by his Word, but by the operation of the Son. And the statement "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established" is false. Since this Word did not have that power which would act alongside, but awaited the action of the Son: do you not understand into what an absurdity this argument of yours falls? Tell us, therefore, you man of much knowledge, whether the Son, after hearing from the Father, moved his own substance with some art and method and established the heaven, or did he cause it to exist by a word? D Maced. The word of the Word possessed a concurrent power; but the word of the Father awaited the word of Christ. Did the Father not command Him, then, to make all things? Orth. This is not written, but rather that the Father created all things through the Word. Maced. If the Father created, how does He create through the Son? Orth. Just as light illumines through its radiance, so the Father creates through the Son; and just as the mind teaches through a word, so also does the Father create through the Son. Maced. Not through the Spirit? Orth. He creates through the Word, and He sanctifies through the Spirit. Maced. I admit this. Orth. This, then, is what it is: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." Maced. But the Son indeed creates, while the Spirit sanctifies, and does not create. Orth. Any prudent hearer knows that under the name of sanctification, creation is also understood. When we hear, "Create a clean heart in me, O God," what else do we conceive in our mind than, "Sanctify a pure heart in me, O God"? Since, however, you wish to make sanctification co-essential with the heavens, tell me, which is greater, to create or to sanctify? Maced. To create is the work of God. Orth. Creating is indeed the work of God, but it is not greater than sanctifying. For the sanctification itself is also the work of God. For it is written: "Holy Father, sanctify them in your truth." And that sanctifying is greater than creating, learn from the very result of when someone has lost his sanctification. For that wretched Judas hears: "It would be good for that man if he had not been born." Maced. It would indeed have been good for him if that man had not been born. But the one who creates
and produces things that are not as though they were, is God alone.
A 25. Orth. It has already been shown that the words, "Let us make man," were said of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and that the words, "Let us make a helper for him suitable to him," were likewise said of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But so that the discussion is not dragged out, hear the Gospel saying that the Holy Spirit created the temple of Christ’s body. Maced. Where? Orth. "The birth of Jesus was on this wise: when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." Maced. Jesus, then, is the Son of the Spirit. Orth. Genesis [that is, "origin"], it says, not "generation"; it speaks of one, not two. Maced. But the angel said: "For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit." Orth. First hear of the origin of the temple, and only then of the generation. For we humans are first created by the Craftsman and Creator, and then we are born, albeit improperly. For the text, "I have begotten sons and exalted them," is certainly written—not naturally, clearly, but improperly. Maced. How did Solomon say, "Wisdom hath built herself a house"? Orth. This is precisely what I am saying, that all works belong to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, and for this reason B they are sometimes said to be of the Father, sometimes of the Son, sometimes of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the holy apostle Paul says: "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb, to reveal his Son in me"; and again the same person says: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God." Maced. What follows from this? Orth. I wish to show you that Paul says he is something set apart, sometimes by the Father, sometimes by the Son. Maced. And by the Holy Spirit as well? Orth. Learn, then, that the Holy Spirit also set him apart, as has already been stated. For it is written thus in the Acts of the Apostles: "The Spirit said to them: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." C Maced. I also say that those whom the Father calls, the Son and the Holy Spirit also call; and those whom the Father sanctifies, the Spirit also sanctifies, but the Spirit does not create. Orth. It has been shown that the Spirit does create. For the holy Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Maced. It did not say "with child, the Holy Spirit creating," but it was said simply: "She was found with child of the Holy Spirit." Orth. What else, then, do you think "of the Holy Spirit" means, other than that He created it? Maced. I say that the dispensation of the Spirit is signified here. Orth. You are unwilling, then, to confess that the Lord’s body is a creature? Maced. I say that the body is a creature, but I do not say that it is a creature D of the Spirit, but of Christ. Orth. But the Scripture
A says: "She was found with child by the Holy Spirit."
26. Maced. Tell me, where is it written that the Spirit created anything? Orth. What has been said is sufficient for all those hearers who have brought a sincere desire to understand the matter; but since we have the goal of benefiting those who are differently disposed, hear also the Spirit speaking thus: "Prepare to call upon your God, O Israel, for behold, I am He who strengthens the thunder and creates the spirit, and announces to men His Christ." Maced. It is the Father who is speaking. Orth. If the Father were speaking, it would have been necessary for Him to say, "I who announce to men my Christ," and He would not have said, "His Christ." For tell me, is Christ of another God besides the Father? Maced. There was not, nor is there, nor will there be another God besides the Father of Christ. But it is the prophet who is saying, "Prepare to call upon your God, O Israel," and the words "Behold, I" are not there, but rather, "Behold, He who strengthens the thunder, and creates the spirit, announcing to men His Christ," that is, God Himself. Orth. All things are permitted to you, but not all things are beneficial. For you are those who reject B the holy Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, and corrupt the context of the Epistle to the Romans, when you say it is not written, "By His Spirit who dwells in you," but, "By His Spirit who dwells [within]." Behold, you are attempting to corrupt the prophet as well. But no one will allow you this. If, therefore, we produce the prophetic text and show that "Behold, I" is written, will you be persuaded that the Spirit creates? Maced. I know that in some copies it is written, "Behold, I." But I say those copies are erroneous. For it has no consistency to say that it is the Spirit speaking, that "Behold, I strengthen the thunder and create the spirit." Orth. Nevertheless, this is the greatest consistency of the passage, and it cannot be smoothed out in any other way. For it is the Spirit that is saying: "Prepare to call upon your God, O Israel. For behold, I, the Spirit, strengthening the thunder C and creating the spirit, and announcing to men His Christ," that is, God's Christ. Maced. What spirit does He create? Orth. If you mean according to the literal word, the spirit that follows the thunder; but if according to the meaning, that which the holy Paul spoke of, "to be preserved blameless in soul and body, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." For one must understand the "strengthened thunder" as that baptism formerly used among the Jews, which was hollow and watery; so that holy John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who is mightier than I is coming, who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Since, therefore, baptism itself is strengthened D by the presence of the Spirit, it is well said that "Behold, I, the Spirit [strengthen] the thunder and create the spirit," that in...
is the one who is in each one of us, whom David even calls a heart, saying: "Create in me a clean heart, O God."
27. Maced. Therefore you call baptism thunder. Orth. Symbolically, and indeed very much so. For just as when I hear, "Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt," I do not look toward any bodily vine, but I understand the temple; so also I understand baptism by thunder. For Christ even called his disciples sons of thunder, that is, sons of baptism. Since, therefore, thunder consists of water and spirit, and this is the mystical instruction of holy baptism, he symbolically calls baptism thunder, B strengthened by the holy Spirit. Indeed, the Apostle, as it is said in the Acts, having come and found some who had been baptized, asked them, saying: "Have you received the holy Spirit when you believed?" And when they said, "But we have not even heard whether there is a holy Spirit," he said: "Into what then were you baptized?"—as if there is no firmness in baptism if the Spirit is not present. Therefore, the baptism of thunder makes firm and creates the spirit—that is, our hearts—the very holy Spirit who says through the prophet: "Prepare to call upon your God, O Israel; for behold, I am making firm the thunder, and creating the spirit, and proclaiming to men his Christ." Maced. Interpret also what follows, and harmonize these things with one another. Orth. "Who makes the dawn and the mist, and steps upon the high places of the earth." Maced. What then do you call the dawn, and the mist, and the high places of the earth? Orth. According to the meaning, I call the dawn the resurrection. For the rising of the sun of righteousness is understood to be the resurrection. The mist, however, is that which did not allow all to see him clearly. For she was found to be in the womb having [conceived] from the holy Spirit. The high places of the earth are those who, walking upon the earth, have their citizenship in heaven. C For upon these the grace of the Spirit steps.
28. Maced. Did the holy Spirit, then, raise up Christ? Orth. It is not burdensome for me to say these things, and for you it is safe. For just as it is said that the Father made the Lord's body (for it is written: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you"), and Solomon also says that this very body was built by wisdom—for he says: "Wisdom has built for herself a house," and the Gospel says it is of the holy Spirit—so also the Son himself says concerning the resurrection of his body: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"; and the Apostle says that "God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death"; but here it is said that the Spirit
A also raised him. For when I hear "Making the dawn," I conceive in my mind the resurrection. For what the Father does, the Son does also; and what the Father and the Son do, the Spirit does the same, as has been demonstrated above. Maced. And can you show me that the Spirit raised Christ? Orth. I do not say that the Spirit raised Christ as if He were more powerful than Christ, but that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit raised the temple of the body. Maced. But how can you persuade me of this? Did the Son need help to raise His own temple? Orth. Indeed, was He who was filled with the Spirit Himself in need of help? Maced. Where is it written that He was filled with the Spirit? Orth. Read the Gospel according to Luke, so that you may hear: "And Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan" (Luke IV, 1). And what is wonderful is that it is written not only that He was filled, but also that He was led by the Spirit. Just as He was filled and led, so also did He rise again. And that you may know that there is nothing to prevent the Spirit from raising Him while the Father raises Him, hear that even while the Father remains in Him, as the Son Himself says in the Gospels: "The Father who abides in me, He does the works" (John XIV, 10), so also does the Spirit abide in Him; for "The Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove, and remained upon him" (John I, 32). Therefore, just as nothing prevents the Spirit from abiding, while B the Father abides; so nothing prevents the Spirit from raising Him, while the Father raises Him. And this is that which is said: "Making the dawn," that is, the resurrection, "and the mist," that is, the body. Maced. But could He not have raised Himself? Orth. Rather, from these things the identity of nature is demonstrated; since what the Father does, the Son does also, and what the Son does, the Spirit similarly does. Maced. And how is that possible? Orth. As has been shown. Maced. And where has it been shown? Orth. Because as the Father sanctifies, so also does the Son, as it is also written by the Apostle: "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).
29. Maced. I am weak; but I shall find someone who has something to say to these things. Persuade my teachers of these things, and I shall be persuaded. Orth. If that blessed and holy Apostle had been of your opinion when Christ appeared to him, he would have said: "Persuade the chief priests and scribes first, and then I will be persuaded by you." Maced. I am terrified by these new and unusual expressions. Our C fathers never used such interpretations among us. It is necessary that we consider these things, especially that new saying which I heard, namely, that baptism is thunder. Orth. Do you admit that the apostles were called sons of thunder by the Savior, or not? Maced. Only those two brothers were so called. Orth. As for us, even if it was said to one, we say it is fitting for all who have the same Spirit. For Paul, the D holy apostle, said: "The Father.
"Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness: not to me only, but unto all them also that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." A Are you persuaded, then, that He called the apostles sons of thunder? And did thunder beget them, or men? *Maced.* I am persuaded He called them sons of thunder because of their sublime preaching of the faith. *Orth.* But what is more sublime than baptism? Consider with the fear of God whether the inspired Scripture does not everywhere intimate that baptism is thunder. For David says: "The voice of thy thunder was in the wheel: thy lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook." What else does he call thunder if not baptism? The wheel, the circle of this life; the lightnings, the holy apostles, who also revealed the light of thunder to the world? For they themselves are the ones who heard: B "Ye are the light of the world." The earth, which had been shaken for cultivation by the thunder, and by the shining of the stars, brought the nations from ignorance to the knowledge of God. *Maced.* I said that these things seem new and strange to me. I have need of broader consideration. *Orth.* Since I wish to persuade you by all means to believe this, learn that in another psalm also David calls baptism thunder, saying: "The voice of the Lord is upon the waters." And soon after: "The God of glory thundereth; the Lord is upon many waters." *Maced.* I now know what you intend to construct and gather. But as I said before, I am of little wit; grant me leave to examine these things further. *Orth.* May the Lord grant you understanding, that you may recognize the things you have been taught.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS DIALOGUE IV ON THE HOLY TRINITY, IN WHICH IS A DISCUSSION OF AN ORTHODOX BELIEVER WITH A FOLLOWER OF APOLLINARIS
*Orthodoxus.* 1. Did Christ have a human body, or not? *Apollinarista.* He did not. *Orth.* What kind, then? *Apoll.* Divine. *Orth.* By nature, or by the union of the economy? *Apoll.* By the union of the economy. *Orth.* Therefore, by nature it is human, but by the economy it is divine. *Apoll.* Yes. *Orth.* And consubstantial with us? *Apoll.* The flesh which He took from Mary is consubstantial with us. *Orth.* Are you then in agreement with us on these points? C *Apoll.* If you hold thus, yes. *Orth.* Let us see, then, also concerning the soul. *Apoll.* Let us see. *Orth.* Was the body ensouled, or
A inanimate? *Apoll.* It was ensouled. *Orth.* You mean, then, that it was endowed with a soul? *Apoll.* By no means. *Orth.* How, then, could it have been ensouled, if it was not endowed with a soul? *Apoll.* It was ensouled with a divine animation. *Orth.* And were you yourself ensouled without God’s intervention? *Apoll.* I was ensouled naturally. *Orth.* And was that without the power of God? *Apoll.* But the Lord is not like that. For in our case, a rational soul, united to a body by the command of God, constitutes a human being. In the case of the Lord, it is not so; but God the Word, united to flesh, constituted a human being—God. *Orth.* Do you mean, then, this divine animation? *Apoll.* Precisely. *Orth.* The Word, therefore, was in place of a soul? *Apoll.* Yes. *Orth.* Who, then, was it that said: “No one takes my soul from me; when I will, I lay it down, and when I will, I take it up”—the flesh, or the Word? *Apoll.* The Word. *Orth.* What soul was he speaking of? Was it inanimate? *Apoll.* It was ensouled. *Orth.* Did it have a soul of its own, or one that it did not have? *Apoll.* He was speaking of human life. *Orth.* For is it possible for there to be human life without the presence of a soul? *Apoll.* It is indeed. “For God was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men.” B *Apoll.* In the flesh. *Orth.* Just as it belongs to flesh to be visible, so it belongs to a soul to converse. But it is impossible for one who is by nature invisible to be seen, unless he is united to a body that can be seen; and it is impossible for one who is by nature impassible to suffer and to converse with men, unless he is united to an ensouled body capable of suffering voluntarily and conversing with men. Now, an ensouled body, by the very fact that it is endowed with a soul, is ensouled, whether you like it or not. *Apoll.* Then a mere man suffered for us. *Orth.* God forbid! But God, desiring to be seen, united to himself a body capable of being seen; and desiring to suffer, united to himself an ensouled body capable of suffering voluntarily—not one that existed previously and was later added to by virtue of some union, nor one derived simply from the man Mary, but she was first sanctified, and then the God Word partook of humanity from her, and united to himself by dispensation an ensouled body, so that the one and the same God and man might exist. *Apoll.* Is an ensouled body a human being? *Orth.* Not every ensouled body is a human being; but a human ensouled body is a human being. *Apoll.* Is this human being Jesus? *Orth.* He is united to the Word. *Apoll.* Is Jesus, then, not a human being? *Orth.* I do not recognize even him as having subsistence apart from the Word. C For I acknowledge his existence in the very union with the Word. *Apoll.* Was the Word, then, not in place of the rational part? *Orth.* No, but the Word was in the rational part, uniting to himself through that part the capacity for voluntary suffering. *Apoll.* Did Christ have the mind of a human being? *Orth.* Do not speak in that way, dividing Christ; he had a mind.
A And it is said that Christ is both Mind and Word. I call the human mind in which the Word was just as I said in the beginning of the discourse that he had a body that was human by nature, but of God by the economy. So too, I call his soul human by nature, but of God by the economy; and his mind human by nature, but of God by the economy. And just as his flesh did not see corruption, so also his mind did not commit sin. And just as a body that is human by nature, and derived from Adam, must necessarily be comprised of flesh and blood, so too a human soul must necessarily be rational. And so I say again: just as the body is human by nature, but divine by the union of the economy, so also is the mind human by nature, but the mind of God by the union of the economy.
3. *Apoll.* The union of two perfect things does not result in one perfect thing. *Orth.* Among men, perhaps this is impossible, but with God it is possible. *Apoll.* How? *Orth.* As there is the birth from a Virgin, as there is the entry of a solid body, comprised of flesh and bones, through closed doors, as there is the walking upon the sea. For just as these things are possible with God, so too is that. *Apoll.* Did Mary then give birth to a man? *Orth.* Not to a man alone and barely so, but to God who became man. For the Lord was with her first in a divine manner, and then, as a child from her, in the manner of the economy; for this reason Mary is Theotokos. B *Apoll.* Was it a man, then, who was crucified for us? *Orth.* Not a man alone, no; but the Son of God, being God, having willed to be crucified for us, joined to himself a soul-endowed, rational body, which was capable of being crucified with voluntary suffering. *Apoll.* Why do you say "crucified with suffering"? Is crucifixion something other than suffering? *Orth.* It is voluntary, and indeed entirely so. *Apoll.* How? *Orth.* Because a soul-endowed body can be crucified, but it cannot suffer voluntarily if it is not soul-endowed and rational. And this is the impiety of those who say he had no soul. For since the body cannot perceive voluntary suffering without a soul, it would be necessary for the Word, being in place of the soul, to have suffered, or for there to have been no perception of voluntary suffering at all. C
4. *Apoll.* Did he suffer naturally? *Orth.* God forbid! *Apoll.* Did he suffer at all? *Orth.* He joined to himself a body capable of suffering, so that the suffering belonged to the economy and not to the nature of the Word. For just as he was wearied from his journey, not by the nature of his divinity, but by the economy of the union, so he suffered, not by the nature of his divinity, but by the economy of the union. Otherwise, how could he who made heaven and earth without labor, and who walks upon the wings of the winds, have been wearied, unless he had joined to himself that which was capable of being wearied? D Now, a soulless body neither toils nor spins. And just as
it is not ensouled nor does it labor, nor does it suffer. Just as that ensouled body, which the Word united to Himself, is His own body not by nature, but by economy; so the labor is His labor, not by nature, but by the economy of the union: and the passion is His passion, not by nature (for the nature is impassible), but by the economy of the union. For because of the passion is the union; and because of salvation is the passion. For wishing to save, He suffered; and wishing to suffer, He united, which having united He never abandoned. "For so He shall come, in the way you saw Him going into heaven," and, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." A Apoll. For could He not save us in another way? Orth. But He willed to save us in this way, through the foolishness of the preaching. Apoll. If He had a human mind, He could also have sinned. Orth. If the mind had not been united to the Godhead, yes. Apoll. Was Christ then mutable? Orth. God forbid! Apoll. If He could sin, He was mutable. Orth. Remember what we have said. For I said: If it had not been united to the Godhead. But Jesus Christ is not understood without the union as Jesus Christ, but as God the Word, the subsistent Son of God. If you can find an ensouled body without union, contemplate change; but if it was simultaneously a body, and the body of God the Word, and simultaneously ensouled and participant in reason, and simultaneously the ensouled and rational body of God the Word, do you seek change? Apoll. If Christ had a human mind, He also had forgetfulness and ignorance, and could sin. Orth. If it had not been united to the Godhead, yes. And do not say, "if only a human mind"; for He could not have had the mind of any other; but, "if then," say, "the Word was a participant of a human mind, just as of human flesh."
5. Apoll. How can a human mind not be changed? Orth. Just as this mortal, C having put on immortality, no longer dies, and this corruptible, having put on incorruptibility, is no longer corrupted; so the mind, having been deified by union with God the Word, is not changed. Apoll. Did the saints therefore also have an immutable mind? Orth. No. Apoll. Why? Was the Word not also in them? Orth. But in the saints He was not by union, but according to the grace of the Spirit, working differently in them; but here, that is, in God the Word, was all the fullness of the Godhead. And the saints indeed were participants of the Word; but here the Word participated in human nature. Apoll. Say, of blood and flesh, as is written. Orth. It is the custom of Scripture to call the whole man flesh and blood, as when it says: "I did not confer with flesh and blood," D and, "In the last days I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh," and again: "My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh," and whatever things are of this sort. Apoll. What is this, That the saints participated, and God the Word participated? What is this difference? Orth. Because the saints existed first, and then participated in God the Word; but here it is not so, but the God Word who is before the ages, having willed to be
made man, sanctified the Virgin, and united to Himself a body from her, not existing beforehand, and then uniting, but uniting in the very existence. A Apoll. There were then two governing principles in the body, God the Word and the human mind. Orth. No. But the Word Himself governed the mind. Apoll. How is it possible that there are not two? Orth. Just as the whiteness of wool dyed with the color of purple is not two-colored, but one-colored; so the mind, being illuminated and deified, is one thing, and there are not two governing principles. For the mind does not will one thing, and the Word another; but as a musician and his instrument are not two musicians, so God the Word and the human mind are not two governing principles. For the Word has used the human mind as an instrument instead of an instrument. Apoll. But the musician's instrument is devoid of mind. Orth. And the musician is mortal. But here the Word, being immortal, uses the mind as an instrument; and just as in us the mind uses the body as an instrument for those things performed by the body, so there the Word uses the mind as an instrument for those things performed through the mind. B
5. Apoll. What is the need of the body? Orth. For many reasons; because He willed to be seen, and because the composite whole had perished, and He was pleased to save the like by the like through the cross and voluntary passion. And in the voluntary passion He used the mind, as I said before, as an instrument; but in bodily matters, the body; and thus, having sought and found, He saved that which was lost. Apoll. What do you call bodily matters? Orth. The cross, burial, walking, touch, eating, drinking, and whatever is consequent to these. Apoll. Was God the Word He who was born of Mary? Orth. He who was born of Mary, in regard to that which is of her substance, was not God substantially, but by the economy of union. Apoll. And how is it said, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb"? Orth. Because the God Word, being of the substance of the Father, took from her substance the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, was found to be the fruit of her womb. Apoll. Is the Word then joined to the body united from her, as a living creature? Orth. C It is not written as a living creature, but as in a living temple. Apoll. And is He in each of the saints thus, as in a living temple? Orth. Not so. For each of the saints became a temple just so far as he was able to succeed by virtue and discipline. But here "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells"; and while the saints have received the form of God having succeeded in virtue, here the Word took the form of a servant. Apoll. Thus, that which consists of soul and body is a man. Orth. If it were considered apart from the Word, yes. But if there is no time when it is considered apart from the Word, it is not a mere man, but God by the union of the Word. Apoll. Is the temple born of Mary Jesus, by
whom all things were made? Orth. He who was born of Mary was not born empty or shorn of [his power], but with the temple; and for this reason he himself is Jesus, through whom all things exist. Neither do I call the temple Jesus without the Word, nor the Word Jesus without the temple; but from that time the Word has been called Jesus, from whom He also healed the contrivances of His people. And He healed them when He deemed it worthy to take the form of a servant. This Word, therefore, who is now named Jesus on account of the economy, is He through whom all things exist; and just as I perceive the cautery to be at once fire and iron, so I understand Jesus to be God the Word made man. Apoll. Is the temple itself, or He who is in the temple, He through whom all things exist? Orth. Do not separate the temple from Him who dwells in the temple. For if "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," how much more, when the Lord is said and believed to be united to the form of a servant, is He Himself one, God and man? B
6. Apoll. Is he, then, who was born of Mary not a man? Orth. A mere man? By no means. Apoll. But what else besides? Orth. But also God; for just as Isaac, born of Abraham, is not mere flesh, nor is any other of mankind—but each one of us is born a man from a man, with the rational soul not being generated from another rational soul, even though man is composed of a rational soul and a body—so I call Him who was born of Mary God, united to a soul and body. For just as when a soul is united to a body, a man is born through a woman, so when the Word of God was united to a soul and body, God and man was born through a woman. Apoll. And yet it is written "of a woman." Orth. "Of a woman" according to the flesh; "through a woman" according to the Spirit. Apoll. The own Son of God, who was delivered up for us, who is He? The Word, or the man? Orth. The own Son of God. He Himself is the one who "humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant," C and was delivered up in that very form of a servant. Apoll. Then it is not Jesus, the one born of Mary, but the Word born through her, who humbled Himself even unto death? Orth. Do not divide the union once united. For I said that He Himself is the own Son, who is of her according to the flesh, and through her according to the Spirit. Apoll. Therefore the Word born through her humbled Himself even unto death. Orth. The God Word, then, born through her, being unable by the nature of His divinity to be humbled even unto death, took to Himself from her an ensouled body, which was capable of being humbled even unto death, which is the form of a servant. D
7. Apoll. Did God, then, suffer for us? Orth. God, having united to Himself an ensouled body, which was capable of
A suffering, did not die according to the nature of the Godhead, but by the economy of the union. Apoll. If the body had an ensouled, rational soul, it was not God but man who died. Orth. Is the separation of the soul from the body called death, or not? Apoll. It is. Orth. Just as God could not have been in a tomb or in a burial unless He possessed a body to be placed there, so He would not be said to have been separated from the body—He who is everywhere and contains all things—unless He had a separate soul, with which He also preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For because of this He is said to have departed from the body and to have been in Hades. And this is what is meant by being in Hades for our sake because of the soul, and being laid in a tomb because of the body. Apoll. I believe that God the Word enlivens that body by His own presence, and that it had no need of a soul. Orth. Just as it needed a soul in order to be seized, crucified, and buried—so that the cross might not be mere semblance, but truth—so too it needed a soul in order to die and to enter Hades. For concerning whom was it said, “He began to be sorrowful and to be in agony even unto death 78?” Concerning a body destitute of sense, or concerning God the Word? Apoll. We also say that the body had sensation, through which it perceived the passion. Orth. But a body that has sensation is ensouled; for that which is inanimate B is also destitute of sensation. Therefore, it is God who humbled Himself unto death and died—not dying by the nature of the Godhead, but by the economy of the union. For He reckoned the passions of humanity as His own passions. And just as it was impossible for Him to be nailed to the cross, wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid in a tomb without a body, so it was impossible for Him to be in agony without a rational soul; for an irrational soul does not suffer agony from foreknowing death, but is led to the slaughter like an ox or some other brute animal.
8. Apoll. Therefore, the Son of God did not become man, but was in man. Yet it is impossible for the one who has become in man to be man. Orth. Do you say that the Word became flesh, or not? Apoll. “The Word became flesh,” it is written. Orth. Was He turned into flesh, or did He come to be in flesh? Apoll. He came to be in flesh. Orth. If it was impossible for Him to become man while being in man, it was likewise impossible for Him to become flesh while being in flesh. But if, by coming to be in flesh, He is said to have become man—not by having been turned into man—Apoll. Who then was the one who said, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me 80?” God the Word, or the man? Orth. Just as I say that the burial of the body and its garments belong to the Word—not by nature of the Godhead, but by the economy of the union—so also are the cries and psychic passions C of the soul, such as being in agony and whatever else is said concerning Him
A in the Gospels, I say, regarding God the Word, not by nature of the Godhead, but by the economy of the union. For just as He claims the body as His own, saying, "Unless you eat my body," so too He claims the soul as His own, saying, "No one takes my soul from me." Thus He also appropriates the passions of the composite being. For just as the body is His by the economy, so also the burial of the body is His own burial. And as the soul is His by the economy, so the voice of the soul is His own voice; so that the burial of His body is the burial of the Word by the economy, and the voice of His soul is the voice of the Word by the economy. For it was the Word Himself who was speaking those things which belong properly to the soul.
9. B Apoll. We say that the philanthropist Word of God deigned to become man, having taken flesh from the holy Virgin Mary; and He was God incarnate, having been found as man. Orth. Do not say the philanthropic Word of God, but rather say the flesh-loving one; for if He did not deign to be united to man, how is He a philanthropist? Apoll. Out of love for man, He was united to human flesh, so that He might be the same God and man. Orth. He is not God and man; nor is that human flesh which is not possessed of a rational soul. For how can that flesh which has not been quickened by a rational soul be human flesh? For flesh is flesh, and soul is soul. Then indeed is it called man, when the rational soul is embodied, and the body is ensouled. Therefore, that is not human flesh which does not communicate with a rational soul. Apoll. When any earthly body receives a rational soul, it is called man; but if it receives a soul devoid of reason, it becomes an animal other than man. C From this material did the Lord fashion for Himself a body, and having quickened it with His own substance (which, by its own nature, when it has a soul, completes a common animal), and having imparted to it His own faculties of action, He made the animal God; God, indeed, according to form, but man according to material. Orth. This "form," I do not understand; do you intend to say, according to His divinity? Apoll. I understand it as a shaped body, gleaming with divine faculties of action. Orth. Do you therefore call the divine faculties of action "form"? Apoll. Yes. Orth. If, when any of the earthly bodies receives a rational soul, it becomes man, then it is also called and becomes a human body; but not having received a rational soul, it is not even a human body. Now, if it is not a human body, how can you call it man according to material, D when the material is only then human, when it receives a rational soul? Moreover, I have read the confession of your teacher Apollinaris, in which he says that the body of our Lord is consubstantial with Mary. But Mary is consubstantial with us. Therefore, the Lord's body is consubstantial with us, since it is also human.
10. Apoll. How do you prove that the Lord's body is of human build? Orth. I, and the Lord's body...
A I mean also the Lord's soul, and the Lord's blood, and the Lord's burial, and in general the Lord's man, because of the union of the Word of God; so that the same person is both God and man, and sometimes he is called entirely God and Lord, and sometimes he is called entirely man. For he himself says concerning himself: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?" And Paul says: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever." And when Thomas had touched this very man, he says: "My Lord and my God." Similarly Paul: B "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever." Therefore, he is entirely God and man because of the union by good pleasure. For if "he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit," much more so, when the Lord is called and believed to have become man, not having lost his being God, he remains the same God and man: God by nature, but man by the participation of humanity through good pleasure.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS
Dialogus V, in which there is the compendium of the disputation of the same Apollinarist and Bishop Gregory.APOLLINARIST
1. C When God works in a man, a prophet is produced, or rather an apostle, but not the Savior of the world; but Christ is the Savior of the world: was Christ therefore not produced by God working in a man? ORTHODOX. Not as you think, by God working simply, but by producing prophecy, a prophet is produced, or rather an apostle, and not the Savior of the world. But God, having taken the form of a servant, became himself both prophet, and apostle, and high priest, and mediator of God and men, and Savior of the world, remaining God, and not changed into the things mentioned above.2. Apoll. Every man is a part of the world, and no part of the world takes away the sin of the world, to which it is itself also subject. But Christ takes it away; therefore Christ is not a man. Orth. For this very reason, because no part D of the world takes away the sin of the world, the Creator of the world took the form of a part of the world, so that in so far as it is a part
of the world, being slain as a part of the world, He might take away the sin of the world as the Creator of the world.
2. *Apoll.* Every man is subject to death; and no one who is subject to death abolishes death. But Christ abolishes it: therefore Christ is not man. *Orth.* For this reason, because no man abolishes death, since every man is subject to death, the immortal Son of God, being the Word and God, united unto Himself that which is subject to death, in order that in the death He might abolish him who has the power of death 88. For just as He, being invisible, could not be seen without having taken on that which could be seen: so, being immortal, He could not die without having taken on that which was mortal.
3. *Apoll.* Every man is of the earth. But Christ is not of the earth, B but is from heaven; therefore Christ is not man, unless it be in the name only. *Orth.* You are mistaken; for not every man is of the earth. For Scripture has taught us that there are also heavenly men, if not by nature, at least in their manner of life, saying: "As is the heavenly one, such also are those who are heavenly 89." We indeed speak of Christ as man univocally with respect to His human nature. Likewise, just as when we assign the name "animal" to a man, we use the same word as if we were speaking of a horse or any other animal, yet it does not follow that every animal is rational: so if we call Christ "man" univocally, it does not follow that every man is Christ. And just as that which is joined to the animal as rational is a man, and he is not thereby deprived of being an animal: so God, who is joined and believed together with the rational animal, is confessed and believed to be Christ; and He is not deprived of being man, but is the same God and man.
4. *Apoll.* Whoever gives the power to become children of God, he himself is by no means *made* a son. But Christ gives this. Therefore He has not been made a Son, but is Son by nature. *Orth.* It is true, He was not made [a Son], but was the Son of God by nature. But He became the Son of man. For He was not, and He became that which He was not, so that by this manner He might make us to be what He is by nature: and He is the same God and man.
5. *Apoll.* No man exists before those who precede him in age; but Christ existed C before those who preceded Him according to the flesh. Therefore He is not man, except according to the flesh. *Orth.* Christ, if one considers the human nature, does not exist before those who were older than Him according to human nature; but with regard to His divinity, He exists not only before those who were older than Him according to the flesh, but also before all ages, as being their God. Therefore, Christ did not exist before Mary, with regard to the flesh. For how could that which is from her exist before her? But He exists before her divinely, being her God; and He is the same person, as God existing before, and as man from her.
7. A *Apoll.* No man has glory before the ages: but Christ does. Christ is therefore not a man. *Orth.* For no man exists before the ages. But Christ, as regards His divinity, since He is the Son and God and Lord before all ages, rightly has glory before the ages; being Lord of glory by nature, but called Christ because He took the form of a servant. Therefore, He who is now called Christ, and stone, and shepherd, and grain, and flower of the rod, and Emmanuel, and Jesus, and man, and twelve-year-old boy, and who became thirty years old because of the economy toward men—He is God before the ages, and now, after having become all these things, remains what He was, and has glory before the ages, being God of God.
8. *Apoll.* If God is in Jesus, not all things are through Him, but through the one who is in Him. All things are through Him: therefore God is not in Jesus, but He is God Himself. *Orth.* The God Word, being God in subsistence, partaking of human nature, was called Jesus. Do not say, therefore, that God was in Jesus, but that God Himself was called Jesus, and therefore He Himself is Jesus through whom are all things. For He who is now called Jesus because of the human nature—but is God the Word both before and after that naming—He is the same Jesus through whom are all things; as one who is God B according to the Spirit, and man because of the form of a servant; wherefore He is also the same Jesus, through whom are all things.
9. *Apoll.* He who saves from sin is superior to sin. But no man is superior to sin: Christ is therefore not a man. *Orth.* For Christ is not a mere man; nor indeed would He have been Christ, the one who takes away the sin of the world, if He were a mere man. But for this reason Christ is He who takes away the sin of the world, because the God Word, having taken the form of a servant, became Christ the man. And for this reason the prophet says: “And he is a man, and who shall know him?” and Christ Himself: “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?” so that we might understand Christ as man because of the human nature, and God because of the divinity; just as we understand a man to be rational because of the reasoning soul, and a living being because of the vital principle.
10. *Apoll.* Every man has a dissension C of flesh against mind; but Christ does not have this: Christ is therefore not a man. *Orth.* If every man has a dissension of flesh against mind, and one of men is also Elias, who was taken up and is believed by us to be in the flesh until the present time, will there be in him also a dissension of mind D from flesh?
A For if his flesh does not dissent from his mind, then not every man has a dissension of the flesh against the mind. Much more, therefore, does the Lord of Elias not have flesh that dissents from the mind, but having been made like us in all things according to humanity, sin excepted, and having become a merciful and faithful high priest, it is truly the same person who is God and man.
11. *Apoll.* Every man, in order to be perfected in virtue, mortifies his flesh; but Christ does not mortify it. Therefore, Christ is not a man. *Orth.* By what mortification did John mortify his own flesh, leaping in the womb and seen in exultation? But even if it were granted that every man mortifies his flesh to be perfected in virtue, yet having been perfected and having his citizenship in heaven, he prepares it to be vivified through the Spirit dwelling in him, so that after having been perfected in virtue, he might say: "I have finished the course" (II Tim. iv, 7). But Christ did B not reach perfection through any exercise, but in the very conception, from that very union, being born Emmanuel, He is God and man; wherefore Mary is also the Theotokos.
12. *Apoll.* No man’s flesh is said to be from heaven; but the flesh of Christ is said to be from heaven. Therefore, Christ is not a man according to the divinity which took on flesh. Thus, therefore, he is also said to be from heaven, because he is united to Him who is from heaven. *Orth.* Nothing could be said more ridiculous. For if the flesh is said to be from heaven because it is united to Him who is from heaven, it is not itself from heaven. Just as, therefore, you say that the flesh, which is not from heaven, is from heaven, so also Scripture calls heavenly men being "from heaven" because they think on C heavenly things. Hear, and your proposition, or the shorthand summary of your arguments—by which name you have inscribed this treatise—is solved. But Christ, being called a man from heaven, is not called heavenly as all men are, because he thinks on heavenly things, but because of the divine and adorable union of the God Word with the form of a servant, so that he is the same, both God and man.
13. *Apoll.* No man gives life; but Christ gives life. Therefore, Christ is not a man. *Orth.* But Christ gives life for this reason, because the God Word, having taken the form of a servant, was called Christ.
14. *Apoll.* To no man does the name that is above every name befit, nor the glory that belongs to God alone; but it befits Christ; therefore, Christ is not a man. *Orth.* You could say this also concerning the Virgin D Mary. To no man does it befit, being a Virgin, to give birth; but the Virgin Mary did give birth; therefore, Mary is not a man. But your sophism will be utterly refuted in this way also. For to no man truly does the name that is above every name befit, nor the glory which belongs to God alone; because no man is Christ, by the union of the God Word and the servile form.
A 15. Apoll. If God dwelt in man, he was not emptied. But He who in the form of God took the form of a servant is emptied; therefore He did not dwell in a man. Orth. Indeed, the God Word did not simply dwell in man, but also became man, sharing in blood and flesh, that is, in human nature; for this reason Christ is not merely a man, but is the same God and man.
16. Apoll. God, dwelling in man, is not man; but the Spirit united to flesh is man. Christ, as it has been said, is man equivocally. The divine Spirit is therefore united to flesh. Orth. You are talking nonsense. For if the Spirit is united to flesh, it is not immediately man, but could also be an ox, and an ass, and anything else of the fleshly animals. But that it may be granted to you that the divine Spirit also was united to flesh, it was entirely necessary that the God Word, having become man from a woman, should be united to the Spirit united to flesh, so that He might be man. For how could He have been man not united to man? But we would by no means call Christ man equivocally, lest He be thought to be a man by a mere fantasy, having only the common name. B
17. Apoll. It belongs to man to rise from the dead, and to God to raise; but both belong to Christ; therefore the same one is God and man. Orth. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace," because even against your will you have confessed the truth. For it was necessary that the one rising and the one raising should be the same. And just as He would not be God and flesh, if He had not been united to flesh, so He would not be God and man, if He had not been united to man.
18. Apoll. If Christ were only man, or only God, He would not be a mediator between God and men. Orth. Blessed be God in all these things, in that you have confessed that Christ is neither only man, nor only God. For God is God, and is not a common man; and a common man is a man, and is not God. God united to man is Christ, the mediator of God and men, the same one being God and man. C
19. Apoll. If Christ were only man, He would not have saved the world; and if He were only God, He would not have saved it through suffering; but both belong to Christ; therefore He is God and man. Orth. And now you speak wisely. For it is necessary that human nature be subjected to the passion, and that divinity guide it to life. Therefore, unless He were God, He would not have vivified, and unless He had been man, He would not have suffered willingly; but both belong to Christ, for He suffered and He vivified; therefore He is God and man. D
20. Apoll. If Christ were only man, He would not have vivified the dead; and if He were only God, He would not have vivified some of the dead apart from the Father; but both belong to Christ; therefore the same one is God and man.
A Orth. Christ was not only man; for He would not have been Christ if He were only man. But in vivifying the dead, He does not vivify them privately, apart from the Father. For how could He say, "The Father dwelling in me, he doeth the works," if He vivified privately, apart from the Father? Therefore, even if He says, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and vivifieth them, even so the Son vivifieth whom He will," He does not say that He performs this by any efficacy separate from the Father, but He is teaching us the self-sufficiency of His own hypostasis. For the Father does not raise and vivify some dead, and the Son others.
21. Apoll. Man moved by God is not God; but body conjoined to God is God. But Christ is God. Therefore, Christ is not man moved by God, but a body composed with God. Orth. Christ is not a man moved by God, but God conjoined—as you yourself termed it—that is, united—to a man. For if a body can be united—that is, composed—with God, then the whole man can be composed with God, and the same one be both God and man, just as the same one is flesh and God. B But what you meant when you said "a body conjoined to God is God," I do not know. For you call the body God, as if it were not body; or you call God "God" because of that which was conjoined or composed with Him. Yet how is He God by nature, who is God on account of something else? We do not call Christ God because of that conjunction with the body or man, but God because of the nature which He has from the Father; and we call Him Christ because of the form of a servant, the union or composition, as you yourself named it.
22. Apoll. If God has a temple born of Mary, that new birth from the Virgin is superfluous, since even without such a birth men are temples of God. Orth. Fight against the holy Gospels, that you may hear: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." And hear the Lord saying: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And even if some men are temples, they are not so as Christ is; nor is any one of them Christ conjoined with God the Word; for I do not wish to depart from your own vocabulary, that I may bring you to my opinion out of your own mouth. But this temple C conjoined with God the Word—that is to say, Christ—was born of the Virgin in a manner befitting God.
23. Apoll. The nature of Christ is such as ours is; the old man is a living soul, and not a life-giving spirit; and such an one will not vivify. Christ vivifies, and is a life-giving Spirit. Therefore, He is not of our nature. Orth. You still do not understand what Christ is. For you do not know that there is a union of two natures, and that Christ is neither God alone, nor D only man. For if you had known this, you would have known that according to the humanity...
A he has the same nature as we do, but according to the divinity, he has the same nature as God the Father; and that since the union has taken place, he is confessed and glorified as God, and therefore he makes alive, and is a life-giving Spirit, by reason of his divinity; but he is not *like* us when both are considered together.
24. Apoll. Does Christ live by his own nature, or by the grace of God? If by his own nature, he is God; but if by the grace of God, he neither excels us, nor will he make us alive. Orth. Christ is one person, composed of God and human nature, just as every ordinary man consists of animal and rational parts. Therefore, on account of the nature which he has from the Father, he will make us alive, since he is life subsisting in itself, which fashioned itself in the form of a servant.
25. Apoll. If he excels, who is just by the purpose and choice of his mind, who among men has been able to do this? For the purpose of man does not perfectly achieve true justice. But if he is just by nature, he is God; but if he is justified by some efficacy of God acting in him, while he himself does nothing, those who act themselves are more excellent than he. Orth. Indeed, did those who heard, "You will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" B and, "You are the light of the world," not achieve true justice? And even if they did achieve true justice, yet they are not Justice-itself. But God the Word, being Justice-itself, having taken the form of a servant, "became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He who is righteousness became righteousness according to the logic of his humanity, so that he might justify us—who were not righteousness—by his own grace. And the same being is God and man; as God, he is righteousness, but as man, he became righteousness, that it might be fulfilled C which was said: "Whence he ought in everything to be made like his brothers."
26. Apoll. Is man coupled to God in Christ, and did he himself issue laws from himself, or not? But if from himself, he is God; but if not from himself, why did he not say, "Thus saith the Lord," but, "I say unto you"? And how was he who was not speaking not separated from Him who was speaking? Orth. If Christ is another person, and is not coupled to God, you have asked inconsequently. But if Christ himself is God and man, what is the point of this laborious questioning? And whence did you take up "coupled," in your questioning, when Scripture says nothing of the sort? Whether you choose to say "coupled," or prefer to speak as Scripture said, "He took," or "He became," God is the Word, having taken the form of a servant, being named Christ, and being, and being believed to be...
anointed indeed with the Holy Spirit, in so far as He is man; but in so far as He is God, He bestows the same upon those who are worthy. A Thus also God gives laws, and in so far as He is man, He becomes subject to the law; and for this reason, He does not say, "Thus saith the Lord," since He is not a man who has partaken of deity, but God who has partaken of blood and flesh—that is, of humanity. For Scripture calls man "flesh and blood," as when Paul says, "I did not confer with flesh and blood." And just as man is one person, composed of an animal part and a rational part, so also Christ is one person, existing from God and the form of a servant; and for this reason, He does not say, "Thus saith the Lord," but, "I say to you," and "I am the life and the truth."
Just as, therefore, if the rational part in us were to say, "I am made in the image of God, so constituted that I cannot perish," and again that same B rational part were to say, "I am earth and ashes"—it is not that the animal part speaks at one time and the rational part at another, but the rational part itself speaks at one time of what is its own, and at another of what pertains to the animal part—so too, the man and the God-Word, being one person through the union, when He says, "He who has seen me, has seen the Father," refers to the contemplation of His own deity. For not everyone who saw the flesh saw the Father; otherwise Pontius, and Herod, and the lictors who slapped Him, and they who nailed Him, would be found to have seen the Father. And when He says, "I gave my back to the scourges," He does not mean the back of the deity; nor when He says, "Someone touched me," does He speak of a touch of the deity. For who could possibly touch the deity? But whoever, endowed with faith, touched that body, he touched both: with the hand, the body; but by faith, the deity; since the two together C are one person, Christ, "becoming all things to all men, that He might have mercy on all." So it is not that God speaks at one time, and the man at another; for, as I said before, one cannot even say that the animal part speaks separated from the rational part, or the rational part separated from the animal; but the rational part speaks in the animal and through the animal. I say the same of that which I have compared with this, so that from every side you may recognize the union. D
27. *Apoll.* Furthermore, did He perform miracles or did He not? If He performed them, He was not a man; but if not, how can He say that He performs them? And how can He be the same as the one who performed them?
*Orth.* Just as the rational part performs its own works in the animal, not being separated from the animal, so the God-Word, united to man, performs miracles, not being separated from the human nature, through it, and in it, and with it, having deigned to exert His own divine power. And just as if one were to conceive in thought that the sun, that great star, emits its own light through a lamp and in a lamp—for understand the same thing again in parallel: there are not two lights. For the lamp does not shine...
A independently of the sun, but remains possessing its own operation and movement; yet it does not shine without the sun shining in it and through it, and the sun dominating the lamp and claiming it as its own, so that the sun even takes the name of the lamp. Thus God the Word, exercising His own power in and through a rational animal, and bringing the animal beyond the nature proper to it by His own good pleasure, did not hinder it from being a rational animal; nor did He disdain to be called man, and while performing prodigies, He was not separated from Him [the man] to whom He is united, or rather [the man] whom He has assumed. But as having become that one, He performs all things; and because of this, “The Word became flesh” is said, and not “in flesh,” so that we may know the union which is from good pleasure, and being taught this, we acknowledge Christ as one and the same God and man.
28. Apoll. Is man worshiped, or not? But if he is not worshiped, how is he united, and how does the Son send His angels? But if he is worshiped because of the divine power dwelling in him, how is he worshiped by those who always have the divine power dwelling within them? And B shall we also worship man, or not? But if we do not worship him, how do we think he is united, and how are we baptized into his death? But if we worship him just as we do God, we will act impiously, setting a creature on an equal footing with the Creator. And if we await man as a judge, who with the help of God illuminates the hidden things of darkness, we shall attribute the judgment of God to a man; if not, how did “the Father give him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man”? And [if so,] how is he united to the One judging? C Orth. For this very reason He received from God authority to execute judgment, being Lord of glory and all power, because while He was God the Word, He became man, taking the whole of humanity. For the form of a servant is the whole of human nature, just as the form of God is the whole of deity. And we and the angels worship the God the Word Himself, who assumed the form of a servant; and we do not worship God in part, and man in part; nor do we place a creature and the Creator on an equal footing. But just as you—if at least you confess that He took flesh consubstantial with us from the Virgin—worship Him incarnate with the flesh, not putting the flesh and the deity on an equal D footing, nor separating the flesh and worshiping it in part, but worship the deity with the flesh; so we too worship the deity which has made itself man, not separating it from the humanity. Furthermore, Christ illuminates the hidden things of darkness, being one and the same God and man, just as fire in matter provides light to those who approach its light, not being separated from the matter to which it is united, nor is the matter consumed, just as neither was that bush of which there is mention in Moses.
A 29. *Apoll.* If man is joined to God, he is another B besides God in terms of vital, rational, and passible movements; and as one who suffers, he suffers as another, and as one who is worshipped, he is worshipped as another. But the flesh of God is an instrument of life, so composed for the passions that it accords with divine intentions, and neither the thoughts of the flesh nor its actions were its own; and the flesh itself, while subject to the passions as is fitting for flesh, proves superior to them because it is the flesh of God, insomuch that it is the author and principle of impassibility in bodies that are not similar, though living in the same way [(9)]; and it is worshipped as the flesh of God, because He who is worshipped is God in this manner; and it provides us with an union with Him whose body it is: and it is worshipped, yet not as a created thing, because no created thing is a portion of God. Consequently, those who believe that God assumed flesh become partakers of His benefits, and do not fall into saying that He is another; whereas the contrary happens to those who wish to say that a man was conjoined to God. [Orth.] You have departed from the divinely inspired Scripture, and therefore have fallen from grace, seeing that while Scripture says: “He assumed,” and “He became,” you have, by adding this [notion], dug for yourself, as it were, a broken cistern, which cannot hold water. But how do you not wish the Word to be separated from human nature by its animal, rational, and passible movements? For did it indeed increase by some divine movement, growing divinely from stature to stature? And progressing in wisdom, did it progress as God? And when it was affected by sorrow and anguish of mind, and when it was troubled, was it affected by sorrow and anguish and troubled as God, and did it toil and suffer? Far be it! Rather, just as God the Word called the body taken from Mary His own body, which yet is not of the same nature as His divinity, so also He calls the passions and the vital and rational increase His own, appropriating all things of the humanity by the good pleasure of His grace; and likewise [(12)] [He calls] the flesh an instrument of life, adjusted to His divine intentions. For so that He might spit, He used the body as an instrument; so that He might be buried, [He used] the body likewise; and so that He might suffer voluntarily and despoil Hades, [He used] the soul, which He said He would lay down for His sheep. And neither are the words of man His own, nor are the actions; but the flesh, being subject [(13)] to the passions as is fitting for man, proves stronger than the passions because of its union with God. C “For He committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth,” so that He might be the author and principle of impassibility for those like Himself. “For God the Word was in all things made like unto His brethren,” D having been united to humanity, and He is worshipped as God incarnate; and He gives us an union with Himself, having partaken of blood and flesh, and the same [Word] is worshipped, by the union with us as man, but by nature and essence being God. And what is this that you have dared to call the flesh taken from the seed of David, taken from Mary the Virgin—flesh not in semblance, but in truth and divinity—a portion of God? For it is stronger than...
A human nature, and God is adored as having become man, and he offers us union with himself, having been made a partaker of blood and flesh: and he is the same who is adored, as being man indeed, since he is united to us, but by nature and substance is God. But how, I pray, have you dared to call that flesh, which is from the seed of David and from Mary the Virgin, and which proved itself after the resurrection to be flesh not in fantasy but in reality, a portion of God? For when the disciples thought it was a phantom when he entered while the doors were shut, remember what he said then, that you may hear: "Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have." But since God is devoid of any partition, how can it be understood, and how can your wisdom explain it, that any portion of him could be flesh, especially that which is flesh?
B 30. Apoll. If the flesh is separated from the mind, as though waging war against the mind, as the Apostle says, God having assumed flesh also receives from it movements warring against the mind, but these are not subject to the mind itself, as if to an opposing adversary. But if this is so, he himself is not the one who suffered, in so far as he is God. Orth. To which of the saints, then, were those movements warring against the mind not subject? Or in what way are they saints, if they have not subjected them? But if the movements warring against the mind were subject to the mind of the saints, how would they not be subject to God the Word, C who is united to an intelligent soul with flesh, so that in all things he might be made like to his brethren, yet without sin, and he himself be both God and man? But what is the meaning of your saying, "But if this is so, he himself is not the one who suffered, in so far as he is God," others will understand, who inscribe you as their teacher.
NOTICE CONCERNING THE TWENTY SUBSEQUENT OPUSCULA.
I. Concerning the subsequent opuscula, these are what Felckmann has: We have nothing else to advise D concerning these than that they exist in the one Palatine manuscript and the other Augustan manuscript (of which mention was made just a little before), written by the same Andreas Dermarius of Epidaurus, in Toledo and Venice, and, as is likely, from the same codex. Hence it is also that these two codices vary rarely, as will be seen in the course of the work. The author of these, however, seems to me exactly the same as that of the preceding ones, and if conjecture does not fail me, he lived after the rise of the Eutychian and Monothelite heresies, as he opposes them so directly. But both codices prefix to these opuscula the title which is on page 223 (except that they omit *archiepiscopus* Athanasius). These things are stated by Felckmann, from which it is clear that in the manuscripts from which these opuscula were transcribed, they were placed one after another, with the syllabus of chapters prefixed, which we are now presenting. Moreover, what Felckmann opines, that these opuscula are by the same writer as are the preceding ones, this certainly does not seem to contradict, provided it be understood only of the two dialogues placed first; for there are many things here which are read in the preceding dialogue against the Macedonians in almost the same words. But those which follow thereafter, titled "To Eustathius," will appear to any person of refined taste to be the work of a much sharper intellect. Indeed, it is judged by most certain signs that all these cannot pertain to Athanasius, namely from the style, and because heresies are impugned here that arose long after Athanasius; but it is not equally safe to define whose writer they are. It will have been worth the effort to weigh here what certain writers have thought about this matter.
II. Garnier, praised above, in Volume V of his works of Theodoret (15), contends that the two previous dialogues are by Theodoret: 1st, because Theodoret says that he wrote three books on the Holy Spirit, against the heretics destitute of his grace. Furthermore, Garnier, attaching the preceding dialogue against the Macedonian with these two, contends that he has discovered that they are those three books of Theodoret. 2nd, from many places in Theodoret, which have much affinity with other places of these dialogues.
in the places of the dialogues have much affinity, he considers this a strong argument in favor of Theodoret. Yet, as has been investigated, while it is established that Theodoret wrote three books against the Macedonians, it is by no means certain that these three small works are those very books. For, in the first place, they are ascribed to Theodoret by no ancient writer, and they appear in no manuscript known to us under Theodoret's name. 3º In no manuscript are the two following dialogues joined A with the preceding one, nor is it certain that they are by the same author, although this is by no means impossible. For regarding that affinity of places observed by Garnerius (which, however, we pass over for brevity's sake) between these compared dialogues, or between them and other works of Theodoret, it is not of such moment that a safe judgment can be rendered in this matter. For if one were to compare the works of different Fathers written on the same subject and against the same heretics, he would undoubtedly find many affinities and many very similar arguments. For there are certain "common places," familiar to everyone, which are utilized by many; and we see in our own age that those who treat the same questions often use the same arguments, even though they have not copied these at all from others. Hence this line of reasoning is not sufficiently firm, especially since it rests upon no authority among the ancients. To these we add that the second dialogue has the appearance of a fragment torn from elsewhere rather than of a complete work. Wherefore, until something more certain emerges, the matter remains under judgment.
III. As regards the following epistle to Eustathius, and the other seventeen attached questions, Mercator brings forward not a small fragment in the name of Eutherius of Tyana, saying: "O inconsiderate wisdom! O playful discipline, building and destroying at the same time, as we see infants playing in the sand," etc. Whence Garnerius, without hesitation, ascribes these questions to Eutherius, bishop of the Tyanenses and adherent B of Nestorius. And indeed he is moved by an argument that is not invalid; though perhaps it is not of such a kind as to eliminate every suspicion to the contrary. For Photius, in codex XLVI, explicitly ascribes this work to Theodoret. "I read," he says, "twenty-one discourses of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, against various positions; of which the first discourse is against those who say," etc. In the seventh place there, he places the epistle which is placed here first; and then he enumerates in order all the propositions which are held here in the number of seventeen, and which end at the twenty-fourth title of Theodoret. Afterwards there follows in Photius: "the twenty-fifth, a recapitulation of the things spoken of in detail; the twenty-sixth, concerning the union or *synousiosis* which was later signified; the twenty-seventh, concerning the example according to the common man." It is clear also from their subject matter alone, which of the mentioned discourses strengthen the orthodox mind, and which ones deviate. To these things which Photius reports, Garnerius replies (p. 687): "Photius was deceived by his own codex, which consisted of three parts: the first of which comprised the six previous books; the second, twenty-one sermons; and the last, the *Eranistes*, or *Polymorphus*. For although the first and third undoubtedly pertain to Theodoret, Photius attributed the middle one also to him; yet in reality it is by Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, which the manifest authority of Marius Mercator proves, as we set forth in the case of Eutherius."
473 IV. These are the words of Garnerius; we, however, believe that those six prior questions mentioned by Photius do not constitute one work with the epistle to Eustathius and the subsequent propositions. For it is plain from the way the epistle itself is begun, that the beginning of the whole work is derived from there. But as for the assertion of the learned man that the codex was the cause of error for Photius, that certainly cannot be affirmed without having seen the codex. For the codex is not at fault if it joins the titles of disparate things in a numerical order, since it is the custom of Greek scribes that they mark all the treatises of any author, however diverse, in a succeeding series of numbers, as we noted above when speaking of the Athanasian codices. We should therefore C scarcely believe that Photius, who was more versed than perhaps anyone else in handling codices, fell into error here; but rather that his codex inscribed these things to Theodoret, with the addition, as is wont to happen, of the word *tou autou* ("of the same") after the former treatise: which can also be seen in codices that ascribe those small works to Athanasius. We do not say these things for the reason that we think it certain that these questions are by Theodoret; for we do not deem them to be properly adjudicable yet to either Eutherius or Theodoret, until something more evident appears.
Furthermore, as to what some say, that this writer is a Nestorian, I confess that this is not entirely clear to me. For nothing of Nestorian dogma appears to me to be here; although, to be sure, there are certain propositions opposed here which, if they are correctly accepted, are Catholic, such as this: "The Word suffered impassibly, and the Word suffered in the flesh," which will appear entirely orthodox to one who explains them correctly. Yet this writer confuses these types of speaking in such a way that he does not appear to defend a Nestorian viewpoint D against these sayings.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, DISCOURSES AGAINST VARIOUS HERESIES.
INDEX OF THE DISCOURSES OF GREAT ATHANASIUS AGAINST VARIOUS HERESIES.
1. A discourse in the form of a dialogue with a Macedonian, who is a fighter against the Spirit. 2. Another dialogue of the same against a Macedonian, regarding whether the Word of God wore an ensouled body. 3. An epistle of the same, which possesses the power of a preface, and a tragedy of the disturbance of the Churches. 4. Against those who judge the truth by the multitude alone. 5. Against those who command that one should not seek or speak from the Scriptures, but be satisfied with the faith that is among them. 6. A Against those who maliciously offer the text, "The Word became flesh." 7. Against those who say there is one nature in Christ. 8. Against those who say that to confess the flesh as a nature is to preach a quaternity instead of a Trinity. 9. Against those who say that to know the Lord Christ according to man is to have one’s hopes in a man. 10. Against those who say: The God Word suffered impassibly. 11. Against those who say: God suffered as He willed. 12. Against those who say that one must accept the expressions, and not consider what is signified by them, as they transcend all men. 13. Against those who say: The God Word suffered in the flesh. 14. Against those who say: What penalty will the Jews pay, if they did not kill God? 15. Against those who say: He is a Jew who does not confess that God was crucified. 16. Against those who say that the angels, eating with Abraham, B did not altogether bring with them the nature of flesh. 17. Against those who diminish each miracle by denying the flesh. 18. Against those who damage our race, by not saying that the Savior took the first-fruits from our nature. 19. Against those who say, or command one to believe simply what they say, and not to consider what is fitting or unfitting. 20. Against those who abolish the difference of the natures after the Passion and the Ascension.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS
A discourse in the form of a dialogue with a Macedonian Pneumatomachian.
A We have sent this present treatise to your intelligence, so that after reading it you may judge both the things said by the heretics who hold the views of Macedonius, and those things which we have set out in opposition. Now, the arguments they put forward are as follows:
1. If the Holy Spirit is God, He is either the Father or the Son; if He is neither, then He is surely not God. To him we reply: You take this upon yourself: if the Spirit is God, He is Father or Son, just as if the Father were God for this reason, because He is Father; and as the Son were God for this reason, because He is Son. If, therefore, the Father is God for this reason—because He is Father—then the Son is not God, because He is not Father. And if the Son is God for this reason—because He is Son—then the Father is not God, because He is not Son. Therefore, it does not follow that if the Spirit is God, He must be either the Father or the Son. For the name "God" signifies a nature that beholds or pervades all things; but "Father" is a relational term, and "Son" likewise. Neither does the name of the relation signify the nature that pervades or contemplates, nor does the name of the contemplating or pervading nature introduce the relation to the Son. Furthermore, the Macedonian, assuming the role of an Orthodox person, asked himself: Is the Holy Spirit, therefore, not to be worshipped? And then he replied to himself: The Holy Spirit, he says, is far from this dignity. For how should that which is neither Father nor Son be worshipped?
2. But we reply to him: If you worship the Father because He is Father, and the Son because He is Son, then you worship every father and every son. But if the Father is not to be worshipped because He is Father, nor the Son because He is Son, but rather for the sake of the nature itself, then we must inquire into that nature. And if it is found that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature, then worship Him; but if it is not found, then do not. For the question is not whether the Spirit is Father or Son, but whether He is of the same nature as the Father and the Son. To this, he again objects against himself, as if spoken by an Orthodox person: Is it not written: "God is Spirit"? Then he himself says: God is Spirit, but the Spirit is not God. For whatever is God, that is also Spirit; but not everything that is Spirit is also God. To this we say: If you knew the gift of God and held the memory of the Scriptures, you would not have said this. For it is not the case that whatever is God is Spirit. For even Moses was called god: "Behold, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"; and likewise his brother Aaron: "You shall be for him as a god, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet." And the Son says in the Gospels concerning the saints: "If, therefore, He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken"; and "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and called the earth." And elsewhere it is written…
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—