Dialogues on the Holy Trinity 1 part 14/23

'For he said that he lives because of the Father, and is glorified and sanctified by him, and rose again on the third day by the power of the Father, and has even come to possess the very name of Godhead by participation, and worships together with us and is subject to the Father, and receives a kingdom and authority—'

'for these are the sacred and divine words that have been handed down to us.'

How vast and terrible a number of blasphemies, as though encircling the truth on every side, barks impiously against it!

And it is time, it seems, for us too to put on the whole armor of God, and to draw out manfully the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, fearing nothing, even if they should assail us with still more shameful and savage words.

But if the topics should proceed in a jumbled and disordered way, our argument would easily slip for us from this point to that, and again from that to this, rendering the knowledge concerning each matter obscure and hard to discern.

But it would demonstrate the truth very well, and without leaving room for reproach, if it should make its examination of each blasphemy distinct and separate.

Come then, let us speak most clearly, separately, and in order.

But I would first like to ask you this: whether they will crown the words of the God-inspired writers with votes for truth and rightness, or, having most foolishly rejected them, will count them as nothing? B: They will say, I suppose, that Scripture does not lie.

A: Now the most holy and most excellent Paul writes concerning the Only-begotten:

'Let this mind be in each of you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross,'

'...a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' B: What then does this mean? A: Does he not, my friend, divide the account into two periods, and introduce a twofold knowledge of the mystery? For he marks out one period, the first and the one in the beginning, in which the Word was in the form and equality of God the Father;

and a second, later period, in which, as it were, having let go of being in the form and equality of the Father, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and undergoing even death on the cross.

For it was then that he was reckoned to receive, as if newly obtained in the manner of grace, that which belonged to him by nature and essentially—I mean the name that is above every name, and the necessity of being worshiped both by us and by the holy angels.

A: Thus the whole discourse of the God-inspired Scripture looks to both aspects.

For at one time it speaks theologically of the Son as not yet having come to self-emptying, but as being in the height of Godhead and in the same state as the Father;

but at another time, again, it clearly presents him as, by voluntary inclination and out of tender regard for us, called to self-emptying, and as having descended from the things above into the ignominy of the flesh.

Would then—for I shall ask—those who admit a twofold and double account in these matters, and who apportion the teaching of the mystery to its fitting occasions, be reckoned wise and shrewd; or rather those who would seem to devise a kind of confusion and mixing of both matters and occasions—attributing indiscriminately the things of the flesh and on account of the flesh to the Word who was begotten of the Father, while setting down the proper and exceptional attributes of the Only-begotten to the flesh and to its own time?

B: And how could it be a matter of dispute—since it is surely better—to confess one Christ and Son according to the Scriptures, yet, by conceptual distinctions and by contemplation according to reason, to say that so long as the Only-begotten was apart from the coming together with flesh in union, he excelled conspicuously in the dignities of Godhead, as belonging to him properly and by nature;

but when he was joined to flesh and became man, then, indeed then, he also received the things that come from having emptied himself? A: The account concerning both is therefore necessary, if it is to examine carefully what is fitting to each period.

A: But to allow the matters concerning both to be poured together in confusion is altogether foolish.

For it will take away and darken and muddy what is correct with respect to knowledge.

A: He, then, who is at one time spoken of as the Word, being still also Only-begotten from the Father, and at another time as man—and because of this also firstborn among many brothers—would he not, most fittingly and most skillfully, proceed by means of both accounts, both the one that ascends to the highest station and the one that comes down and settles to the lower things, to us, if indeed it was his will and purpose to persuade those on earth that he is truly God from God, yet came down for our sake into the things pertaining to us and did not dishonor the measure of his self-emptying—or else he would be condemning himself of folly and of not having planned very well: not refusing to become as we are, yet blushing at words by which the measure of humanity would in no way be shamed? For what need was there at all, I would say, and quite reasonably, for him to come down to a nature whose lack of glory and lowliness would have been a burdensome and hard-to-bear thing for God who was once and for all begotten of God? And if the renunciation of language fitting to us was indeed proper and necessary for him, so as to be able to preserve unharmed and unblemished the beauty that is in Godhead, how would it not have been far more necessary, even before this, to be united to flesh and to undergo so unlovely a humiliation? But I do not think anyone could ever come to such a pitch of folly as not to be exceedingly amazed at the Only-begotten, who did not, for our sake, snatch at the surpassing and supreme dignity that is in the form and equality of the Father, but chose to suffer the self-emptying in the flesh, and along with it the words fitting and appropriate to it, counting the matter as nothing, provided that our safety should be thoroughly accomplished—our nature returning to what it was in the beginning and being created anew in him unto newness of life through sanctification in the Spirit.

At any rate Paul, [giving] the reason for the incarnation, says that the Word of God did not take hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham; wherefore he was obliged to be made like his brothers in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God. And again:

'Since then the children have partaken of blood and flesh, he himself likewise shared in the same, that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.' And why do I say this, when in fact Christ has cried aloud plainly enough for those willing to understand, to God the Father in the heavens:

'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, whole burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not delight in; then I said,'

'Behold, I have come, O God, to do your will.' And what, then, was the wise and saving will of the Father toward us? That death should be abolished in the death of Christ, and, besides this, that sin and the original inventor and craftsman of sin should be abolished, and that through the holy blood the redemption of all should come to pass.

And indeed the divinely inspired Paul again writes thus concerning the Son:

'...as long as the one who made the covenant lives, it has no force.' But if it was necessary for the Son to die for the accomplishment of the dispensation—since the necessity of choosing death was not without effect—how was it not necessary and needful for him also to come down into the nature receptive of death, of which the lowliness of expression would not be something to be rejected by the one who once and for all chose to undergo it? Does this argument seem to you rash or feeble, or inclined toward any kind of shamelessness? B: Not at all.

A: For the Word was, and is, even having become flesh, all that he was also before the flesh;

but the things which he is seen to have taken on additionally because of the flesh, he was not in the beginning.

For the doctrine is deep, and not easy to grasp.

A: For was not the Word God, my friend, and the Word was with God? Was he not the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world? Was he not Only-begotten, and in the bosom of the Father? Does he not come from above and is above all? And does he not himself say concerning himself:

'I am not of this world'? B: Yes;

for you are telling us what the divine Scripture also says.

A: Do you then think that the self-emptying wrought upon the Word a loss of the natural and proper things that were his from the beginning, as though he came to experience some alteration and change for the worse? B: I would never think so.

For we know and have believed that the Son is superior to change, since Paul has written to us:

'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever.' A: Rightly said, my friend, and most wisely.

For if he should admit into his very glory and nature something harmful and unjust through alteration, how could we still think of him as the same? It is necessary, then, to glorify the Only-begotten as remaining firmly fixed in that which he always was, even though he became flesh and tabernacled among us.

A: We must now proceed, then, also to the things of the flesh, that is, the things said on account of the flesh.

Therefore Thomas also, touching with hand and fingers the marks of the nails, said:

'The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth,'

'from the rising of the sun to its setting; out of Zion is the perfection of his beauty;'

'our God will come manifestly, and will not keep silence.' For when, or where, or in what manner has God come to us manifestly—he who also called the whole earth—except when the Only-begotten became man, and he who is seen by none of the creatures was shown manifestly on account of the flesh, and grew weary from the journey when he passed through the city of the Samaritans, and indeed even needed bodily food, though he gives strength to the hungry, according to the voice of the prophet? He in whom we live and move and have our being is said to have come to be with us, even in the death of the flesh.

...would you not senselessly mutilate the sound and pious doctrine concerning him? B: We are in danger of doing so.

A: Let us therefore rid ourselves of the charge of impiety and the accusations of ungodliness, attributing whatever things are more befitting to God and above our nature to the Son as he was before he became as we are, while turning those things which have a somewhat lower and more human import to the dispensation, bringing them into captivity, according to the Scriptures, to his obedience. For we suffer nothing contrary to reason and sound mind when Christ says:

'And no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man'—shall we then bring his very flesh down from heaven, even though the prophet clearly points out to us the Holy Virgin and cries aloud plainly:

'Behold, the virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel'? Nor again shall we suppose that the Word, God of God, had the foundation of his beginning existence within a bodily womb, when Paul calls him the radiance of glory and the exact representation of the Father's hypostasis, signifying to us by concepts beyond reason his incorporeal and ineffable begetting.

A: Together, then, with the matters themselves, we must also understand what is fitting to each.

For in this way we shall come straight to the truth, neither turning the loftiness of the Word into disrepute on account of the flesh and its concomitants, nor, because of the dispensation, elevating the things of the flesh and on its account entirely beyond what pertains to us as humans; but rather, preserving for the Only-begotten his unchangeable state, we recognize him to be the same both before the concurrence with flesh and when he became flesh, even if certain things somewhat lowlier and diminished should be spoken concerning him on account of his humanity.

B: 'But,' he says, 'if you are going to turn everything, according to what seems good to you, over to the dispensation with the flesh, by what means shall we still discover what the nature of the Word actually is?' A: Well then, noble friend, I too would now say to you:

if you are indeed going to turn everything over to the question of what the nature of the Word actually is, needing to explain how he became man, how would you know this, or from where? For one could not learn the human things by means of the properties of the Godhead.

But how, tell me, could that which incomparably surpasses all things, and is believed without doubt to differ in its whole nature, produce a manifestation of things so far inferior to it? And indeed, to know very well and clearly that the Word was God, without also knowing that he became man, would not bring sufficient benefit.

but if to the first belief the belief of the other were also added, those who believe would be complete in understanding.

And indeed the wise and God-speaking John says, 'Who is he who overcomes the world, except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?' For 'Jesus' is a new name for the Word, coinciding with his generation according to the flesh.

And again a prophetic oracle will contend on our behalf, saying:

'And they shall call him by his new name, which the Lord will name him.' For, my friend, was it not Gabriel who made manifest to the Virgin the will of God the Father concerning this, saying:

'For behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus'? {B.} True.

{A.} For what reason then—for I would most gladly learn it from you—have we, abandoning the duty to think rightly, and spurning the duty to approach the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures as wisely and as artlessly as possible, so easily bent aside like reeds, equally susceptible to being pushed this way and that, even though the blessed Paul cries out thus:

'Brothers, be steadfast, immovable.' And indeed God, imputing the utmost reproach to those who have so easily-swayed and easily-shaken a disposition, appoints aversion as the penalty for this malady.

'They loved to wander with their feet, and did not restrain themselves, and God was not pleased with them.' For that which is firmly and unswervingly established is safe and inviolable with regard to anything at all that tends toward benefit;

for the matter is indeed difficult to track down, yet by means of necessary syllogisms it will be quite possible to hunt out the truth.

For first, if they have resolved to think this way, they take away from him—and before all else—the glory of his divinity, confessing him to be anything at all rather than the Son, and show themselves like-minded with the hardened Jews, even joining in stoning him, having utterly abandoned all piety toward him.

But when he chose to inquire into the causes of such unrestrained and terrible madness, saying:

'Many good works have I shown you from my Father;'

'for which of these do you stone me?'—while they, without love for God, cried out:

'For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself the Son of God.' We ought not to pay attention to those who have fallen into such stupefaction, nor to those enfeebled in mind, relaxed in understanding, and corrupted in reasoning, but rather to those in whom Christ himself dwells through the Spirit, implanting in them the unadulterated knowledge of the mystery.

Paul, who called upon God, named the Only-begotten for us 'Son,' and indeed also 'image' and 'likeness' of the Father, and receives him in the rank of 'exact imprint,' because, I suppose, it is altogether most beautiful, and as refined and precise as possible in resemblance.

But is it not worth considering what could constitute 'equal imprint' as between one incorporeal thing and another, and how 'of the same form' might be understood? For that which is farthest removed from body does not admit shapes, and departs from configurations;

and how could it admit altogether the properties of bodies? For just as, in my own judgment, the properties of incorporeal things could never exist in bodies that are tangible and perceptible by sense, so likewise things that pertain to sense-perceptible bodies would be wholly incapable of being received by that which is above sense-perception, that is, by an incorporeal nature.

Do you have in mind anything else you could say against this? {B.} I would have nothing;

for how could it be otherwise? {A.} Come then, since the Father is incorporeal to us, giving form as best we can, by conceptions that transcend creation, to his ineffable and undefiled nature, let us also examine the opinions of the ancients.

For thus it would be nothing difficult to proceed further to his exact image, I mean the Son.

{A.} Now then, he descended in the form of fire upon Mount Sinai, beginning his instruction of the Jews, at which time also the early-morning and piercing sound of trumpets, rushing upward, produced in those who heard it a fear hard to bear.

But those who think meanly of God, and measure heaven with a span, confining the glory of God only to what appeared in a figure, supposed within themselves that they had already beheld the very nature of God, as being nothing other than fire and an instrumental voice received into the ear.

Therefore, thinking highly of themselves on account of Moses, they supposed and said that the teachings of Christ ought to be laughed to scorn:

'The divinely-inspired Moses set before us the divine nature through the perceptions of the eyes, and it was granted to him to hear the voice from above;'

How then did Christ refute them as ignorant, greatly turned aside from what was fitting, and deceived from the truth? 'Truly, truly,' he says, 'I say to you, you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom that one sent.' And yet, though it was possible in the Son to behold most clearly the nature of God the Father, the wretched ones did not do this, but had the boldness to kindle the form of divinity in fire and darkness and smoke.

'He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in him who sent me;'

'and he who sees me sees him who sent me.' For that faith is directed not simply toward a man but toward the nature of God—even though the Word was in flesh—he has quite clearly signified by the statement that faith is not being exercised toward himself alone.

He made clear the sameness of form, saying:

'He who sees me sees him who sent me.' And since the Father is seen and known in the Son brightly and without variation, all things are already in some sense common to them both; or rather, the things found in both would reasonably be understood as the properties of the one Godhead.

Therefore he also said to his own Father and God, 'All that is mine is yours, and yours is mine.' For between an image and that which is exactly of equal imprint to it, and again between that which is of equal imprint and the most similar image, there is no difference at all—at least, I say, with respect to what is identical in likeness and, as it were, in form.

And indeed, when one of the disciples once eagerly inquired, not out of exact understanding (this was Philip), and said:

'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us'—not leaving the question without a rebuke, he said, 'Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father.'

'Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? I and the Father are one.' For that the Son is, so to speak, the face of God the Father, the Psalmist could easily teach us, saying at one time:

'Where shall I go from your Spirit, and where shall I flee from your face?'; and at another time again, as though speaking in the person of those who have believed in him:

'The light of your face, O Lord, has been signed upon us.' For we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the resemblance and likeness of the face of the Father, that is, of the Son.

And Paul will bear witness, writing:

'But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.' {B.} But, he says, even if the Son should be called by us 'face' and 'image' and 'likeness' of the Father, this in no way damages the objections we have raised.

For we do not say that he is the image and likeness of the essence of the Father, but of his will.

Therefore, at least according to the identity in will, if anyone should see the Son, he has thereby in some sense already beheld the Father.

{A.} How exceedingly foolish, and how utterly filled with the extremity of stupidity, is their reasoning; and one can easily see that they say even this in a childish manner.

For do they say that the Father is 'will,' and do they require that he be understood to be whatever the will itself is, or, positing him in his own particular existence, do they then attach the will to him besides? {B.} And how could the divine be simple, he says, if it should be understood both as existing and, distinctly, as having a will? For then it would already be composite, and, as it were, a thing now consisting of parts run together into one.

{A.} Therefore, since it seems to you that the divine is simple and superior to composition—and you seem to think rightly—his will would not be other than himself.

And when one says 'will,' he thereby signifies the very nature of God the Father.

{A.} But will exists in a substrate, just as the forms of artificial things do.

For 'to will' or 'not to will' would accrue not to the willing itself, but rather to that other thing in which the willing exists—or how could it be otherwise?

{A.} Therefore the being of the Father exists in something else, and his existing is an accident belonging to some subject; and now, more than before, your composite notion of him has become both cruder and less befitting.

For he is what he is by reference to another, not to himself, if indeed my will is mine, and a given person's will is his own and exists in him.

{B.} How then, in things that are simple and uncomposite, could their own properties be other than themselves? {A.} Just as if will should also be understood as coming from mind, having as its source the mind that seethes it forth, and as having, as it were, a certain root previously laid down—that in which it turns intellectually.

For mind is the initiating principle of the movements and conceptions within it;

whereas will, directed toward this or that particular thing, is a quality of these movements, being manifold, and being colored, as it were with certain dyes, by the qualities and differences of the things willed, so as to be now one way, now another, now different;

for very great indeed is the difference among the acts of will within us, and they are sometimes at variance, standing opposed to one another.

For it is not by the same faculty by which we will the good that we also will the base;

nor is it by that very faculty by which one might choose to be wise that one also chooses the opposite.

I think, then, that it is altogether senseless to say that the existence of the Father is will.

No one who thinks rightly would suppose this to be the nature of God;

the Father, therefore, is not will, but, being understood in his own particular existence, he has his own Son as, so to speak, a will connatural and co-eternal with him; he is not composite as they suppose, but has his will in such a way as the things in a simple and wise nature might perhaps be understood to be. So let this excessive curiosity now finally be at rest.

For the divine, my friend, is beyond mind and beyond all reason.

Is it not so? {B.} Indeed I affirm it.

For were not all things made through the Son, and without him was made not even one thing, according to the word of John? {B.} It is so.

'How great are your works, O Lord!'

'You have made all things in wisdom'—calling the Son, I suppose, 'wisdom.'

{B.} What then follows from this? {A.} This, my friend: if the will of the Father, being not other than himself, is not without wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, how could the Father any longer be understood to exist in his own particular existence? For he has already, in some sense, passed over into the Son, and, as it were, having already relinquished being what he properly is, he has become wisdom—if indeed he is a will possessing the wise not by participation, but is himself, entirely, wisdom itself.

I would add moreover that the Son has shown himself to be image and likeness of himself, if indeed, being himself wisdom and will, he is also the image of the Father—who is himself called by the names of counsel and wisdom.

{B.} Away with the absurdity of such reasoning!

{A.} For it is indeed most abominable, and exceedingly full of perversity.

We shall therefore accept the Son as the exact image and likeness of the essence of God the Father, and we shall not deem him worthy of the excellence above creation by attaching to him merely the sameness of will, but shall reckon him to be in the most exact form of God the Father, referring him naturally to everything whatsoever that inheres in the Father.

But if, because he is a co-willer with the Father, they say that he thereby exists also as image of the Father, though being of such a nature and such measure as they suppose, would he not have shrunk in fear from saying:

'He who has seen me has seen the Father'

'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.'

I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.

He who has seen me has seen the Father.

"I and the Father are one." For might we not regard the man who had become a fellow-willer with God as proof of this? For he said somewhere concerning him to the blessed Samuel:

{A.} Quite unpersuasive indeed, my friend, yet a clear specimen of an outlandish piece of sophistry — one which I cannot understand how those on the opposing side, having taken it up as their champions, do not blush to propound.

For the mere fact of willing in concert and wishing the same things as the Father would not fashion in us his natural image and likeness; rather, only a likeness of nature could do this, together with the resemblance that proceeds, in every respect whatsoever, from that very essence.

{B.} How then could we ourselves be according to the divine image? {A.} By having the Son dwelling within us, and by having the divine stamp take up residence within us and enrich us in ourselves.

For through him we have been formed toward God.

And the form that transcends all things and is supreme — that is, the Son — is impressed upon our souls through the Spirit.

And indeed Paul writes to the Galatians, who through fickleness had slipped into what is less becoming:

"My little children, for whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you." {B.} You have spoken excellently.

{A.} It is foolish too, in yet another respect, and altogether thoughtless, to deny that the Son is the image of the Father's essence, and to call him instead an image of counsel and volitions.

But the Son, presenting himself as the image of the Father, says, 'He who has seen me' — not the will of the Father —

but rather has beheld the Father himself.

And yet surely it was necessary that he who has chosen not to lie — or rather, who has no deceit in his mouth — should have said what seemed right according to their view, rather than saying this, if in fact the matter were not so.

But he who alone knows the Father, and is known only by the Father, revealed himself to be, not the image of a bare and unsubsisting act of will, but rather the very stamp of the hypostasis of him who begot him, saying:

"He who has seen me has seen the Father." {B.} But if indeed we have been persuaded to think this way, both by what is reasonable and by the truth itself, then we are walking the good path;

yet know that they will also say this:

"Whatever thing, most excellent sirs, is the 'character' of something, surely could by no means exist in a hypostasis of its own, nor would it possess an independent existence; rather, it would be conceived as existing in a substrate, in the manner of an accident — even if, perhaps, it were inseparably present — just as, for instance, shapes are present in bodies."

Therefore, on your view, the Son does not truly subsist, if indeed he is, as you say, like a character in the Father.

{A.} It seems, then, that among people so perverse, wishing to think anything both excellently and without error is deemed useless, indeed reckoned among the most shameful of things;

while that which is feeble in understanding is somehow held in honor;

and he is ever foolishly inclined toward excessive deviation, giving no weight at all to what is balanced, while reckoning right-mindedness itself to belong to the more disgraceful lot.

From a great many considerations we gather, not without toil and only with difficulty, that knowledge which is as in a mirror; and by very slight and, as it were, finely honed mental impressions, gathering into the mind that vision which is as in riddles, we gain steadfastness in faith.

But since, among created things and those subject to generation and decay, nothing has been fashioned with precision and singularity to resemble the supreme nature and glory, we understand what pertains to it only with difficulty, usefully seizing from each existing thing whatever serves to disclose it;