Dialogues on the Holy Trinity 1 part 17/23

But if it causes no disturbance at all to the accounts of essence, and this is, I think, a certain manner of honor and obedience, such as passes from son to father, and a graceful inclination of wills that have honored what is fitting and proper — a thing which does not even, in our own case, prevail against the principles of nature —

why do these wretched men foolishly attribute this and set it up against him, as though it were altogether irrefutable, against him who is by nature God from God? For has not Luke written concerning Christ himself, and the holy Virgin, and the one accounted his father according to the flesh, that 'he was subject to them'?" B: "Yes, he has written this, admittedly.

A: "Must we, then, my good friend, suppose that he has even been cast behind human nature — even though he has appeared as God from God, and has been ineffably begotten — since he also submitted the things concerning himself to them, and was subject to his mother according to the flesh, and, overcome by reverence toward Joseph, granted him the honor befitting a father?" B: "By no means; yet the subjection greatly disturbs me, and is not incapable of producing suspicion that he possesses inferiority.

A: "But it would not produce in those who are firmly grounded in faith any need to doubt in any respect whatsoever — those who, having settled the unharmed and unadulterated word within their own souls, do not admit the deceptive and buffoonish opinion of the perverse, but rather remember the blessed Paul writing:

'Casting down reasonings, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought captive into obedience to Christ.' For sometimes the argument of our opponents breathes and puffs itself up greatly against the glory of the Only-Begotten, and it prepares its accusation for us from the sacred Scriptures themselves — of what sort, then, is this terrible thing, as they suppose, this ever-repeated problem:

the saying — and this not at all on its own account (for it is written correctly), but through the distortions of our opponents being pushed toward seeming to have been spoken incorrectly. Then indeed, then, those firmly grounded in the weapons of truth overturn every high thing of unintelligent reasonings, and, seeing the saying already somehow inclining toward apostasy, they forcibly draw it back, redirecting it vigorously into obedience to Christ, that is, into the economy according to the flesh.

For indeed the name and matter of obedience signifies for us that time of servitude, when, being God, he became man; and possessing dominion over all things not by adoption but as being, as God from God — he took the name of a servant, and, being in the form and equality of the Father, humbled himself, letting himself down, unforced, into a voluntary emptying.

For this reason, and very reasonably, being believed to have come to be in our condition, he received this common nature of all, together with its deficiencies;

and it is a deficiency of created nature, in relation to God, that it must be subject.

Yet the being of existing things does not consist in their being subject, according to what seems true to them in an undiscriminating and carelessly-stated manner; rather, existing and subsisting according to its own principle, and as its own nature might happen to direct each thing, it admits subjection voluntarily, and makes the matter a fruit of its own will.

A: "Subjection, then, and its opposite, will lie for us solely in voluntary inclinations, and will not characterize the principle of essence.

A: "But what then — is not that point too, in addition to this, worth examining?" B: "What is it you mean?" A: "The sacred Paul writes to us concerning Christ:

'But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.' Therefore, if he will be subjected to the Father at that time when all things are subjected to him, there will, it seems, be a certain time fitting to the matter.

So then, for the present the Son is meanwhile unsubjected, since the time has not yet arrived at which he too will be subjected.

A: "But if someone should suppose that he is now said not to be subjected to God the Father, but will undergo this in due time, and will thereby determine the inequality of his essence by means of the subjection, he is openly saying, it seems, this: that the Son will at some point, in all likelihood, become unlike himself according to nature, and will undergo a change into something other than what he now is and is believed to be.

For if, O most excellent ones, I would say to our opponents, subjection is to be classed together with the accounts of essence, then surely its opposite, that is, unsubjectedness, will altogether also carry the force of essence.

And if we say that he is now unsubjected, and that this is nature to him, then, if he should ever be subjected to the Father, he will altogether pass over into some other nature, wholly separated from the former, and having the opposite character.

'For the heavens,' he said, 'shall perish, but you remain;'

'and they will all grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will roll them up, and they will be changed;'

'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today the same, and forever.' For how would he still remain the same, if he were to be changed in essence?" B: "True.

A: "Let those all-clever sophists, then, answer: of what sort, then, and what kind, will the manner of this alteration be?

If, then, it were toward the baser state, on account of the necessity of being subjected, the time of his coming kingdom — that is, the time in the last days, when he will also be subjected to the Father — would in no way benefit the Savior and Redeemer of all in respect of glory; and he would altogether be, even now, in a better state, when he is said to have emptied himself and to have humbled himself,

having taken the form of a servant. Or do I not seem to you to state these things excellently?" B: "Most elegantly indeed.

A: "Since, then, their argument's gracelessness and unseemliness has been shown weak on every side, come, let us proceed henceforth to what is safe, not attributing inferiority to the essence of the Only-Begotten on account of the much-repeated subjection which the divinely inspired Paul says will occur in the last times, but rather considering the following with reverence:

B: "What sort of thing?" A: "For no one, I think, would say that the Son withdraws somewhere and departs into some private will of his own apart from that of the Father, or inclines, as it were, to seem to be carried outside of what pleases him;

but rather one would reasonably suppose him to be of one mind and one will together with the Father, inasmuch as he both exists and is conceived, by nature, from him and in him.

For that he may be seen to honor the Father, and to crown with praises leading to the highest and supreme conclusion the one from whom he is, by way of begetting, at one point he says:

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, whole burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require, but a body you prepared for me;

In the roll of the book it is written of me that I should do, O God, your will; and again elsewhere, 'I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.' For behold — behold most clearly — he says that he has arrived from heaven, and that he stands in such a case with regard to the necessity of willingly accomplishing what seems good to the one who begot him, that if it had at all been possible for him to depart into a difference of wills, he would have disregarded his own and adopted rather those of the Father. Having, then, such a purpose and disposition, would it seem to anyone that he refuses, as inglorious, to appear to be subordinated, and shrinks from willing together with him in absolutely everything? {B.} By no means.

{A.} Then how will he who even now is of one mind and one will with him who begot him — or rather, he who is the counsel and will of the Father — be subordinated, and this at some future time, as though he were not yet understood to be of one will with him, that is, subordinated? For I shall employ, without doing any injury to the Only-begotten's account of essence, the very words of Paul.

{B.} What, then, is the nature of the subordination that is to come? {A.} We are in good hopes, Hermias, and we have believed firmly that for those who wish to live splendidly, and who have truly achieved a holy and admirable life, participation in every good thing will be theirs from God — indeed, that things beyond mind and speech have been stored up for the heads of the saints.

And the Son will be the dispenser and steward of all these things;

for all things come from the Father to us through him in the Spirit, and we do not at all say that he brings this about by a subordinate ministry, but rather that, as Son, he dispenses with authority the things that are from the Father, so that God may be all things in all — namely, sanctification and wisdom and life, glory and incorruption.

And that, when all things have been subjected to the Son, God the Father will again rule together with him in every way and altogether, and will reign together over the universe — this could easily be shown by the fact that we firmly understand that the Son will be of one mind with him even then, and will be a fellow-willer with him in absolutely everything, and will, through his own mediation, fulfill for the saints the things that are in their hopes.

And this very thing, we say, the divinely-inspired Paul has signified by an improper use of the term 'subjection.'

For he knew — he knew well — that in no way would he give offense, even if he were to say certain things of this sort.

For it is always the Son's aim to honor the Father, because he is from him by nature, equal to him and like him in every respect, and in no way inferior.

BOOK SIX. That the things proper to humanity, and the sayings concerning the Son that are not spoken in a manner altogether befitting God, would more fittingly belong to the economy with the flesh, and not to the very nature of the Word, insofar as he is understood and is God.

{A.} Concerning equality, then, I think, and indeed concerning the fact that the nature of the Son is a clear demonstration, and as it were an exact seal, of the essence of God the Father, a sufficient and altogether clear account has been worked out by us.

For it has been shown that the properties peculiarly belonging to the essence of God the Father belong also to the Son; or rather, it has been demonstrated that the Son is, by nature, whatever is said to be proper to the Father.

Do you suppose, then, Hermias, that a thing which is in no way naturally united with the properties belonging to another could ever be distinguished by them as its own, being as it were apportioned into an alien otherness? {B.} What do you mean? {A.} Is it not the case that each of the things that exist is marked out by its own principle of nature, and is seen to escape altogether from identity with the rest, even if it should be said to share something in common with them? For man and horse are both animals, yet in each of them a different principle runs through, walling it off from the others and rendering the convergence into identity incompatible — I mean altogether and completely.

For there is a particular principle proper to man, and to ox, and to horse.

But if someone were to remove the intervening distinction, setting aside the principles of essential difference, and were to attribute all the properties of human nature, every one of them, to the others as well — would he not thereby define for us the nature of man, and would nothing else be signified? {B.} True.

{A.} Is it not, then, ignorant — or rather already in some way even impossible — that a thing could in every respect be recognized by the properties belonging to another, and yet not be considered to be that very thing which, by nature, that other is, the one by whose properties it is also recognized? {B.} You have spoken rightly.

{A.} The Son, then, is in no way inferior to God the Father, if, being wholly distinguished by the properties of the Godhead, he is known by his very nature to be whatever it is that he is.

In this way, indeed, he is also the exact imprint of the Father's hypostasis.

{B.} Do you wish us to say something useful and necessary, or shall we now yield to you the appearance of opposing, and let our discourse run, as it were, unopposed against the opinion of our adversaries? {A.} Indeed, my dear friend, you are free to say whatever you think.

But we are better than hesitation, so let delay be cast aside, since the occasion urges us to choose, even now, to contend together on behalf of the doctrines of truth.

And I think the divinely-inspired Peter also persuades us to proceed eagerly to this, speaking somewhat as follows:

'Be always ready to give a defense to everyone who demands of you an account concerning the hope that is in you.' And what other hope could there be for us besides our Lord Jesus Christ? {B.} Then know well that they will assert, altogether and in every way, that the Son could never be equal or like to God the Father according to the principle of nature, since he is even sanctified by him, and exalted, and glorified, and said to be empowered.

For that he even worshipped along with us, and confessed that he does not know the day of the consummation, they are ready to demonstrate to us from the sacred Scriptures themselves.

And I could easily set forth, for each of the things mentioned, the very words and proofs from divinely-inspired Scripture, if it seems good to you.

{A.} And indeed, I myself thought that our contest had already passed its prime, but it is still in full vigor, and its onset, as it were, remains as fresh and full of strength as ever.

Since, then, I have been disappointed of my hope, and we have come to the beginning of yet another round of labors — for the difficulties arising from the perversity of our adversaries beset us in heaps — come, then, let us again, bringing forward in turn against each of them the true and blameless account, refute those who have been ignorant of the mystery of Christ.

{B.} Then I am indeed most eager to go through, in whatever order you yourself should choose.

For indeed, the discourse conducted in this way, and no other, would make the examination of each point far clearer for us.

That the Son, then, is a partaker of sanctification, they say, the blessed Paul will make clear, writing concerning him:

'For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one;'

'for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying:'

In addition to these, the Son himself also said, speaking to the Jews:

'Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods"? If he called those gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You blaspheme," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?' And one could easily heap up countless other proofs besides those mentioned, by which one can learn that the Son has been sanctified by the Father.

{A.} And what, then, might be understood to be the manner of being sanctified, even if it should be applied to the Only-begotten himself — this I would gladly ask you to tell me:

for a very great diversity in this matter is observed in the divinely-inspired Scriptures;

for some are said to be sanctified as in God's foreknowledge, he foreseeing that, having achieved a well-approved and most law-abiding life, they will be fittingly disposed also to receive a share of the Holy Spirit;

such would be those concerning whom the wise Paul writes in his epistle: 'Whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.'

'And whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified.' And God also said to the most wise Jeremiah:

'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you.' And again, others are sanctified even though they have not come to know the God who is such by nature; but the sanctification in their case would not signify some relation or kinship with the divine and Holy Spirit, but rather, as it were, a designation and a bringing forward for the purpose of fulfilling whatever God should will.

So indeed, concerning Cyrus and the Medes, who were about to capture Babylon by force, being impelled to this by divine wrath, it says: 'Giants are coming to fulfill my wrath, rejoicing and insulting at once.' And he said, 'They are sanctified, and I am leading them.' And to the prophet Haggai God says:

'If a man takes holy flesh' — meaning, I think, the unblemished victim that has been offered and consecrated to God as a sweet-smelling savor, calling it 'holy flesh.'

And we also call holy those who have truly been sanctified through the Spirit, and who have thus been shown to be partakers of the divine nature.

In which of these ways, then, will they suppose that the Son was sanctified, given that the sending into this world is necessarily coupled together with the saying that he was sanctified? For thus Christ said:

'Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.' For what results from the conjunction of these two is not, I think, without contribution toward the correctness of our reasonings, and is very clearly discerned.

For it is said that the Father sanctified the Son at the time of sending him, and not before the sending.

{B.} They say that he was sanctified by the Father.

{A.} But could the Father sanctify in any other way than through the Holy Spirit? {B.} No, through the Holy Spirit — but what then? {A.} Consider, then, my friend, into how great an absurdity this reasoning of theirs flows.

For if, before the incarnation and the sending into this world, the Word was already a partaker of the Spirit — as, according to their supposition, would be well the case — why then did he receive it again after taking flesh? The thing would be superfluous and pointless.

But no one, I think, who has any sense would ever suppose that God's ineffable nature could be caught out in such matters.

For that which is blameless would not miss what is fitting, not through a long extension of deliberations and reflections, but sees it immediately from the very first movements of the counsel and wisdom that dwell within it.

But if, because he appeared as one of us and was sent with flesh into this world, he grows rich in the Spirit, and has gained thereby, as it were, a new and splendid grace — then in what sense has he emptied himself, and how has he arrived at a lowering and humiliation, when he has come to be in a better state? Unless, indeed, they mean this — disregarding the evils that have reached their conclusion — that, as though he had been among things more shameful, he received the Spirit, and that that which is by nature apt to sanctify pushes down toward the worse those in whom it comes to be? {B.} But this, at least, they are not likely to consider.

But they say that he was sanctified when the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove.

{B.} John the Baptist has testified, saying, 'I have seen the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained upon him.' {A.} Then measure out for me the time of his being sanctified.

For the Word, being God, was not sanctified before his sojourn among us, but when he became one of us — us, for whom sanctification is not a fruit of our own nature, but comes from without, and is something imported.

Or do you not know that human nature was enriched at the beginning with a share of the divine Spirit, and with that likeness to God which comes through sanctification?

For in this respect too, man was made according to the image of his Creator;

but since he grieved the divine commandment, and thereby bartered away the gift, he was condemned to death and came under the yoke of sin. {B.} I understand.

{A.} It was necessary, then, since God, out of the gentleness inherent in him, purposed to restore to its original state the race that had slipped away, that Christ should spring up as, so to speak, a second beginning of the race, and that he should undergo birth through the Holy Virgin, yet no longer consent to have a fleshly father as well, so that together with him we might all have God as Father, ascending through him and in him, as into a beginning, to such glory.

It was necessary that, having become man, he should receive the Spirit, so that, since he was and is one who knew no sin, the Spirit might thenceforth abide in him and rest, as in the firstfruits of the race and a second root.

For this, I think, the divinely-inspired Baptist signifies very well, proclaiming concerning the Spirit that he saw it come down from heaven in the form of a dove;

and to say that it also remained upon him — for it did not remain in us because of the transgression, but it has remained in Christ.

For it belonged to a nature that could not tolerate suffering the stain arising from sin.

And just as, though he exists always as king and enthroned together with God the Father, he is said to have been appointed king when he became man like us — to whom also kingship is given from above —

so too, just as he who always co-exists with the Father is defined as Son through the Spirit — because, according to the flesh, he was made like those who are sons by adoption — and just as, being conformed to us who are under God, he called God his own Father, even though he himself is God, so also he is said to have been sanctified, the sanctification proceeding into what is human, that is, into this flesh, because human nature cannot possess sanctification of itself.

For this belongs only to that nature which is truly divine and above all things; and since the Word is the fruit of that nature, he will certainly possess in himself, as his own, the sanctification of the nature that begot him.

{B.} But what, they say, is absurd about saying that the Son was sanctified by the Father? {A.} Then let me go back over what I said just now, and say it once more.

For if they say that he was sanctified insofar as he is man, as man, the statement would make no difference, since in this respect at least there would be no harm.

But if, abandoning the truth and thrusting aside what is reasonable, they slide off into some most unseemly opinion that surpasses all boldness, saying that the very Word who has appeared from God the Father was sanctified, then their statement would fall away into something beyond all absurdity for us.

{B.} Then would you please show us the ways in which this absurdity consists?

For I would be least reluctant, since I expect that Christ, who presides over the truth, will be my helper and ally.

Let us, then, cast aside further delay and bring forward at once the examination of the matters before us; and tell me this again:

{B.} What is it? {A.} Whose own shall we say the Holy Spirit is? Is he proper to God the Father alone, or also to the Son, or in some sense to each severally and to both together, as being one Spirit from the Father through the Son, on account of the identity of essence? {B.} That is indeed what I myself say.

{A.} Rightly said, my friend; I admire your keenness of mind, and I affirm that the opinion expressed on this matter agrees very well with the divinely inspired Scriptures.

For God the Father is conceived as existing in himself, and the Son likewise subsists as a distinct individual;

yet even though each has assumed a hypostasis proper to himself, the principle of their union does not admit any absolute division

of essential difference, even while establishing each of them wholly and distinctly on his own;

for otherwise there would be two gods;

but since the Godhead is one and only, both existing and conceived as such, we may behold the Son living and subsisting in the Father, and likewise the converse, that is, the Father in the Son;

for he is the very imprint of his hypostasis

{A.} The Spirit, then, being of one nature, is also one; and he is poured forth, as it were from a fountain, from the Father;

yet he is not a stranger to the Son;

for the Son was begotten possessing in himself the entire property of the Father, and since he is the fruit of the supreme Godhead, how could he be conceived as devoid of the goods of the Godhead? Now sanctification is proper to the Godhead, of which the Spirit is the demonstration

for he is holy by nature, and sanctifying of the whole creation

{B.} And what would be the proof of this? How might I clearly learn that the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son, just as he is, of course, proper to the Father? {A.} Our witness is not from outside; summon Christ himself, crying out:

'I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now;'

'but when he comes, that Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth'

'For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are coming'

'He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you'

'All things that the Father has are mine;'

'that is why I said that he takes of what is mine and will declare it to you.' Or is this reasoning not sufficient for the full conviction of the wise, that he calls the Paraclete his own? For he named him the Spirit of truth, and truth is nothing other than himself

And by adding, 'For he will take of what is mine,' he has clearly demonstrated the essential and natural kinship, according to which the Spirit is one with him

For he does not say that the Spirit will become wise by participation from him, nor indeed that it will merely convey to the saints, in a ministerial capacity, the words that come from the Son

But just as, if one of the sweetest-scented flowers were to speak of the fragrance diffused from itself and falling upon the senses of those standing around, saying, 'It will take of what is mine,' it would thereby signify a natural kinship, and not at all a participation held in divided fashion — in this manner you should understand it also in the case of the Son and the Spirit

For being the Spirit of wisdom and power, he is altogether wisdom and power himself, preserving in himself, wholly from the whole, the activity of the one who sends him forth, and showing very clearly, as belonging to his own nature, whose he is

And since he says, 'He will take of what is mine,' he has necessarily added, 'All things that the Father has are mine;'

'that is why I said that he takes of what is mine.' For just as he is holy by nature, since he is the Spirit of the holy Father, so too he is wise, since he is the Spirit of wisdom;

and we do not at all mean that the Spirit is holy and wise by some relation and participation, but rather essentially, as it were a natural quality of the holy and wise Godhead conceived as existing in the Father and the Son, and in the Spirit himself as well

And that the Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, he himself will initiate you into this mystery through his own words, saying:

'But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify concerning me.' Do you understand, then, how he promises to send down to us, as his own, the one who is from the Father, and calls him the Spirit of truth, while yet determining that he is poured forth from the Father himself, and has moreover foretold that he will testify concerning him? {B.} And what would the manner of this testimony be understood to be? {A.} Since he has worked the things of God through the hand of the saints, he has thereby clearly testified that the Son is God, of whom he is also the Spirit, just as, of course, he is of the Father

{B.} Enough of such matters for us, my friend

For that which is clear and beyond all dispute has no need of one who would choose to speak on its behalf

For the Holy Spirit is indeed also the Spirit of the Son, and I do not think anyone at all would deny it

Setting aside, then, the exertion and labor spent on this point, you might now proceed rather to those matters through which one may learn afresh that the Son is holy by nature, and not by participation from the Father;

for they in turn condemn his participation, and claim that his sanctification, coming from God the Father through the Spirit, was introduced into him and given as a gift, as to one who did not possess it from the beginning

Yet why, pray, do they refuse to bear the examination of the harm arising from such absurdity, and rush headlong toward the one thing — and that without any consideration — which is merely pleasing to themselves? For in what manner could the Son partake of his own Spirit, as though it came flowing in upon him from outside? For nothing whatsoever can be a partaker of itself

But in wise and precise reasoning, the things that naturally belong to certain beings would never be made to assume the guise of things adopted from outside, nor would they be classed among the terms applied to what is foreign

How then do they say he was sanctified through the Spirit, when he speaks so clearly concerning the Spirit:

'that he will take of what is mine and declare it to you'? And in saying this, we do not at all believe that anything belonging to the Holy Spirit exists by participation — for he is perfect and lacking in nothing according to his own nature and existence — but rather we signify this: that being the Spirit of the essence of God the Father, and of the Word who has by nature shone forth from him and in him, he brings with him, by nature, everything that is proper to the Godhead, having that Godhead as, so to speak, his fountain, and being poured forth, as it were, from the Father through the Son, and sanctifying creation

But if indeed they suppose that the Word himself was sanctified along with us, gathering for this purpose arguments drawn from idle chatter, let them explain the following:

{B.} What is that? {A.} The Spirit, by associating with the nature of created beings, does benefit it — this much is admitted;

but what, good friend, would be the manner of this? {B.} It makes it holy

{A.} Then you would explain this without any obscurity

What, then, is this 'making holy'? Tell me, if you are willing