De sancta trinitate

Dialogue of an Orthodox and an Anomoean. Anomoean: Since at the time of the persecution brought upon us by the Chronians, some of those previously mentioned, having appropriated along with many other treatises a little work diligently composed by us specifically concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten, and having corrupted it with interpolations and deletions, published it, altering the subsequent argument; and since after this it came to us, someone zealous having brought it to us, I was compelled, like a father, to cleanse it again and send forth to you the treatise, O all pious athletes, both men and women, so that you might know that the little discourse was spoken by us in accordance with the sense of the scriptures, through which you will be able to silence every man attempting to contradict you concerning the begotten God and the unbegotten with concise refutations, and especially the aforementioned Chronians; having arranged the inquiry in the form of stichic responses, and having made the solution of the solution for the sake of clarity and perspicuity of the arguments, I begin concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten. Orthodox: Do not boast of being persecuted, if indeed you were persecuted. For those who make the house of his father a house of merchandise were also persecuted by the Son. If this is so, then being persecuted is not necessarily praiseworthy. Whom do you call Chronians? Those who from the holy apostles until today praise Father and Son and Holy Spirit of God, or those who appeared yesterday and today from you, holding the heresy? Let us grant that some have made interpolations and deletions to the wickedness written by you. Now what do you say?

or what more do you seek in blasphemy, saying that the Son is unlike in essence? Do you have anything more to say than this, which even Greeks and Jews say, those who are not persuaded that he is God? And for this reason they say these things about him, which you say, putting forward "unbegotten" and "begotten" and abandoning "Father" and "Son," which is a scandal to Jews and folly to Gentiles? And do you wish to be a father yourself of those who contend for a begotten and unbegotten God, having abandoned the honorable and holy name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and rising up against the one who taught to baptize in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and thinking yourselves wiser than the one who taught that the Father is Father and he himself is Son? And if it were even conceded to you to baptize in the name of the Unbegotten and the Begotten, what will you do with the naming of the Spirit? Will you call it neither begotten nor unbegotten, or even self-begotten? And how, according to you, will the begotten be of a different essence from the begotten, if "begotten" is essence? Anomoean: If it is impossible for the unbegotten God to make the begotten unbegotten, it would also be impossible to make the unbegotten begotten. Orthodox: Even if it is impossible for him to make the begotten unbegotten, as also to lie, yet it is not impossible for him to beget, for neither is it impossible to tell the truth; and in begetting, he does not beget an unbegotten, but a God. Therefore, a God having begotten a God neither made the begotten unbegotten nor the unbegotten begotten. Anomoean: If the unbegotten God is superior to every cause, for this reason he would also be superior to generation.

If he is superior to every cause, clearly also to generation. For he has not received being from another nature, nor has he himself provided being to himself, not because of the weakness of his nature, but because he transcends every cause. Orthodox: Truly, "those claiming to be wise have become foolish" has been said about you who campaign against the Son of God. For if, because the unbegotten God is superior to every cause, he is therefore also superior to generation, then generation is a cause and is not essence. But if generation is not essence, but a cause, tell me the essence. And what cause do you wish the Son to have? Generation or the Father himself? If then the Father, and the Father is, as you think, unbegottenness, this will be the cause of the Son. But if not the Father himself is the cause of the Son, but generation, then the Son will belong to this, and this will be his father. Therefore, having been baptized into the Father, you were baptized into generation and into the son of this; for perhaps you have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. Anomoean: How could one concede that the nature which has subsisted has the unalterable identity in essence with the nature which caused it to subsist, when such a subsistence does not admit generation? Orthodox: If the nature which has subsisted came from outside, it cannot be unalterable; but if it has been generated from him as an effulgence of glory and a character of subsistence, it possesses the unalterable identity. For "he who has seen me has seen the Father," not claiming himself to be the Father, but such as the Father. Anomoean: If God remains unendingly in unbegotten nature and the offspring is unendingly an offspring, the false doctrine of consubstantiality and similar-substantiality will be obliterated.

The incomparability in essence of each nature is introduced, each nature perpetually remaining in its own proper dignity. Orthodox: If you confess that the offspring is truly an offspring, it will be consubstantial, but not unbegotten; for it has been shown that the unbegotten is not a nature. For if the unbegotten is a nature, then the begotten is also a nature. But if the begotten is a nature, all begotten things are of the same nature. If, however, not all begotten things are of the same nature, then the begotten is not a nature. And if the begotten is not a nature, neither is the unbegotten a nature. That the only-begotten is consubstantial with his own father, we hear him saying: "Everything that the father does, the son likewise does"; and those things whose energy is the same have the same essence. Anomoean: If he is unbegotten in essence, the begotten was not generated by a division of essence, but by a power that subsisted him. For no pious reasoning permits the same essence to be both begotten and unbegotten. Orthodox: The begotten was not generated by a division of essence, for that would be to speak of the essence as a body; but he was generated from the incorporeal essence in a manner befitting God, as an effulgence of glory. But if he himself is by power, like those who have received him—for it is written that "he gave them power to become children of God"—how do you call him only-begotten and God by nature, when there are many sons and gods by power? No one says that the same essence is both begotten and unbegotten, for it has been shown that neither the begotten nor the unbegotten is an essence. Anomoean: If the unbegotten was begotten, what prevents the begotten from having become unbegotten?

For every nature is more inclined to its own proper thing than to what is alien. Orthodox: The unbegotten neither begot nor was begotten, for it is not an essence. But God begot, even if the Jews with you do not wish it. And if he did not beget, the appellation "father" is superfluous. And by saying "for every nature is more inclined to its own proper thing," you showed that the unbegotten is not a nature; for that which is inclined is impelled toward something else. But if he is neither a son of his own proper thing nor of nature, tell the Jews—for you will give them good news—that they crucified one who is neither a son of his own proper thing nor of nature, who called God his own father. Anomoean: If the whole God is begotten, nothing prevents him from having begotten substantially. But if the whole is unbegotten, he did not divide substantially into generation, but by authority he brought forth the offspring. Orthodox: If the whole God is begotten, nothing prevents him from having begotten substantially; but the whole Son, according to you, is begotten. Tell me, whom did he beget substantially? And if the Son, being begotten, begot no one substantially, then it is not insofar as he is begotten that he begets substantially. And if the Son does not beget insofar as he is begotten, neither does the Father beget insofar as he is unbegotten, but being God and self-glory, he has an offspring that is a radiance, a God hypostatically existent. For if he did not beget from the essence, he is not a father according to essence. And why do you baptize in the name of the Father who is not father according to essence? And having begotten from the essence, he did not divide, as you supposed.

For the essence is not a body. Anomoean: If the unbegotten God is entirely generative, what was begotten was not begotten substantially, since his whole essence has the property of begetting, but not of being begotten. Orthodox: According to your wisdom, if light is entirely generative, it does not beget the radiance substantially, but acquires it from outside, since its whole essence has the property of begetting, but not of being begotten. But if light does not acquire the radiance from outside, but begets it from its essence, then neither did God acquire a son from outside, but having begotten from the essence, he remains undivided, for he is incorporeal. Anomoean: But if the essence of God, having been transformed, is called offspring, then his essence is not immutable, since the change produced the formation of the son. Orthodox: If light, having been transformed, becomes radiance, then light is not immutable, since the change produced the formation of the radiance. But if light did not become radiance by being changed, but rather light remains light and is the cause of radiance, then God remains God and is father of his own radiance, not having acquired it from outside, but having begotten it from the essence. Therefore he is truly father. Anomoean: But if the essence of God is superior to generation, then matters concerning the son will be admitted only as a bare appellation. Orthodox: If you knew that generation is not an essence, you would know that both the son and every other essence is superior to generation. For if generation were an essence, all begotten things would be consubstantial. But if not all begotten things are consubstantial, then generation is not an essence. And if generation is not an essence, it is not superior to an essence.

If generation is superior to essence, then according to your wisdom it will also be superior to the Son. But if this is absurd, then clearly essence is superior to generation; therefore you have thought nothing great of the Father if he is superior to generation. And how, having been baptized into a mere appellation, do you think you have a secure baptism? Do you not also possess it in a mere appellation? For if "Son" is a mere appellation and "Father" is a mere appellation, then having been baptized into the name of the Father and the Son, you were baptized into a mere appellation. Anomoean: If the offspring is in the unbegotten in a seminal manner, after generation it took on something from outside, as one might say, it was perfected. The Son is perfect not from what he was generated, but from what he took on; for things that take on in a kindred manner, as standing from those, are naturally disposed to receive the name of "perfect" in a different way. Orthodox: If the radiance is in the light in a seminal manner, then say also that the Son is in the Father in a seminal manner. But if it is foolish to say that the radiance is in the light in a seminal manner, then it is also impious to say that the Son is in the Father in a seminal manner. And the Son is perfect, not being perfected by progression, but having been generated perfect from a perfect one. For this reason he is called not only radiance, but also character of the substance, not of the energy. And the character of the substance is not perfected by progression, but has perfection in its very being, just as the character of the substance of a man from a man is not by progression, but from identity itself. Anomoean.

If the offspring were perfect in the unbegotten, then it is from what it was in the unbegotten that it is an offspring, and not from what the unbegotten himself begot; for it is not possible for a begotten nature to exist in the unbegotten, since the same thing would both be and not be. For an offspring is not unbegotten, and what is unbegotten was not an offspring, since the dissimilar part holds blasphemy against God. Orthodox: 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 distort the name of the Father and of the Son in vain will-worship, puffing yourself up against the one who taught the good confession. But since, thinking yourself wise, you do not wish the Father to be a father, lest you seem to yourself to be prudent, hear from us that the Son was, is, and will be perfect in the Father. "For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God," even if you do not wish it.

Aëtius. And it was not first and then was begotten, nor has it been begotten from non-existence, but the offspring is coeternal, as the radiance of eternal light. But a begotten nature and an unbegotten nature do not have their difference in nature, but in having been begotten and not having been begotten. For behold, Adam too was not begotten through a woman, while we have been begotten, and we do not have the difference in nature, but in having been begotten and not having been begotten through a woman. Anomoean. If God the Almighty, being of unbegotten nature, does not know himself as being of begotten nature, while the Son, being of begotten nature, knows himself as what he is, how would the homoousion not be a falsehood, since one knows himself unbegotten and the other begotten? Orthodox. If you suppose that the unbegotten and the begotten are the natures, and Gabriel also knows himself to be of begotten nature, how would Gabriel not be homoousios with the Son? But if Gabriel, being of begotten nature, does not know himself to be homoousios with the Son, then the begotten is not a nature. And if the begotten is not a nature, neither is the unbegotten a nature. [But do not call the Son "genēton," the creator of all things, but say "gennēton," as it is written. For "gennēton" is that which has a father, while "genēton" is that which has a creator.] Therefore, our creator is God through the Son, but the Son has a father, not a creator; for no one is the creator of his own son, since then he would no longer be a father, but a creator. A creator is one who brings something from outside into generation, while a father is one who begets from himself.

Hearing that God is generative, do not suspect toil and labor, and hearing that He is Father, do not seek emission, but think in a manner befitting God, so that you may become divine and not die as a human. Anomoean: If the unbegotten does not present the hypostasis of God, but is a human concept, the incomparable name, God acknowledges gratitude to those who conceived it, because He does not bear the superiority of the name in essence through the unbegotten. Orthodox: If the unbegotten presents the hypostasis of God and this is the incomparable name of God, why did the divine scriptures not teach us this? But Paul, the vessel of election, erred, having taught that the incorruptible and invisible belong to Him alone, and not the unbegotten. Since you wish to be wiser than the divine scriptures, tell me whether the incorruptible, the invisible, and the truthful do not present the hypostasis of God. For if they do not present it, he erred in saying "to the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God." For if He does not have the incomparable in these, He is not the only incorruptible and invisible; but if He alone possesses the incorruptible and invisible, the incomparable is in these and not in your concept. Anomoean: If the unbegotten is contemplated externally to God, those who contemplated it are better than that which was contemplated, having provided a name superior to His nature. Orthodox: Do not exalt yourself as having found the name of God, lest you hear: "And you, Capernaum, if you are exalted to heaven, you will be brought down to Hades." That you think arrogantly beyond this is evident from the fact that the divinely inspired scripture says that God has spoken.

I appeared, he says, to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, being their God, and I did not reveal my name to them," but you claim to have found it. That the Unbegotten is not a name of God is evident from the Lord saying, "Go and 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 give that also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For if the name of the Father is different, and that of the Son different, and that of the Holy Spirit different, and you have found that of the Father, as you supposed, then tell also that of the Son; and if you tell that of the Son, tell also that of the Holy Spirit, so that then you may hear, while claiming to be wise, you have become foolish. For what Scripture has not said, you will not find. But if you think that the Unbegotten belongs to the Father and the Begotten to the Son, which of these, then, will you give to the Spirit? Anomoean: Even if the product is immutable in nature, yet it is so because of the one who generated it; but the Unbegotten is an immutable substance, not...

because of their disposition, but because of the dignity of their essence. Orthodox: And if the Son of God is not immutable in the dignity of his essence, how does he differ from the other rational powers, which also possess immutability in the disposition of their creator? And how do you hear him saying, "All that the Father has is mine," if he does not possess immutability in the dignity of his essence? Anomoean: If "unbegotten" is indicative of essence, it is reasonably distinguished from the essence of the offspring. But if "unbegotten" signifies nothing, then much more does "begotten" signify nothing, and how can nothing be distinguished from nothing? And if the utterance "unbegotten" is distinguished from the utterance "begotten," with silence following the utterance, it happens that the hope of Christians comes to be and passes away, lying in a different utterance, but not in natures that are as the meaning of the names intends. Orthodox: When you are permitted to speak of "unbegotten" in reference to God, then we say that "unbegotten" signifies that the essence has not been generated, just as "unfalse" signifies that the essence does not lie. But neither is "unfalse" the essence, nor is "unbegotten" the essence. For if "unbegotten" were the essence, then "unfalse" would also be the essence. But the Son is also unfalse, and therefore also unbegotten—yet not unbegotten according to you, but unfalse. Therefore, "unfalse" is not essence. Just as "unfalse" is not essence, so neither is "unbegotten" essence. For if "unbegotten" were essence, then "begotten" would also be essence. And if "begotten" were essence, then all begotten things would be consubstantial. But that "unbegotten" and "begotten" are indicative of essence has been discovered by your utterance, which must be censured like a surging sea.

For the Spirit of truth proclaimed to us Father and Son, the names indicating their relationship to us; and you will not deny that God is by nature and truth Father, but how is he Father if he has not begotten by nature and truth? So that even your hope, who devised the unbegotten and the begotten as indicative of essence, that silence will follow utterance on the day of judgment, is not found, only those things being found which the Holy Spirit said. Anomoean: If the unbegotten signifies nothing more in terms of superiority of essence over the offspring, then the Son, being surpassed only in utterance, will know those who addressed him as better than himself, not the one addressed as his God and Father. Orthodox: You are the one who addressed the Father as unbegotten and legislated that this is his essence to the Jews, for the divine Spirit taught this nowhere. But that you will not be found better than the Son, but worse than the devil who taught you, is agreed. Anomoean: If the unbegotten essence is better than generation, having the better from itself, it is essence itself that is unbegotten; for it is not because it wills that it is better than generation, but because the unbegotten God, being essence itself, does not permit by any reasoning that generation be conceived against itself, thrusting away every examination and every reasoning toward the generated. Orthodox: Every essence is better than generation. For essence and generation are not the same. And that generation is not essence is clear from this, that generated things are not consubstantial. But if generated things are not consubstantial, then generation is not essence. And if generation is not essence, then ungeneration is not essence.

If unbegottenness is essence, and generation is not essence, how do you say "unlike"? For that which is, to that which is not, is neither like nor unlike. Anomoean: If "unbegotten" is indicative of privation in the case of God, and the unbegotten were nothing, what argument could remove nothing from nothing? But if it signifies something that is, who could separate a being from a being, which is itself from itself? Orthodox: If "incorruptible" and "immortal" are indicative of privation, let "unbegotten" also be so. Let us use the same arguments: if "incorruptible" is indicative of privation in the case of God, and the incorruptible is nothing, what argument could remove nothing from nothing? But if it signifies something that is, who could separate a being from a being, which is indicative of privation, "incorruptible" and "immortal" and "unbegotten"? And if "unbegotten" and "incorruptible" or indeed "immortal" signify the same thing, and the Son is also incorruptible and immortal, then he is also unbegotten. But if he is not unbegotten while 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 rather maintain that "unbegotten" is the essence, then according to you and the arguments of your wisdom, the essence will be unbegotten, but not immortal, nor indeed incorruptible. Anomoean: If privation is the removal of a state, then "unbegotten" in the case of God will be either privation of a state or a state of privation. But if it is privation of a state, how could that which is not present to God be counted among his attributes? But if "unbegotten" is a state, it is necessary to presuppose a begotten essence, so that having taken on a state it might be called unbegotten.

If the generated partook of the essence of the unbegotten, having undergone a disposition and been deprived of the casting off of generation, then the generated would be essence, and the unbegotten a disposition. But if "offspring" is indicative of nothing, clearly it is significative of a disposition, whether it be transformed by some authority, or whether it is that which is called the offspring of something. Orthodox: We will use the same arguments again; for the same could be said of the truthful and the deathless and the incorruptible; for "unbegotten" is of the same usage, when for the moment we grant you to say what the spirit of truth did not say. We will say then also: if privation is the removal of dispositions, the truthful in the case of God is either a privation of a disposition or a disposition of privation. But if it is a privation of a disposition, how will that which is not present to God be counted? But if the truthful is a disposition, it is necessary to presuppose falsehood and a false essence, so that having taken on a disposition it is called truthful. But if the false partook of the essence of the truthful, having undergone a disposition and been deprived of the casting off of falsehood, then the false would be essence, and the truthful a disposition, and your high-minded wisdom has found such great impiety of matter. Anomoean: If the generated is a disposition and the unbegotten is a disposition, the essences are prior to the dispositions, and the dispositions, even if secondary, are yet more honorable. But if the unbegotten is the cause of being for the generated, and the signification of "offspring" brings in the cause of its own essence, then "offspring" is indicative of essence, not of a disposition, since the unbegotten nature brings in nothing of itself; how then would the unbegotten nature be a disposition and not essence? Orthodox.

Nothing is more honorable than essence, most wise one, nor do we call the unbegotten either a state or an essence in the case of God. That he himself has not been begotten we have learned, and this not from divine scripture, but from human nature and conception. Therefore, the unbegotten is not the cause of the begotten; for it is not that God has not been begotten that is the cause of the Son, but essence of essence, as light is of radiance. Nor does the offspring introduce its own essence; for then all begotten things would introduce the same essence, and an angel, a horse, a dog, and a human, all being alike begotten, would be of the same essence. But if this is so, then the begotten is not essence. Even if nothing is introduced by the unbegotten, it is not on this account essence; for truthfulness introduces nothing and is not essence. For if truthfulness is essence and the unbegotten is essence, then truthfulness is the same as the unbegotten. But the Son, being truth, is truthful; therefore he is unbegotten. Yet according to you he is not unbegotten, but he is truthful. Therefore truthfulness and the unbegotten do not have the same meaning. And if they do not have the same meaning, then the unbegotten is not essence, since neither is truthfulness. Anomoean: If every essence is unbegotten, like that of the almighty God, how will you call one passible and the other impassible? And if by a distribution of unbegotten nature one remains superior to quantity and quality and, to speak simply, to every change, while the other is subject to passion, having been permitted this, then the invariability in essence must be left to chance according to what has been said before.

or the logical consequence of calling that which makes something unbegotten "unbegotten," and that which is changed "begotten." Orthodox: We should not have answered the inconsistency of your propositions and conclusions, but so that you may not think yourself wise, learn not to blaspheme. By calling the Son's essence passible, do not expect to inherit impassibility from him; for if we have become partakers of it, we remain impassible; therefore, that which provides impassibility to others is impassible. He who says that every essence is unbegotten is not a Christian with you; for we do not have the same principle of being as the Creator. For this reason we also call the Son a radiance, so that we may not think he has the same principle of being as we have, who exist from non-existence by command. Anomoean: If the unbegotten nature is the cause of that which comes into being, and the unbegotten is nothing, how could nothing be the cause of that which has come into being? Orthodox: The nature of God is the cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit and of all creation, but of the Son as Word—"In the beginning was the Word"—of the Spirit as Breath—"For the breath of the Almighty taught me"—and of creation as a work—"For from the magnitude and beauty of creatures the creator of them is analogously perceived.

Nor is it a spoken word emitted through the vocal organs, nor some breath diffused and sent forth through the respiratory organs, but a living and active word, "for all things came to be through it," and a living and active spirit, "for all these things the one and the same spirit works, distributing to each individually as it wills." The unbegotten is not the cause of the begotten, for it is not the fact that God did not come to be that is the cause of beings, but the essence of essences is the cause, as has been said. For if the unbegotten were the cause, and the Son is also the cause of creatures, then he would be unbegotten; but he is not unbegotten according to you, yet he is a cause; therefore the unbegotten is not the cause. Anomoean: If the unbegotten is a privation, and privation is the loss of a state, and the loss either perishes completely or passes over to another, how is it possible that the essence of God is named by the appellation of unbegotten nature, when the state has passed over or perished? Orthodox: If "truthful," being so by privation of falsehood, is truthful, and "incorruptible," being so by privation of corruption, is incorruptible, then say also that "unbegotten" is by privation. But it is you who have named the essence of God, you who dare such things against God, contending, for he himself says, as was previously stated: "I appeared to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, your fathers, being their God, and I did not reveal my name to them," yet you arrogate great things to yourself; for either you have knowledge of the name from revelation, as one who has transcended those men, or you have apprehended the name of his essence even against God's will. Anomoean: If "unbegotten" indicates a privation not present in God, how do we say that he is unbegotten, but not that he is begotten? Orthodox:

If "incorruptible" indicates a privation not present in God, why do we say "incorruptible" but not "corruptible"? And if "incorruptible" is not indicative of privation, then neither is "unbegotten," nor indeed of essence. For if "unbegotten" is indicative of essence, then "incorruptible" will also be indicative of essence; and if "unbegotten" and "incorruptible" are indicative of essence, then "truthful" and "incorruptible" would be the same as "unbegotten." But the Son is truthful and incorruptible, and therefore unbegotten. Yet He is not unbegotten according to you; therefore "truthful" and "incorruptible" will not have the same meaning, but we say that "unbegotten" signifies that God has not been begotten, "incorruptible" that He is not corrupted, and "truthful" that He does not lie. Anomoean: If "unbegotten" is a bare name applied to God, and the bare utterance elevates the hypostasis above all begotten things, then the utterance of men is more honorable than the hypostasis of the Pantocrator, having adorned the God Pantocrator with an incomparable superiority. Orthodox: We say that "unbegotten" is neither a bare utterance nor an essence. For if "unbegotten" is essence, then "begotten" is also essence; and if "begotten" is essence, then all begotten things are homoousios; therefore "begotten" is not essence. And if "begotten" is not essence, neither is "unbegotten" essence; nor is "unbegotten" a bare utterance, for it signifies that which is not

that God has been begotten, as "truthful" indicates not lying and "incorruptible" indicates not being corrupted. Anomoean: If every generated thing has a cause co-assigned to it, and the ungenerated nature is without cause, then "ungenerated" does not indicate a cause but signifies essence. Orthodox: If "ungenerated" signifies essence and "generated" signifies essence, and essence does not differ from essence insofar as it is essence, then the ungenerated does not differ at all from the generated. Anomoean: If the substance of the generated thing co-manifests the ungenerated hypostasis as cause, having the unchangeable character with respect to every cause, it is essence itself, incomparable, not indicating the inaccessible from outside but itself being incomparable and inaccessible because it is ungenerated. Orthodox: If because of the appellation "ungenerated" you say that the essence of God is incomparable and inaccessible, then the Son, according to you, not being ungenerated, is neither incomparable nor inaccessible; therefore it is not because of being ungenerated that he is incomparable. And how is the Father incomparable for one who says, "Just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wishes"? Or how is he incomparable for one who says, "For everything that the Father does, the Son likewise does"? Or how is he incomparable for one who says, "Everything that the Father has is mine," and elsewhere, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine"? And how is he incomparable for one who says, "That they may honor the Son as they honor the Father"? Anomoean: If the Pantocrator surpasses every nature, he surpasses because of being ungenerated, which is the cause of preservation for generated things. But if "ungenerated" is not indicative of cause, from where would the nature of generated things have its preservation? Orthodox:

If it is for this reason that the Almighty surpasses every nature—because of being unbegotten—then the Son, according to you, not being unbegotten, does not surpass every nature. Therefore, it is not because of being unbegotten that the Father surpasses every nature, but by whatever reason the Father surpasses every nature, by that same reason the Son also surpasses every nature. And the Father surpasses by the nature of divinity; by this same nature the Son also surpasses every nature. Anomoean: If none of the invisible things pre-exists itself in a seminal way, but remains in an allotted nature, how could the unbegotten God, being free from allotment, now see his own essence as second in generation, and now as first in the unbegotten, according to the order of first and second? Orthodox: None of the invisible things pre-exists itself in a seminal way, but they exist in the authority of the Creator according to the divine scriptures as "non-existent things as existent." But the Son, being in the essence of the Father, both is and will be as an effulgence of glory and a character of hypostasis, contemplated together with the one who begot him, impassibly, timelessly, eternally, being an unaltered image of essence, will, power, and glory, existing before the ages. And the unbegotten God knows his own essence as unbegotten, just as also truthful, incorruptible, incorporeal, and immortal; and he does not see his own essence now as unbegotten, now as begotten, but as he sees himself, so he sees his own image. And what the essence is, he has revealed neither to us nor to those before us; for he says, as was previously stated: "I appeared to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, your fathers, being their God, and I did not make my name known to them." Anomoean:

If God remains in an unbegotten nature, let it be removed that he knows himself in generation and unbegottenness. But if it is conceded that he extends his own substance in both the unbegotten and the begotten, he is ignorant of his own substance, being led around by generation and unbegottenness. And if the begotten has also partaken of unbegotten substance, but remains endlessly in a begotten nature, in which nature he does know himself, he is evidently ignorant of the unbegotten substance; for it is not possible for him to have knowledge both of himself and of unbegotten and begotten substance. But if the unbegotten is contemptible, fitness for change is a dignity of nature; substance is unchangeable, the unbegotten substance being confessed as superior to every substance. Orthodox: Even if God remains unbegotten, this is not his nature, but we know that he was not born; what his nature is, we do not yet know. For he also remains incorporeal, and this is not his nature, but we know that he has no body. And he remains truthful, but this is not his nature, but we know that he does not lie. What his nature is, he has not revealed. For if the aforementioned things are nature, he lied when he said: "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, your fathers, being their God, and I did not make my name known to them." For they evidently know the aforementioned things, but he is truthful and does not lie; therefore he did not reveal the name of his own nature. How then do you speak of the unbegotten? And if he did not reveal the name, much less did he reveal the nature. Anomoean.

If the unbegotten is exempt from every cause, and there were many unbegotten things, they would have an indistinguishable nature; for they would not, if by a casting of lots they partook of some common and particular nature, one making and the other being made. Orthodox: The universal proposition is in some respect false; for not every unbegotten thing, O Aetius, is exempt from every cause. For that is unbegotten which does not have a generative cause, but that which does not have a generative cause is not entirely exempt from every cause; for it is possible for something not to have a generative cause, but to have a cause, either a father or a provider, so that even if it is granted to you that God is unbegotten because he does not have a generative cause, by this same reasoning we also say that the Son is unbegotten because he does not have a generative cause, but not without a cause; for he has the Father not as a generative cause, but as a Father. And we also say that the Spirit is unbegotten, for it does not have a generative cause, but not without a cause, for it has a cause, God, not as a generative cause, but as its own source; for just as a source does not generate from outside the water it supplies, but has it springing from itself, so also God is the source of the Spirit, as has been said, and its provider, not receiving it from outside, but causing it to spring from himself. For it is written: "My people did two evil things: they abandoned me, a spring of living water, and dug for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot hold water," and the Apostle says: "the one who supplies you with the Spirit and works powers in you," and that the living water is the Spirit, Christ taught, saying:

Whoever drinks from the water which I will give him, as the scripture said, 'Rivers from his belly will flow with living water,'" and the evangelist adds, saying, "This he said concerning the Spirit, which those who believe in him were about to receive." Whence, then, this water? Clearly from the spring which says, "They have abandoned me, a spring of living water." Anomoean: If every substance is unbegotten, neither will one differ from the other in being without a master. How could one say that one is changed, while the other changes, when it is not permitted to God to subsist from a non-existent substance? Orthodox: Even if you write obscurely, unlearnedly, and in a veiled manner, nevertheless we will again state our own: He who says every substance is unbegotten raves along with those who say the Son is unlike the Father. For how is God a creator of generation if substances do not exist? But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unbegotten substance, as has been said, by our understanding. And that the unbegotten is not substance is also found from what you yourself write. For if every substance is unbegotten, neither will one differ from the other, then by necessity all generated substances also do not differ from themselves. But if generated substances differ from themselves, then generation is not substance. And if generation is not substance, neither is unbegottenness substance. Anomoean: If every substance is unbegotten, all is unalterable; but with substance being unalterable, doing and suffering must be attributed to automatism.

If there are many unbegotten and indistinguishable things, they will differ from each other in number, for they would not be numerable unless they were separated either wholly or in some respect, since every separation indicates a specific cause of a distinct unbegotten nature. Orthodox: The Son is indistinguishable from the Father, even if you do not wish it. But he is not indistinguishable because of being unbegotten, but because of the identity of activity. The identity of activity is shown from the fact that the Son does everything that the Father does. "For everything that the Father does, the Son does likewise," and the Spirit is indistinguishable. For everything that the Father does, it also does as it wills. Those whose activity is the same have an indistinguishable nature. If you think that indistinguishability is due to being unbegotten, then necessarily everything begotten would be indistinguishable. But if not everything begotten is indistinguishable, then it is not because of being begotten that it is indistinguishable. If the begotten is not indistinguishable because of being begotten, then neither is the unbegotten indistinguishable because of being unbegotten, but as we have already discussed in the prologue, it is like an eagle flying in search of food and having no track, for it has nowhere to set its feet, so that it might also hear with Moses: "But you stand here with me," for the one who speaks of God as begotten and unbegotten does not stand with the Son of God, but the one who baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is our standing, which is believed, and Aetius flies about still seeking food and standing. m28.t [From the holy Athanasius, dialogue with Apollinaris] Orthodox: Did Christ have a human body or not? Apollinaris: No. Orthodox: But what kind? Apollinaris: A divine one.

Orthodox: By nature or by the union of the economy? Apologist: By the union of the economy. Orthodox: Therefore, by nature it is human, but by the economy it is divine. Apologist: Yes. Orthodox: And is it consubstantial with us? Apologist: The flesh from Mary is consubstantial with us. Orthodox: So you agree with us in these matters? Apologist: If it is so, yes. Orthodox: Let us then also consider the soul. Apologist: Let us consider. Orthodox: Was the body ensouled or soulless? Apologist: Ensouled. Orthodox: Having a soul, evidently? Apologist: No. Orthodox: And how is it ensouled if it does not have a soul? Apologist: It was ensouled by being animated with divine animation. Orthodox: Were you not animated by God? Apologist: I was animated naturally. Orthodox: Without the power of God? Apologist: But not so the Lord. For here a rational soul united to a body by the command of God constitutes a human being, but in the case of Christ it is not so; rather, God the Word united to flesh constituted a divine human being. Orthodox: So you call this divine animation? Apologist: Indeed. Orthodox: Then was the Word in place of a soul? Apologist: Yes. Orthodox: Who then was it that said, “No one takes my soul from me; when I wish I lay it down, and when I wish I take it up”—the flesh or the Word? Apologist: The Word. Orthodox: Which soul did he speak of—the one he had or the one he did not have? Apologist: He spoke of the human life. Orthodox: Is it possible for human life to exist without a soul being present? Apologist: Indeed, for God himself “appeared on earth and lived among men.” Orthodox: But how did he who is by nature invisible appear? Apologist: Through flesh. Orthodox: Just as it belongs to flesh to appear, so also does it belong to the soul to live among men.

It is impossible for that which is by nature invisible to be seen unless it is united with a body that can be seen, and it is impossible for that which is by nature impassible to suffer and to consort with human beings unless it is united with an ensouled body that can voluntarily suffer and consort with human beings. An ensouled body, having a soul, is ensouled, whether you wish it or not. Apologist: Then did a human suffer for us? Orthodox: God forbid. But God, having willed to be seen, united to himself a body capable of being seen, and having willed to suffer, united to himself an ensouled body capable of suffering voluntarily, not having previously existed and then being united according to virtue, nor simply from the human being Mary, but after she was first sanctified and then from her the Word of God partook of humanity and united to himself according to the economy an ensouled body, so that the same one is both God and human. Apologist: Is the ensouled body a human? Orthodox: I do not simply call the ensouled body a human, but the human body, being ensouled, is a human. Apologist: Is this human Jesus? Orthodox: United with the Word. Apologist: Then is Jesus not a human? Orthodox: Without the Word I do not know him as a human having subsisted, for I recognize his existence in the union with the Word. Apologist: So then was the Word in place of the rational element? Orthodox: No, but the Word was in the rational element, having united it to himself through

the voluntary passion of the rational. Objection: Did Christ have a human mind? Orthodox: Do not say that Christ had a mind, as if dividing; for the whole together, mind and word, is called Christ. Thus I say a human mind, in which the Word was, as we said at the beginning of the discourse, a human body by nature, but by the economy of God. Thus also a soul human by nature, but by the economy of God, and a mind human by nature, but by the economy of God. And just as his flesh did not see corruption, so also his mind did not commit sin; and just as it is necessary that a body human by nature, and from Adam, have its constitution from flesh and blood, so it is necessary that the human soul be rational. And again I say: just as the body is by nature human, but by the union of the economy divine, so also the mind is by nature human, but by the union of the economy the mind of God. Objection: Then two perfect things? Orthodox: A union of two perfect substances. Objection: Two perfect things do not become one perfect thing. Orthodox: Among humans perhaps it is impossible to happen, but with God it is possible. Objection: How? Orthodox: As a virgin giving birth, as a solid body entering through closed doors, composed of flesh and bones, as walking on the sea; for just as these things are possible with God, so is that. Objection: Then Mary gave birth to a man? Orthodox: Not a mere man, but a God who became man; for first the Lord was with her divinely, and then from her economically as a child, therefore Mary is Theotokos. Objection: Then a man was crucified for us? Orthodox:

Not merely a man, but being God the Son of God, having willed to be crucified for us, he united to himself an animate, rational body capable of being crucified with voluntary passion. Objection: Why do you say "crucified with passion"? Are cross and passion different? Orthodox: Voluntary, and very much so. Objection: How? Orthodox: A soulless body can be crucified, but it cannot suffer voluntarily, not being animate and rational. And this is the impiety of those who say he had no soul; for the body, being unable to perceive voluntary passion without a soul, it is necessary either that the Word, being in place of a soul, suffer, or that there be no perception of voluntary passion at all. Objection: Did the Word not suffer, then? Orthodox: Physically, may it never be. Objection: How did he suffer? Orthodox: By uniting to himself a body capable of suffering, so that the passion is of the economy and not of the nature of the Word; for just as he became weary from the journey not by nature of divinity, but by the economy of union, so he suffered not by nature of divinity, but by the economy of union. Otherwise, the one who made heaven and earth without toil and walked on the wings of the winds, how could he have become weary, unless he united to himself the body capable of toil? But a soulless body does not toil nor feel; and just as the body which he united to himself is his own animate body, not by nature but by economy, so his toil is toil not by nature but by the economy of union, and his passion is passion not by nature—for he is impassible by nature—but by the economy of union. For the passion is the reason for the union, and salvation is the reason for the passion. For wishing to save, he suffered; and wishing to suffer, he united; and having united, he did not abandon.

For thus he will come, in the manner you saw him going into heaven," and "they will look upon the one whom they pierced." Objection: Could he not have saved in another way? Orthodox: But he willed to save in this way through the folly of the proclamation. Objection: If he had a human mind, could he also have sinned? Orthodox: If the mind were not united to the divinity, yes. Objection: Then was Christ subject to change? Orthodox: Far from it. Objection: If he could have sinned, he was subject to change. Orthodox: Remember what was said; I said, if it were not united, yes. But Jesus Christ is not conceived as Christ Jesus without the union, but rather as God the Word, the hypostatic Son of God. If you can find the animate body without the union, then consider change; but if the body is together, it is together the body of God the Word, and together animate and rational, together the animate rational body of God the Word; why do you seek change? Objection: If he had a human mind, he also had forgetfulness and ignorance and could sin. Orthodox: If it were not united to the divinity, yes. And do not say "a human mind," for he did not have the mind of some other man, but if you must speak, say that the Word partook of a human mind as of human flesh. Objection: How can a human mind not be changed? Orthodox: Just as this mortal thing, when it puts on immortality, no longer dies, and this corruptible thing, when it puts on incorruptibility, no longer is corrupted, so also the mind, when deified by union with God the Word, is not changed. Objection: Then did the saints also have an unchangeable mind? Orthodox: No. Objection: Why? Was not the Word also in them? Orthodox: But in the saints he was not by union, but by the grace of the Spirit acting in them in various ways; here, however, the whole fullness of the divinity.

And the saints were partakers of the Word, but here the Word partook of humanity. Objector: Say "of blood and flesh" as it is written. Orthodox: It is customary for Scripture to call the whole human being "flesh and blood," as when it says, "I did not add myself to flesh and blood," and "in the last days I will pour out from my spirit upon all flesh," and again, "my spirit will not remain upon these men because they are flesh," and many such things. Objector: What does it mean: the saints partook and God the Word partook? What is the difference? Orthodox: That the saints existed first and then partook of God the Word; but here it is not so, but the God Word, who exists before the ages, having willed to become incarnate, sanctified the virgin and united to himself a body from her, not one that existed first and was then united, but united in the very moment of its existence. Objector: Were there then two ruling principles in the body, God the Word and the human mind? Orthodox: No, but the Word himself ruled the mind. Objector: How is it possible that there are not two? Orthodox: Just as the white of wool, when dyed with the color of purple, is not two-colored but one, so the mind, when illuminated and deified, is one, and there are not two ruling principles. For the mind does not will one thing and the Word another, but just as a musician and his instrument are not two musicians, so God the Word and the human mind are not two ruling principles. For the Word uses the human mind as an instrument. Objector: But the instrument of the musician is without a mind. Orthodox: And the musician is mortal.

Here the Word, being immortal, has used the mind as an instrument, and just as in us the mind uses the body as an instrument for things accomplished through the body, so there the Word uses the mind as an instrument for things accomplished through the mind. Objector: What need is there of the body? Orthodox: For many reasons: because he wished to be seen, and because the composite was perishing and he deigned to save like by like through the cross and voluntary passion. And in the voluntary passion he used the mind, as I said before, as an instrument, and in bodily matters he used the body; and thus having sought and found, he united and saved what was lost. Objector: What bodily matters do you mean? Orthodox: The cross, burial, walking, touch, eating, drinking, and all that follows from these. Objector: Was the Word who was born of Mary God? Orthodox: He who was born of Mary. That which was from her of her substance was not God substantially, but by the economy of union. Objector: And how is it said, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb"? Orthodox: Because the Word, being God from the substance of the Father, took from her substance the form of a servant, "and being found in form as a man," he was found to be the fruit of her womb. Objector: Was the Word then joined to the body born of her as a living being? Orthodox: It is not written as a living being, but as God in a living temple. Objector: And is he in each of the saints in this way, as in a living temple? Orthodox: Not in this way. For each of the saints became a temple only to the extent that he was able to achieve through virtue and asceticism, but here "the whole fullness of the divinity dwells"; and the saints received the form of God by achieving virtue, but here the Word took the form of a servant. Objector:

Is this temple, composed of soul and body, a man? Orthodox: If it is conceived without the Word, yes; but if it is not, when it is conceived without the Word, it is not a mere man, but a god by the union of the Word. Apologist: The one born from Mary is a temple, Jesus, through whom are all things. Orthodox: The one born from Mary was not born empty and swept clean, but with the one dwelling within, therefore he himself is Jesus, through whom are all things. I call neither the temple Jesus without the Word, nor the Word without the temple Jesus, but from that time Jesus is called the Word, from when he healed the fractures of his people, and he healed then, when he deigned to take the form of a slave; this Word, then, now called Jesus because of the economy, is himself the one through whom are all things. And just as I conceive the branding iron as fire and iron, so I conceive Jesus as the Word of God incarnate. Apologist: The temple, through whom are all things, or the one in the temple? Orthodox: Do not separate the temple from the one dwelling within. For if "the one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," much more when the Lord is said and believed to be united with the form of a slave, he is one and the same, both god and man. Apologist: Therefore the one born from Mary is not a man? Orthodox: Not only a man. Apologist: But what then? Orthodox: Also god; for just as Isaac born from Abraham is not only flesh, nor is any other of men, but each of us is born a man from a man, the rational soul not being born from a rational soul, although man is composed of rational soul and body; so I call the one born from Mary god, united with soul and body.

Just as a soul united with a body is born a man through a woman, so God the Word, united with soul and body, was born God and man through a woman. Apo: Yet it is written "from a woman." Orth: From a woman according to the flesh, through a woman according to the spirit. Apo: The very Son of God, who was delivered for us, who is he, the Word or the man? Orth: The very Son of God is he who humbled himself, taking the form of a slave, and was delivered in that slave form. Apo: Was it not then the Jesus born of Mary, but the Word born through her, who humbled himself unto death? Orth: Do not divide the union once united. For I said that he is the very Son, both from her according to the flesh and through her according to the spirit. Apo: Did the Word through her then humble himself unto death? Orth: The God Word through her, not being able by the nature of his divinity to be humbled unto death, took to himself from her an ensouled body capable of being humbled unto death, which is the form of a slave. Apo: Did God then die for us? Orth: God, uniting to himself an ensouled body capable of dying; for he did not die for us by the nature of his divinity, but by the economy of the union. Apo: If the body had a rational soul, did not the man, not God, die? Orth: Is the separation of the soul from the body called death or not? Apo: Yes. Orth:

Just as the God could not have been said to have been placed in a tomb and in a grave, if he did not have a body that was laid, so he would not have been said to have been separated from the body, being everywhere and containing all things, if he did not have a soul that was separated, with which he also proclaimed the good news to those in Hades; for through it he is said both to withdraw from the body and to have been in Hades. And this is that the God was placed in a tomb for our sake through the body and was in Hades through the soul. Apo: I have believed that the God Word, by his own presence, animates the body and had no need of a soul. Orth: Just as for being seized and crucified and buried he had need of a body, so that the cross might not be in appearance but in truth, so also for dying and being in Hades he had need of a soul. For concerning whom is it said that "he began to be grieved and to be in agony until death"? Concerning the insensible body or the God Word? Apo: And we say that the body had sensation, by which it also perceived the passion. Orth: A body having sensation is ensouled, for the soulless is also insensible, so that the one who humbled himself unto death and died is God, not dying by nature of divinity, but by the economy of union. For the

of humanity he counted the sufferings as his own sufferings, and just as it was impossible for him to be nailed to a cross and wrapped in a shroud and placed in a tomb without a body, so it was impossible for him to be distressed without a rational soul; for an irrational soul does not feel distress, foreseeing death, but is led like an ox to slaughter or like any other irrational creature. Apollinarius: Therefore the Son of God did not become man, but was in a man; and it is impossible for one who came to be in a man to be a man. Orthodox: Do you say that the Word became flesh or not? Apollinarius: It is written, "The Word became flesh." Orthodox: Was he transformed into flesh or did he come to be in flesh? Apollinarius: He came to be in flesh. Orthodox: If it was impossible for him to become a man by coming to be in a man, then it was also impossible for him to become flesh by coming to be in flesh. But if, having come to be in flesh, he is said to have become flesh, not being transformed into flesh, then also, having come to be in a man, he is said to have become man, not being transformed into a man. Apollinarius: Who was it that said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Was it the God Word or the man? Orthodox: Just as I speak of the burial of the body and its wrappings as belonging to the Word not by nature of divinity but by the economy of union, so also I speak of the psychic utterances and the psychic sufferings, the distress, and all that is said about him in the Gospels as belonging to the God Word not by nature of divinity but by the economy of union; for his body itself was his body not by nature of divinity but by the economy of union. Therefore, just as he appropriates the body, saying, "Unless you eat my body," so also he appropriates the soul, saying,

no one takes my soul from me," so also he appropriates the sufferings of the composite. For just as his body is economically, so his burial is the burial of the body, and just as his soul is economically, so his voice is the voice of the soul, so that the burial of the body is economically the burial of the Word himself, and the voice of the soul is economically the voice of the Word himself; for it was the Word himself who was speaking the things proper to the soul. Apollinarius: We say that the philanthropic Word of God deigned to become man, taking flesh from the holy virgin Mary, and he was God incarnate, found as man. Orthodox: Do not say "the philanthropic Word of God," but rather say "the flesh-loving"; for if he did not deign to be united to a man, how is he philanthropic? Apollinarius: Loving man, he was united to human flesh, so that the same one might be both God and man. Orthodox: No longer is it even human flesh that is not ensouled with a rational soul; for how can flesh not ensouled with a rational soul be human flesh? For flesh is flesh, and soul is soul. Then it is called man when the rational soul is embodied and the body is ensouled; therefore, flesh that has not partaken of a rational soul is not human flesh. Apollinarius: When some earthly body receives a rational soul, it becomes a man; but if it receives an irrational soul, it becomes another animal besides man. And from this matter the Lord, having formed a body for himself and having animated it with his own substance, which by nature would complete a common animal having a soul, by also imparting his own energies to it, made it a divine animal, divine in form, but human in matter. Orthodox:

I do not understand 'according to form'; do you mean 'according to divinity'?" Apollinarius: "A body that has been shaped, illuminated by divine energies." Orthodox: "So you call the divine energies 'form'?" Apollinarius: "Yes." Orthodox: "If, when a body of earthly matter receives a rational soul, it becomes a man, then it is also called and becomes a human body; without receiving a rational soul, it is not a human body. How can you call that which is not a human body a man according to matter, when the matter is human only at the time it receives a rational soul? I have also read a confession of your teacher Apollinarius, in which he says that the body of our Lord is consubstantial with Mary, and Mary with us. Therefore the Lord's body is consubstantial with us, since it is also human." Apollinarius: "How can you call it the Lord's body when you are making it that of a man?" Orthodox: "I both call it the Lord's body and the Lord's soul and the Lord's blood and the Lord's burial and the Lord's man as a whole, by the union of the Word of God, so that the same one is one Lord, both God and man; and sometimes he is heard as entirely God and Lord, and sometimes as entirely man. For he himself says about himself: 'Why do you seek to kill a man who has spoken the truth to you?' And Paul: 'The man Jesus Christ, yesterday and today the same and for the ages,' and Thomas, having touched this very man, says: 'My Lord and my God,' and likewise Paul says: 'Whose fathers, and from whom Christ according to the flesh, the God over all, blessed for the ages.' Therefore he is entirely God and man through the union by good will.

If, then, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," much more when the Lord is said and believed to have become man without losing his being God, he is the same both God and man: God by nature, man by the participation in humanity through his good will.