Dialogues on the Holy Trinity 1 part 19/23

{A.} Do they then say that the Son is not distinguished in these things so awesome and glorious? {B.} They will say, I think, that he is, but only because the Father has permitted him to have it.

{A.} How then is this not a false myth and an empty rhapsody, when God the Father has expressly cried out:

'My glory I will not give to another'? For he would not permit any of the things that exist, and are other than himself—differing, I mean, in essence—to exult in the exaltations of true divinity.

For where any longer would be the transcendence of that glory, if a created nature should advance to such a measure that no further glory remained beyond it? Is it not necessary that for everything that has been made and brought into existence, what belongs properly and peculiarly to God should be conceived as altogether untrodden and inaccessible?

Isaiah, the divinely-inspired, indeed says that he beheld the Son in no lesser glory.

'For I saw,' he said, 'the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.'

'And the house was full of his glory.'

'And the Seraphim stood round about him—'

'six wings to the one, and six wings to the other—'

'and with two they covered their face, and with two their feet, and with two they flew; and one cried to another,' proclaiming a sanctification that is threefold at the beginning, but ends in unity and in one lordship.

Does it then seem to you that the Son now possesses equality in glory? For where there is the highest throne, and a majesty running an equal course, and the standing of the heavenly powers round about, manifesting the measure of servitude belonging to created beings and testifying to the glory of lordship of him who sits there, what room could there be left for doubt, or how could it be disputable—unless someone has already, as it were, driven himself down to the very depth of ignorance—if indeed he should suppose that the Son is not adorned with the natural lordship of the Father? {B.} It is settled, and the argument is now shown to be true.

Indeed, if it also seems so to anyone else, that dominion over everything that has come into being belongs to him who is truly God by nature, and that all things are God's—heaven and earth, to put it concisely, and the things in both—

{A.} Then in the same manner would those who live the blessed life above—angels and archangels, and whatever is beyond these—belong to God and the Father;

and they would also belong to the Son himself.

And know well that I think the very same thing concerning those on earth as well.

But you would do very well if the confirming testimony for each point followed upon our words.

{A.} The divinely-inspired Psalmist, then, says: 'Bless the Lord, all his angels, his ministers who do his will,' thereby assigning the holy multitude above to the authority of the Father.

And that the Son will come as judge in due season, he himself, foretelling it, says:

'For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels.' For he will come, he will come in due season, to render to each according to his work—

Yet we say that he does not vaunt and pride himself in servants foreign to him, but is attended by the bodyguard of angels as truly his own.

'My sheep hear my voice,' while at another time again he speaks concerning those who have not yet believed:

'And other sheep I have which are not of this fold.' It is therefore easy for us to show, from countless instances, that the Son is said to have been glorified by the Father on account of his humanity, even though he is the Lord of glory, and is ever enthroned together with and co-seated with the Father.

This text would then, quite reasonably, prove hard to evade, and a shame not easily washed away, for those who attribute to him an imported glory and say that his dominion over all things was something admitted into him from without.

B. Then, if dominion over all things is neither from without nor something received into him, but is implanted in him essentially, I would not be able to say what, then, the divine Paul had learned that led him to insist that his kingdom would at some point come to an end, when he says:

'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.'

'But each in his own order:'

'Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's at his coming:'

'then the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have abolished all rule and authority and power.'

'For he has put all things under his feet.'

'The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.' Behold, they would say, behold, there is, as it were, a boundary marking the end of his kingdom: the rendering powerless of the rulers, and the abolishing of death:

for then he will hand over the right of ruling to God the Father alone.

A. Away with so old-wivish and utterly ridiculous a notion!

For indeed the one who thinks and speaks thus has abandoned the paths of his own vineyard, and has strayed from the tracks of his own farm; he journeys through a waterless desert, and a land stretched out in thirsty places, and gathers barrenness with his hands, according to what is written.

For it is not the case that the divine mystagogue told us that the Son will at some time be deposed from the crowns of the kingdom and from dominion over all things;

'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:'

'a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.' What, then, would those do who so readily let their mouths run loose on every most discordant thing, and who are thus diseased in their coarse mind, in the face of the blessed Gabriel's having already foretold to the holy Virgin the things concerning Christ? 'Do not,' he says, 'fear this dispensation, O Mary;'

'for you have found favor with God, and behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus:'

'By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.' Is not their opposition, then, filled with the utmost, God-hated impiety? B. I myself would say so; only know that those on the opposing side are not disposed as we are.

A. But surely the choice to think in the most excellent way, and to learn it, rests entirely within our own power; and we shall not sit idly by, indulging their dullness and simply spouting forth whatever seems fit to us;

but, thwarting on every side, so far as we are able, the inventions of a perverse mind, and vigorously outrunning the danger of being caught in the snares of scurrilous false-fable, we shall sing over ourselves:

'Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us as prey to their teeth.' And since, as the wise and proverbial word has proclaimed to us, 'the impious devise deceits,' come, let us set forth what will profit those who read it, and the means by which they might nobly repel the assault of deception.

Therefore the divine Paul writes to those who have been justified by faith and have thereby been enriched with a splendid hope:

for this, I think, indicates that which is unshakeable.

B. I would not be very able to say it clearly, but I myself should like to inquire of you.

A. We must, then, since it seems good to you, examine closely whether he means the kingdom of the Son, or rather that which will also be given to the saints themselves.

If, then, they say that the kingdom and preeminence of the Son are too excellent to be capable of falling away, and are inalienable, I think that our opponents, having babbled foolishly to no purpose, will blush for shame.

But if, letting go of and rejecting the Son, they shall say that the reigning of the saints will be unalterable, then, first of all, they will appear superior even to Christ himself, having already obtained a portion beyond his own — if he is to cast off his rule, while they, having obtained an unbroken and perpetual gladness, shall possess the stability of glory as something firmly secured.

A. But how is it not utterly senseless to fabricate so crude a slander? For the necessity of ruling and reigning over all things would belong properly to none other than Christ himself — not as one enriched with an acquired or given possession, as we are, but as a thing following upon the very principles of natural lordship.

But those who suffer with him — 'we shall also reign with him,' as it is written.

Therefore he is Lord of ruling by nature, while we are adopted and honored by way of participation.

For they shall reign together with Christ who reigns.

Then how will they possess this honor unshaken and reign forever, if the might of Christ, of which we say they are also partakers, is to be shaken and to come to an end at some point? And if the very one who supplies and presides over the kingdom for them shall cease from his rule, where will their portion still stand, and on what foundation will it rest? For in what will they still share, if that which called them to glory grows weak? Is it not necessary that what is supported should collapse together with what supports it, and that what rests upon the lowest foundations should sink down along with them? When, therefore, according to them, the foundation of their good repute and the base of their prosperity shall be shaken, then surely the hope of the saints too will share the same fate, sinking together into disrepute and decline.

B. It will indeed share the same fate:

for the argument is both clear and true.

A. But what, then, did the minister of God's divine mysteries to us learn, that led him to call Christ's kingdom the kingdom of God? For he writes thus:

'For know this and be assured, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.' For I would in no way hesitate to say that whatever possesses the natural dignity of ruling of necessity, being God would surely also belong to it.

Shall we not think that these things stand thus, O Hermias? B. Indeed so.

For if he is God at all, he would certainly also be King.

A. If, then, he should at some point cease from the glory of reigning, he would also fall away from being God:

and he would no longer be life or light — but I pass over the absurdity in silence.

What, then, would the nature of the Son still be, stripped of deity and kingship and of being light, and unable to give life since it is itself deprived of life — could you say, my friend? B. I cannot conceive it.

A. But the thing that most persuades one to shudder at so shameful and detestable an opinion of our opponents is this:

B. What is it? A. What time, then, do they say will come, at which, as they suppose, the Son delivers up the kingdom to God the Father? B. They would say that, as far as this matter is concerned, we ourselves will by no means lay down a fixed rule;

but Paul himself defines it, saying:

'For,' he says, 'Christ is the firstfruits.'

'Then they that are Christ's, at his coming:'

'then the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.'

'For he has put all things under his feet.'

'The last enemy to be abolished is death.' A. So then, as it were, when the present age has grown old and the time is already coming down to its end, the Son, according to them, delivers up the kingdom to God the Father.

But now he holds dominion over all things, and is in the glory befitting God:

'Sit thou at my right hand,' God the Father says to him, 'until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet.' B. True.

A. He is, therefore, co-enthroned and equal in glory with the Father, even while those who oppose him have not yet yielded, and still shake off the manner of subjection.

But will he then be thrust out from the thrones of deity, at the moment when they bend their neck to him and have already, in some way, laid low their formerly disobedient and unyielding mind, having, as it were, melted and flowed over into a soft and more tractable disposition and will? Then of what benefit would this be to the Son? For to whom, then, do we say that those who were, after a long time, scarcely brought around to this submission, are now subjected? For if they are brought in through subjection, while he departs from his throne, what will be the end of the divine economy — I, for my part, am unable to conceive;

but what do you say, my friend? B. Nor could I myself perceive it either.

A. But come, let us also examine this:

B. What is it? A. Is not the time better for the Only-begotten during which some resisted, thrusting back against the necessity of submitting, than the time in which he must fall away from his kingdom, once his enemies have fallen beneath him and those who were resolved on war have already been yoked into submission? B. It seems so.

A. I myself would add, without fearing anything, this also to what has been said:

So, it seems, the Father was bringing about the overthrow of the Son's kingdom, by subjecting his enemies to him and routing those who hated him!

And the Son himself would be caught out, having perhaps been ignorant of the very means by which he might have been able to possess a lasting and unshakeable glory.

For he would not have thought it necessary, in loving-kindness, to call out to those who still turn away from the rein and do not accept the submission understood in faith, because of the intractability of their disposition, saying:

'Take my yoke upon you.' Would not the uttering of this, good friend, be the words of one hastening his own kingdom and glory toward its end, if he were destined no longer to rule over those made subject to him? B. So it is.

A. I would say that the Father himself would also be telling a false tale, speaking as he did to the Son who had become man:

'[Ask] of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.' For where, then, would the inheritance of the Son still be understood to lie, if it is handed over to the Father? And how will the matter of possession preserve its fitting meaning, if the thing given is taken away, and, just when it ought to have been firmly secured, it undergoes, as it were, an unforeseen upheaval? B. I say the objection has already become sufficient, and no mean one.

You might, then, most gladly proceed also to that point which, I think, is still wanting in what has been said.

For I am truly unable to learn what it really is, this 'the kingdom being delivered up to God the Father by the Son.'

A. Will you not yourself also say, noble friend, that sin, hard to overcome, has reigned, and that corruption and death have played the tyrant over us, and Hades has enlarged its soul, and opened its mouth without ceasing, according to what is written? B. Yes;

for this is exceedingly clear, that it is still even so.

A. What then? Have not also these worldly spirits of wickedness, and the one who stands at the head of their multitude, having spread the whole inhabited world, as it were, beneath his own feet — has he not himself been named 'the god of this age,' while they, in turn, are called 'powers' and 'principalities' and 'dominions,' and besides these, 'world-rulers'? B. True.

A. But the Son has come to dwell among us in order to bring all this to nothing and utterly abolish it, so that, once those who formerly held sway have been driven out from their tyranny over us, the dominion of God may shine forth in purity and go throughout all the earth — sin having been uprooted through faith, the rulers and the authorities with them having been led in triumph through the precious cross, and death itself having been overthrown through his resurrection from the dead.

Therefore the Son also said to him:

'I glorified you upon the earth; I have finished the work which you gave me to do.' {B.} Well said.

{A.} Consider then, that at the present time, while corruption still tyrannizes and sin has not yet been entirely removed, while the wicked and deceitful dragon still reigns over the unbelieving, the dominion of God is in some sense divided, and wavers, as it were, between two, since those who have not yet condemned the deceit of the demons and this unholy and more earthly life are still shaking off the yoke.

But when the time is revealed in which death will lose its strength and the dominion of sin will collapse, and the covetousness of the devil will be utterly destroyed, the Son presents the kingdom as it were pure and unmixed with anything worse, and delivers it to God the Father.

For he alone will rule over us, through him and with him.

The Spirit-bearing [apostle] signified, then, by the term 'delivering', the fulfillment of the divine economy and the accomplishment of the whole mystery.

For it is as though the Son, having drawn out the kingdom of God — which was held, as it were, by others and by those who had stealthily intruded into it — brought it forward and delivered it to the Father, without himself thereby ceasing to reign;

for he will certainly reign together with his own Begetter, since, being the living and hypostatic power of him, he might reasonably be considered to have accomplished all these very things himself.

'And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, forever, and his kingdom shall not be left to another people.'

'It will break in pieces and grind to powder all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.' And again:

'I beheld,' he says, 'in a vision of the night, and behold, one like a Son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him, and to him was given dominion and honor and kingdom;'

'His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.' {B.} The truth of what has been said is clear and beyond dispute.

{A.} But, my noble friend, let go of your labor over this matter;

for it would not be unclear that, as far as concerns his own kingdom and glory, the Only-begotten will remain in unshaken permanence, and likewise will always keep himself from turning toward anything lesser;

for he would least of all undergo anything by nature grievous, since he has claimed for himself a nature that is exalted, most high, and set beyond the reach of suffering.

Since, besides what I have said, another of those perverse men mocks us with an argument — unintelligent, it seems, yet not without its edge — let the one who bends his bow bend it against him, according to the voice of the prophet, and let the one who girds on his sword gird it against him — that is, his weapons. Know well that you will free us from sharp anxiety by taking this path and bringing the trial of the argument to this point.

They say, then: 'Why do the divinely inspired Scriptures not also proclaim that he who, according to you, shares the Father's throne and holds the scepter befitting God, possesses power of his own as well? For one may observe that this very ability is wrought in him by the Father, and may learn this from the very words of the Savior himself.'

'Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it.'

'For whatever things he does, these the Son likewise does.' And again:

'I do nothing of myself, but the Father, abiding in me, himself does the works.' {A.} So then, the audacious argument of our opponents divines that the Son, who has appeared from God the Father, is lacking in strength befitting God and is truly powerless — an argument to which we ourselves, and Christ himself, might fittingly say:

'You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.' For just as he is also the face and image of the Father, and wisdom and glory and radiance and exact representation, so too he must be understood to be power, through which he has become, is, and shall be active in absolutely everything that has been made.

'For all things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.' For just as craftsmen skilled in some manual art — bronze-workers, perhaps, or those admirably trained in the craft of stone-working — produce the works they craft in no other way than by their own hand, together with the strength inherent in them and their skill for the works, so, I think, in the very same manner God and Father accomplishes his creative activity concerning whatever he wills, through the Son, as through his own power.

'Command, O God, your strength;'

'strengthen, O God, this which you have wrought in us.' And Paul, the most wise, clearly proclaimed Christ to be the power of God and the wisdom of God.

{B.} Not even they themselves would say that the Son is powerless; but neither would they say that, on a level with the prophets and apostles, he acquired the ability by grace in time, but rather that, together with his very existence, he received from the outset the ability to accomplish absolutely everything laid down within him.

{A.} Our enemies are foolish, according to what is written,

for they seem to be ignorant of the very point in question.

Our discussion at present is not troubling itself over when and how the Father gave the ability to the Son, but rather whether it is at all something given, and not rather something implanted in him essentially.

For it would profit nothing at all, toward the Son's nature being blameless in itself, to say that it received its ability from the Father even from the very beginning, since the disgrace lies not so much in not having obtained it from the beginning, but rather in having, among the things that exist, something acquired from outside.

{A.} And what would they say, if one were to ask this? {B.} What is that? {A.} Would they say that the thing being empowered by another is itself the one that empowers, or is it something other besides that? {B.} Something other, I suppose.

Would this, then, not be an open absurdity, or rather sheer madness? {B.} Indeed it would.

{A.} Following, then, the faith of the sacred Scriptures, and treading, as it were, the well-worn path familiar to the wise, let us say that the Son himself is the power of God and the Father, immediately and directly, through whom and in whom he possesses his ineffable activity over all things — by whom he fashioned the heavens and what is in them, established the earth, and brought forth the things of which the earth is the vehicle and nurse, and by whom he makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire, according to what is written:

And since, when the Father assented that salvation should come also to those in this world, the Only-begotten was named and became man — he who is the strength and power of the Father — he gave life to the dead and raised from their tombs those already decayed; he drove away evil spirits from men, and to those deprived of their eyes he instilled a light unaccustomed indeed, yet sweet nonetheless; and he worked wonders akin and equal to these, by an authority befitting God.

{B.} 'But,' he says, 'it was the Father working in him.'

{A.} And as for what the manner of the Father's activity would be, I suppose they would not be able to say, however eager one might be to press them with questions.

Was it as through an instrument that renders subservient service to the wishes of him who begot the Son, or — which is better and true — did the Father work as through his own power? But if, setting aside the better and rightly presumed view, and passing it by most fleetingly, these wretched men should ascribe to the Son a merely instrumental activity, one must know that his opinion and grace will dwindle away to nothing, and already flow down into disgrace.

For that through instruments is a service which, so far as it itself is concerned, amounts to nothing whatsoever; the glory belongs only to those who are accustomed to move the instruments and to turn them to whatever end they choose — and this the divine Scripture itself would make clear to us.

For God somewhere spoke, mocking instrumental service as useless:

'Shall the axe boast itself apart from the one who cuts with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself apart from the one who draws it?' Therefore, as far as its own nature is concerned, [such an instrument] would be understood as nothing, even though the Word is God — [on this view] possessing no natural activity of his own, but resembling, as it were, lifeless instruments and lying subject to the will of the one who moves him.

Yet being of such a nature (for so it seems these opponents foolishly maintain), he nonetheless confounds us in turn with words that exceed such a status, saying:

'My Father is working until now, and I too am working.' And moreover, most clearly and evidently, he himself adorned his own nature with equal honors, crying out openly:

'For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills.' And yet, how is it not easy to see, and altogether free from any falsehood, that one who has no activity of his own at all — not even upon his lips — should ascribe the accomplishment of everything done to God the Father alone, saying:

'My Father is working until now through me and in me, and indeed he gives life to whom he wills'? But this he does not say;

but rather, ascribing it, as it were, in his own right to his own powers, to do without hindrance and accomplish whatever he might choose, no less than the Father — he has clearly shown that, having sprung forth from the essence of God the Father and subsisting distinctly in his own right, he draws with him, by nature, an equal strength and equal standing in every activity whatsoever.

For surely we will not, by measuring things that are far exceeding and set high above what pertains to us according to our own standard, grant that the strength conceived to be in God — that is, the Son — does not truly exist.

For he exists, he truly exists, living and hypostatic, rising up ineffably as from a spring from his own Father, and distinguished with the properties of the Godhead not by acquisition, but rather essentially, by nature.

{A.} For this reason the divine Moses also said:

'...them.' Is not the Word who is from him and in him to be understood, tell me, as other in his particular hypostasis than the Father and God, at least with respect to being? {B.} Certainly other, I suppose, in every way.

For he subsists as a distinct person, even though he is consubstantial.

{A.} If, then, it is the Father who brings all things into being and establishes the heavens, how is the Word the maker of these things? {B.} You yourself might explain it to me, since I am eager to learn.

But their argument is harsh, and worn down greatly to a mere thinness.

The nature of the one Godhead is known, both by us ourselves and by the holy angels, as existing in the holy and consubstantial Trinity.

And the Father is entirely complete according to his own particular hypostasis, and likewise also the Son and the Spirit; but the creative will of one of those named — whatever it may be said to bring into being — is indeed his own operation, yet it passes through the whole Godhead, and is the achievement of that essence which is above creation: common, as it were, in one sense, yet also fitting particularly to each person; thus that which is worked from one nature, as through three hypostases, would fittingly belong particularly to each one as well, each possessing it perfectly and completely in itself.

The Father, then, is at work, but through the Son, in the Spirit;

the Son too is at work, but as the power of the Father, understood as being from him and in him according to his own particular manner of existence.

For the all-working Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

{B.} What you have said is not attainable to everyone;

nevertheless, it has truth itself as its foundation.

{A.} Let us, then, bring our discourse down a little from such refined conceptions, and proceed, if you agree, along another path, gathering our full conviction from other lines of reasoning.

{A.} If, then, the Son is not the strength of the Father, but himself too, possessing a power that is adopted [from outside], worked wonders on earth along with the things that were made, could you explain how one would not — quite justifiably — find fault with him? For he was unwilling to rebuke, even though the leper said to him:

'Lord, if you will, you are able to make me clean.' Yet he did not, as it were, drive away from him the elements of that error inclining toward the worse view, but rather promptly promised — or rather had already, in effect, commanded — that the request be fulfilled.

'What do you want me to do for you?' And when they earnestly implored that the much-longed-for light be granted to them, once more he bestowed it without any delay.

And yet, why should it not rather have been necessary to say to the leper:

'The Father wills it; be cleansed;'

and to those deprived of sight:

'What do you want the Father to do for you?' Or shall we not rather say that it was better that the holy apostles both resolved and acted by thoroughly shaking off the appearance of being able to accomplish the divine signs by their own power and activity? For they said to the man who sat at the Beautiful Gate:

'In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk;' and again to another:

'Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you.' And, since this deed caused no little wonder in some concerning those on whom it had been worked, they declared plainly: