Hence to the man who was lately born, without doubt before the passion they were not subjected to Him, since that man Himself was still a debtor to death on our behalf. Hence now, after the passion or the ascension, or the judgment to come, all things will be made subject to Him, as that man Himself signifies concerning Himself, who as yet had not been in the heavens: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). Finally, take even this: And He hath given Him power to do judgment also, because He is the Son of man (John 5:27). Or at least receive the words of the Lord Himself concerning the united goodness of the nature: And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent (John 17:3).
Did He write Himself to be alien from this very goodness of the Father alone, He who thus added: And Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent? For the Father also testifies the same: My heart hath uttered a good Word; I speak my works to the King (Ps. 45:1). You see that the Word of God is good, who consists of the Father substantially and naturally. Therefore all comparisons of this kind were spoken on account of the weakness of the man: He who sent me is greater than I (John 14:28). Or in that saying about which you are wont to argue: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save God alone (Luke 18:19); while in another place He Himself says: Is thine eye evil, because I am good (Matt. 20:15)? And also this: I am the good shepherd (John 10:14).
Just as we find it likewise affirmed concerning the person of the Holy Spirit: Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right way (Ps. 143:10). Learn that the goodness is one in the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore now at least weigh this, that all weakness is to be imputed to the man, and that all power of the goodness of signs and wonders is to be ascribed undividedly to the deity of the Trinity. The Heretic. I will ask you, then: if the nature of the Father and the Son is one and undivided—He who says, I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:11)—and you assert that it was said on account of the dispensation of the man, He who sent me is greater than I (John 14:28): what now will you say concerning the person of the Spirit, the Paraclete? Is He not lesser, who was sent by the Son?
As He Himself says: If I go not away, the Paraclete will not come. And if I go, I will send Him to you, and He will teach you all truth (John 16:7)? Athanasius. O an inquiry hitherto utterly unheard of and so thoroughly probing. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit Himself suggests concerning Himself, it is now fitting for us to give one example of authority pertaining to many. Remember that this power of the nature of the Sender and the Sent is reciprocal, since He who is now sent is found to have already long ago sent the Sender. Finally, through holy Isaiah receive the Lord, the Son of God, testifying: Come near to me, and hear these things. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret: when these things were done, there was I; and now the Lord hath sent me, and His Spirit (Isa. 48:16).
Learn then at length that this nature of the divinity of the Sender and the Sent is united, since He who now in the Gospel testified that He would send the Spirit, the Paraclete, nevertheless professed through holy and renowned Isaiah that He had already before been sent by Him: since He who is sent is never divided from the Sender, because the nature is undivided, while between the Sender and the Sent the persons are shown and there is no division in the divinity; moreover, since this united fullness is everywhere present, and fills all things within and without, from the height of the heavens to the depth of the lower regions. The Heretic. I ask, then, if He is the Son of man, that you would show me, I pray, from the old authority of the Scriptures. Athanasius. Hear the Psalmist:
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, and upon the Son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself (Ps. 80:18). Just as holy Daniel also testifies: I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven, the Son of man; and He came even to the Ancient of days, and there was given Him dominion, and honor, and a kingdom, and all peoples, and tribes, and tongues shall serve Him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14). Behold the man of the right hand, behold the Son of man, as the Apostle says: Who was made unto Him of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). For according to the spirit of the deity He thus says:
Who was predestined the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification (Rom. 1:4). Just as He Himself questions the Pharisees concerning His own divinity: What think ye of Christ? whose son is He? The Jews answered Him: David's. And He said to them: How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? If then David in spirit calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one could answer Him a word (Matt. 22:42-46). Learn therefore that according to the flesh He is the Son of man, that is, of David, and according to the divinity the same One is the Son of God in power, and is Himself the Lord of David.
Wherefore, when the Scripture speaks of the Only-begotten, it indicates according to the divinity that in the deity the Only-begotten, begotten of God the Father, has no brethren at all; and when it names Him Firstborn, does it not show the nature of the man? This the Apostle declares, saying: That He Himself might be the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29). Or take this example: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead (Rev. 1:5). Is it not one person of the Son of God, and twofold His signification, God and man? Is He not one Son, who according to the flesh is called the firstborn from the dead, as man, as it is written: Who is the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18)?
Therefore believe me, you who read this profession of my Scriptural faith, that many have treated of this matter, but not understanding, they have erred: who, while they distinguish the person on account of the cause, have introduced two sons into their confession; whereas they ought to have distinguished the cause of the man's passion from the divinity, and not the person; since there is one Son, whose is the person. But the signification of the nature is twofold, since as Only-begotten He is God of God the Father, and as Firstborn from the dead He is man, since He is true God and true man; and since He is God, He is also assumed together with Himself. Wherefore the cause is distinguished, and not the person: and by this, when He speaks of the deity, He designates the impassible divinity.
But where He indicates the cause of the man, He demonstrates the nature to be passible. You see that where He refers to authority, He shows the divinity to be undivided from God the Father; where He indicates according to the man, He declares the nature of weakness. Therefore all power is to be ascribed to God, and all weakness of the passion is to be imputed to the man. Concerning the individual names, against the new heresy of a certain Potentinus Urbicus. The Heretic. Here now refer to me again concerning the individual names and persons. Athanasius. It ought not to have sufficed for you, when I gave one example for many of the Lord's faith, saying: Go ye, baptize all nations, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19),
concerning which I had already long ago so fully discoursed in my first little book, in which I had declared the truth of the whole sacrament to consist in the united deity, and had also distinguished the proper names to be inherent in the individual persons. Or do you not know that the Father alone is unbegotten, and is not Himself the Son; and one Son is truly born of Him, who is not the Father; and this one Holy Spirit, who did not beget as the Father here did, and was not born as the Son was, but neither is He a creature? Indeed, as the divine Scripture testifies, He is of the united true deity; and by this the true proper names are in the persons, and they are not empty appellations. The Heretic. I demand that you show these statements from authority. Athanasius.
Concerning the assumed man, it is written in the splendor of the Gospel: And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and coming upon Him. And lo, a voice from the heavens, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:16-17). Is not He who was baptized one in person, and another He who descended from the heavens like a dove, and yet another likewise whose voice was heard from the heavens? In another place it is written: Everyone who loves Him who begot, loves Him who is born of Him (1 John 5:1). Is the begetter Himself also He who is born? Far be it. Take also this testimony: He who confesses not the Son, has not the Father either:
but he who confesses the Son, has the Father also (1 John 2:23). Or this: He who hates me, hates my Father also (John 15:23). But to these things John judges: He who denies the Father and the Son, this is Antichrist (1 John 2:22). You see that he is Antichrist who denies the true Father and Son. Finally, hear the voice of the Father from the heavens, saying: This is my most beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him (Matt. 17:5). Since in every way He is one who testifies from the heavens, and another likewise who is testified to on earth. As the Son cries to the Father: Father, glorify thy name. And a voice came from the heavens: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again (John 12:28).
Surely if He Himself in one person was the Son who was also the Father, from whom then did He ask for honor? And whose voice answered Him, saying: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it? And also this: Holy Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee (John 17:1). Do you see in this a mutual honoring according to the alternation of nature, consisting in these? Or take: I went forth from Him, and am come (John 16). Now in another place the same One repeats: I came forth from the Father, and am come (John 17). Surely if He Himself in person was the Father who was also the Son, He ought thus to have intimated: I went forth from myself into this world. Since beyond doubt one is He who went forth, and another is He from whom He went forth.
But to these things He added concerning the person of the Holy Spirit: When that Advocate is come, whom I will send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from my Father, He shall testify of me (John 15:26). Is not, then, one He who sends, and another likewise in person the One from whom He proceeds, and another He Himself who comes? Finally, if there were one person, from whom then would He be sent? Or from whom would He proceed? As the Apostle confirms these things in his greeting to the Corinthians, saying: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, that is, of the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:13). Did he not openly, through each individual name, as is contained above, distinguish the individual persons to be present?
Finally, to these things receive the words of the Son Himself, saying: There is another who beareth witness of me, the Father who sent me (John 5:32; 8:18), while below He speaks of another concerning you. You see that the Father is another in person than the Son, and is not another in divinity. But also concerning the Holy Spirit He thus says: I will ask my Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete (John 14:16). Consider that the Spirit, the Paraclete, is another in person, and yet is not another in divinity; therefore one differs from another in person only, and not in deity. And so the Father is another in person who begot, and the Son is another who was begotten by Him, and another is the Spirit, the Paraclete, who is of the united nature.
But you say to me, heretic: How does the Spirit consist of the united nature? Behold, the Son testified concerning Him: He proceedeth from the Father (John 15:26); and He continued thus: and He shall receive of mine (John 16:14). This testimony the Father confirmed, saying: The Spirit proceedeth from me (Isa. 57:16). O man, if this Spirit, the Paraclete, is, as you say, not the Father, not the Son, not a creature, what does He seem to you to be? O true blindness! Surely if Scripture does not suffice for you, which thus signifies concerning Him, there is no longer anything for you to question about Him. Indeed, I ought not to dissemble, in that I ought not to fail to tell you what I think. But that you may first know what snares to avoid, I will show you these things.
There arose an unheard-of new heresy of a certain Urbicus Potentinus, who claims that this Holy Spirit must be confessed to be the Father, or the Son, or indeed a creature. So that if anyone, certainly ignorant or unschooled in the divine Scriptures, should hear something of those fabrications which through the bitterness of his cunning are set forth in public, and should choose for himself any of these blasphemous sayings, he immediately falls into heresy. Hear, therefore, how the twisted bonds of his iniquity ought to be loosed. O Potentinus, who against the divine Scriptures, or the whole world, dissent alone from the catholics on this matter, while you follow the doctrines of the philosophers, who hold such opinions:
surely if the Holy Spirit, even this Paraclete, were, as you say, the Father, there would without doubt no longer be one Father, but two fathers; or if the Spirit, even this Paraclete, were the Son, there would without doubt no longer be one Son, but two sons; or if the Spirit, the Paraclete, were a creature, beyond doubt He would no longer be true God, since He was made—which far be it. And by this I repeat the very same things, and through plainer discourses I declare these statements from the authority of the law. Therefore, if the Father were another and this Paraclete also, why do we find the saying of the Apostle: For there is one God, the Father (1 Tim. 2:5)? Or this saying: Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him (1 Cor. 8:6)? Learn therefore that there is one unbegettable God the Father.
But also, if the Son were another and this consoling Spirit also, why was the Only-begotten Son proclaimed by John the Evangelist, saying: No man hath ever seen God, save the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him (John 1:18)? Or this: And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:6). You see that the Son is one, who is the Only-begotten God. But also, if the Holy Spirit were a creature, and were not true God: why do we read the Lord Christ Himself indicating to Nicodemus: That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit (John 3:6)? For God is Spirit. Or at least take this example:
And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30). But also to these things receive: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5). Remember that the Holy Spirit is God, who works all things in signs and wonders, as the vessel of election briefly concludes: All these things worketh one and the same Spirit, dividing to everyone according as He will (1 Cor. 12:11); who, if this one and the same Spirit were a creature, how could He work all these wondrous things? Hence this Paraclete is not the Father, Potentinus, lest two fathers be introduced into the confession against the rule of authority's standard:
and He is not the Son, lest two sons seem to be against the sacred Scriptures: and He is not a creature, lest He be not true God. But finally, that you may learn from the divine creature itself, He is true God, because He consists of that same true, united, and incomparable deity. The Heretic. I ask, if the united deity is incomparable, are the names of the persons likewise incomparable? Athanasius. Alas for grief! If there are many fathers who once were not fathers, will any of these be worthily compared to God the Father in His eternal generation? Or because there are many sons who were lately born, and before were not sons, will any of them be likened to the eternal divinity of the proper Son of God?
Or because there are many spirits in heaven and on earth which have been made, will any of them be made equal in eternal divinity to the Holy Spirit? Far be it, lest the creature be compared to its Maker; since the creature has lately begun, but its Maker has always been before every beginning whatsoever. Remember that there is one Father, of whom are all things, and one Son, through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, as it is written: All things are of Him, and through Him, and in Him (Rom. 11:36). Consider, in addition to these stated arguments, that three significations are shown through the united name of the One who works, that is, of Him, and through Him, and in Him: since one is of another, or through another, because this saying pertains to the individual persons.
For concerning the united name He thus says: Of Him, and through Him, and in Him, which same is one. Hence, although these appellations are tacitly spoken into the proper persons, nevertheless one name is in them clearly revealed. Therefore, because by 'Of Him' He showed things to be named and called into being from God the Father; and by 'through Him' He indicated these same things made through God the Son; and by 'in Him' He pronounced them sanctified in God the Holy Spirit. You see that 'of whom' is said of the Father; and 'through whom' is made through the Son; and 'in whom' is completed as one in the Holy Spirit.
And so, when he says, 'from him, and through him, and in him' (Rom. 11:36), because this selfsame divinity of the Father is again and again that of the Son, and likewise that of the Holy Spirit, therefore all things were made from him, and through him, and in him. To that united and ineffable Trinity be honour and glory unto the ages of ages, Amen. And as to why the names are distinguished only in the persons, hear this. Can the Father, who ineffably begot the Son, himself also be called the Son? Did the Father take a man from the Virgin Mary? Was the Father born, or made flesh, or did he suffer? Far be it from us, O heretic Sabellius, that we should admit this blasphemy.
For this true Son of God was truly and incomparably born of the Father, and for our salvation deigned anew to take a man from the Virgin Mary. Whence now he is called—nay rather, truly is—true God and true man. For this reason the names of the persons are distinguished among these, lest you confusedly designate the very one whom you call Father as also the Son, or pronounce the Son to be the Father, or rashly attest that this inestimable Holy Spirit is the Father or the Son, and so be found to hold no firmness whatsoever; for while by these very names of the persons you everywhere confound the very unity, so as to say that the same one is in person the Father whom you also call the Son, as though he had begotten himself, or were Father to himself, and Son to himself—which God forbid:
since no one is father to his own self, and no one is son to his own self whom he has truly begotten; for the father is to the son, and the son is to the father whom he truly begot. On account of this the names are perfectly distinguished in the persons. Heretic: I beg you, prove these things to me from authority. Athanasius: Receive the Son testifying in the clarity of the Gospel's judgement: 'When the Advocate shall come, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from my Father, he himself shall bear witness of me' (John 15:26). Or receive this at once: 'But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you' (John 14:26).
Has he not most briefly distinguished the names in each, when he announces that this Advocate, the Spirit the Paraclete, will come from the Father, and will bear testimony of himself in the world? Heretic: Why are the names designated? Athanasius: Without doubt because the Father truly begot—this is his proper name; and the Son was truly born of him—this is his united name; and the principal Spirit, who proceeds from the Father—the name of deity is his. But when the names are distinguished by running through them severally in plurality in the persons, the proper names are shown forth. When they are referred according to deity, the united name of the essence is indicated in them. Heretic:
What then do the persons designate as the mark of distinctive property, namely that there is the Father alone, and the only-begotten Son, and this one Holy Spirit, in the way that here you show the name to be one substantive name in the proper persons? Athanasius: Hear how, just as God the Father is substantive in the divinity, so God the Son is substantive in the same nature and substance, and so God the Holy Spirit is substantive in the same nature of the essence. Or, if you would refer such a saying as this: just as the Father is God, so also the Son is God, and so also the Holy Spirit is God. You see that when you indicate the substantive name of divinity in these persons, you demonstrate the united name of deity. And so the understanding of this mystery is twofold:
remember that their united name consists in a united substance, and that the several proper names are distinguished in the several persons. Or rather, understand the truth through this argument: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). Surely, because the united name of nature, the natures are not many; and 'we are' is not in one person. And so, where it indicates the name of deity, it designates one; but where it comes to the names of the persons, it shows 'we are.' Therefore it is one thing to refer the united name of deity as one to the common authority of the Trinity, and another thing to distinguish the several names in plurality through the several persons; because where the nature of the essence is sought, the united name is revealed:
but where the proper names are indicated, the several persons are declared distinctly. So too in this argument the Vessel of election briefly resolves it: 'From God, before God, in Christ we speak' (2 Cor. 2:17). Did he not therefore, by these tacit names, declare that the several significations of the persons are present in them—that is, 'from God,' which is evidently from God the Father; and what he added, 'before God,' that is, 'with God as witness,' he showed forth the Holy Spirit; and 'in Christ we speak,' as he says—surely we proclaim our testimony from God, before God, in the Son of God.
You see that it has been told you in manifold ways that the several names are shown forth in the persons, since the several names are perfectly shown only in the persons, and the judgement of the essence of deity is indicated as one through these very things. Concerning the united and everlasting substance of the Trinity. Here the person who contradicts is that of the Arian-maniacs. Heretic: Why have you confessed the Son to be everlasting together with the Father, whom nativity in no way suffered to be admitted into everlastingness? For if he was everlasting together with the Father, he was not born; but if he was born, he cannot be everlasting, since nativity is later than everlastingness. Athanasius: O empty contrivance, built upon the sands of wood, hay and stubble, whose ruin and burning is close at hand! (cf. 1 Cor. 3:12)
Here, against your premature argument, I must needs bring forth against you the prohibition of true wisdom. Why is the Son not made everlasting, whose nativity is in no way excluded from everlastingness? Nay rather, he who had already been born before every beginning whatsoever, his very everlastingness is together with the Father, since the everlasting one was begotten of the everlasting. But you say to me: Nativity is later than its begetter. As though, forsooth, he were first conceived of seed, or coagulated in the womb, and his nativity had advanced and progressed up to the final increase, and so at last at some point he was born. Far be it that anything should be compared to this nativity, as it is written: 'But who shall declare his generation?' (Acts 8:33; Isa.
53:8). Did the Father, who truly begot, fall into any suffering, or sustain any loss in the very nativity of his Son? Far be it, since this generation, as I said above, is altogether not to be declared. Finally, concerning this, err against the divine Scripture if you can; for it speaks now of a hand, a Son, and a right hand, and an arm; and now of the Word from the mouth of the Father; now begotten from the womb before the morning star (Ps. 109:3); and now of his being in the Father; and now as though he had gone out and come from the Father; and now of his being in the bosom of the Father; and now that he was with the Father; and now that he is and was in the Father; and now that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.
Consider whether, against these manifold sayings, any nativity could be compared to the generation of the Son of God, or could be declared—seeing that this one who before the ages had already incomparably been born, how is he even now in the bosom of the Father? Or he who went out from the Father and came, how was he and is he always in the Father? Or he who is signified to be a hand, or a right hand, or an arm—I ask of you, O heretic, that you declare how he was begotten of the Father; since he is indeed called or named by divine Scripture the wisdom and the power of God the Father? Or he who was begotten from the womb, how did the Word also go out and come from the mouth of the Father? Or how is the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father? You see that this nativity alone is not to be declared.
It is rather to be sought according to the profession of the Scriptures than to be judged or debated. Although it is ineffable, yet according to the profession of the Synod of Ariminum, it is to be unknowable to the creature. Why should he not have been truly born of the Father?—which God forbid, since I am certain that he was born. But in this indeed I am ignorant, how he was begotten of God the Father; because, being of the inestimable Father, truly inestimable is he who was begotten of him. But you say to me: The Son began, because he was born; and on the contrary, hear: Therefore the Father also began, because he begot. If the Son began, the Father also began. To whom then do you ascribe this everlastingness which you assert to have existed prior to the nativity of the Son? The heretic says: To the Father alone.