51. The foregoing and the following statements utterly remove any ground for suspecting that this definition asserts a diversity of different deities in the Lord and the Lord. No comparison is made because it was seen to be impious to say that there are two Gods: not that they refrain from making the Son equal and peer of the Father in order to deny that He is God. For, since he is anathema who denies that Christ is God, it is not on that score that it is profane to speak of two equal Gods. God is One on account of the true character of His natural essence and because from the Unborn God the Father, who is the one God, the Only-begotten God the Son is born, and draws His divine Being only from God; and since the essence of Him who is begotten is exactly similar to the essence of Him who begot Him, there must be one name for the exactly similar nature. That the Son is not on a level with the Father and is not equal to Him is chiefly shewn in the fact that He was subjected to Him to render obedience, in that the Lord rained from the Lord and that the Father did not, as Photinus and Sabellius say, rain from Himself, as the Lord from the Lord; in that He then sat down at the right hand of God when it was told Him to seat Himself; in that He is sent, in that He receives, in that He submits in all things to the will of Him who sent Him. But the subordination of filial love is not a diminution of essence, nor does pious duty cause a degeneration of nature, since in spite of the fact that both the Unborn Father is God and the Only-begotten Son of God is God, God is nevertheless One, and the subjection and dignity of the Son are both taught in that by being called Son He is made subject to that name which because it implies that God is His Father is yet a name which denotes His nature. Having a name which belongs to Him whose Son He is, He is subject to the Father both in service and name; yet in such a way that the subordination of His name bears witness to the true character of His natural and exactly similar essence.

XVIII. “If any man says that the Father and the Son are one Person: let him be anathema.”

0518A 51. Definitio haec a suspicione liberatur. Filius quatenus Patri non aequandus, manente naturae aequalitate. ---Et superiora et consequentia suspicionem, si qua esse in his dictis videbitur, penitus excludunt, ne diversitas dissimilium deitatum in Domino et Domino praedicetur. Et in eo non comparatur, quia duos deos dici impium sit: non autem idcirco non comparatur vel exaequatur Filius Patri, ne Deus ipse non esse credatur. Cum enim anathema sit Christum Deum denegans, non potest idcirco profanum videri, duos deos connominari, ne et Christus Deus praedicetur; cum per essentiae naturalis proprietatem idcirco Deus unus est, quia ex innascibili Deo patre, qui unus est Deus, unigenitus filius Deus natus, non aliunde quam ex Deo habeat esse quod Deus est: et indifferenti 0518B ejus qui genitus est ab eo qui genuit essentia, non potest non indifferentis unum nomen esse naturae. Et vel in eo quidem maxime non comparatur nec coaequatur Filius Patri, dum subditus per obedientiae obsequelam est, dum pluit Dominus a Domino, ne a se ipse secundum Photinum aut Sabellium pluerit, ut Dominus a Domino; dum ad dexteram Dei tum consedit, cum sibi ut consideret dictum sit; dum mittitur, dum accipit, dum in omnibus voluntati ejus qui se misit obsequitur. Sed pietatis subjectio non est essentiae diminutio, nec religionis officium degenerem efficit naturam: cum per id, quod cum et innascibilis pater Deus est, et unigenitus filius Dei Deus est, Deus tamen unus sit; et subjectio filii doceatur et dignitas, dum et ipsi illi nomini Filius nuncupandus subjicitur, 0518C quod cum Dei patris sit, tamen sibi ex natura sit nomen. Habens nomen, sed ejus cujus et filius est, fit Patri et obsequio subjectus et nomine; ita 0519A tamen, ut subjectio nominis proprietatem naturalis atque indifferentis testetur essentiae.

494 XVIII. «Si quis Patrem et Filium unam personam dicit: anathema sit.»