(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors. If you
find errors or omissions in the text, please notify [email protected].)

Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing initially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.


ST. AMBROSE

EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Books IV-V

[Translated by the Rev. H. de Romestin, M.A., of St. John's College,
Oxford, and Rector of Tiptree, Essex, with the assistance of the Rev. E. de
Romestin, M.A., of New College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth,
M.A., of Merton College, Oxford.]


BOOK IV.

CHAPTER I.

The marvel is, not that men have failed to know Christ, but that they have
not listened to the words of the Scriptures. Christ, indeed, was not known,
even of angels, save by revelation, nor again, by His forerunner. Follows a
description of Christ's triumphal ascent into heaven, and the excellence of
its glory over the assumption of certain prophets. Lastly, from exposition
of the conversation with angels upon this occasion, the omnipotence of the
Son is proved, as against the Arians.

   1. On consideration, your Majesty, of the reason wherefore men have so
far gone astray, or that many--alas!--should follow diverse ways of belief
concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human
knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it
has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures.

   2. What reason, indeed, is there to wonder, if by their worldly wisdom
men failed to comprehend the mystery of God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ, in Whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden,(2)
that mystery of which not even angels have been able to take knowledge,
save by revelation?

   3. For who could by force of imagination, and not by faith, follow the
Lord Jesus, now descending from the highest heaven to the shades below, now
rising again from Hades to the heavenly places; in a moment self-emptied,
that He might dwell amongst us, and yet never made less than He was, the
Son being ever in the Father and the Father in the Son?

   4. Even Christ's forerunner, though only in so far as representing the
synagogue,(1) doubted concerning Him, even he who was appointed to go
before the face of the Lord, and at last sending messengers, enquired: "Art
Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?"(2)

   5. Angels, too, stood spellbound in wonder at the heavenly mystery. And
so, when the Lord rose again, and the heights of heaven could not bear the
glory of His rising from the dead, Who of late, so far as regarded His
flesh, had been confined in the narrow bounds of a sepulchre, even the
heavenly hosts doubted and were amazed.

   6. For a Conqueror came, adorned with wondrous spoils, the Lord was in
His holy Temple, before Him went angels and archangels, marvelling at the
prey wrested from death, and though they knew that nothing can be added to
God from the flesh, because all things are lower than God, nevertheless,
beholding the trophy of the Cross, whereof "the government was upon His
shoulder," and the spoils borne by the everlasting Conqueror, they, as if
the gates could not afford passage for Him Who had gone forth from them,
though indeed they can never o'erspan His greatness--they sought some
broader and more lofty passage for Him on His return--so entirely had He
remained undiminished by His self-emptying.

   7. However, it was meet that a new way should be prepared before the
face of the new Conqueror--for a Conqueror is always, as it were, taller
and greater in person than others; but, forasmuch as the Gates of
Righteousness, which are the Gates of the Old and the New Testament,
wherewith heaven is opened, are eternal, they are not indeed changed, but
raised, for it was not merely one man but the whole world that entered, in
the person of the All-Redeemer.

   8. Enoch had been translated, Elias caught up, but the servant is not
above his Master. For "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He Who came
down from heaven;"(1) and even of Moses, though his corpse was never seen
on earth, we do nowhere read as of one abiding in celestial glory, unless
it was after that the Lord, by the earnest of His own Resurrection, burst
the bonds of hell and exalted the souls of the godly. Enoch, then, was
translated, and Elias caught up; both as servants, both in the body, but
not after resurrection from the dead, nor with the spoils of death and the
triumphal train of the Cross, had they been seen of angels.

   9. And therefore [the angels] descrying the approach of the Lord of
all, first and only Vanquisher of Death, bade their princes that the gates
should be lifted up, saying in adoration, "Lift up the gates, such as are
princes amongst you, and be ye lifted Up, O everlasting doors, and the King
of glory shall come in."(2)

   10. Yet there were still, even amongst the hosts of heaven, some that
were amazed, overcome with astonishment at such pomp and glory as they had
never yet beheld, and therefore they asked: "Who is the King of glory?"(3)
Howbeit, seeing that the angels (as well as ourselves) acquire their
knowledge step by step, and are capable of advancement, they certainly must
display differences of power and understanding, for God alone is above and
beyond the limits imposed by gradual advance, possessing, as He does, every
perfection from everlasting.

   11. Others, again,--those, to wit, who had been present at His rising
again, those who had seen or who already recognized Him, made reply: "It is
the Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle."

   12. Then, again, sang the multitude of angels, in triumphal chorus:
"Lift up the gates, O ye that are their princes, and be ye lift up, ye
everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in."

   13. And back again came the challenge of them that stood astonished:
"Who is that King of glory? For we saw Him having neither form nor
comeliness;(4) if then it be not He, who is that King of glory?"

   14. Whereto answer they which know: "The Lord of Hosts, He is the King
of glory." Therefore, the Lord of Hosts, He is the Son. How then do the
Arians call Him fallible, Whom we believe to be Lord of Hosts, even as we
believe of the Father? How can they draw distinctions between the sovereign
powers of Each, when we have found the Son, even as also the Father,
entitled "Lord of Saboath"? For, in this very passage, the reading in many
copies is: "The Lord of Sabaoth, He is the King of glory." Now the
translators have, for the "Lord of Sabaoth," rendered in some places "the
Lord of Hosts," in others "the Lord the King," and in others "the Lord
Omnipotent." Therefore, since He Who ascended is the Son, and, again, He
Who ascended is the Lord of Sabaoth, it surely follows that the Son of God
is omnipotent!

CHAPTER II.

None can ascend to heaven without faith; in any case, he who hath so
ascended thither will be cast out wherefore, faith must be zealously
preserved. We ourselves each have a heaven within, the gates whereof must
be opened and be raised by confession of the Godhead of Christ, which gates
are not raised by Arians, nor by those who seek the Son amongst earthly
things, and who must therefore, like the Magdalene, be sent back to the
apostles, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. Scriptures are
cited to show that the servant of the Lord must not diminish aught of his
Master's honour.

   15. What shall we do, then? How shall we ascend unto heaven? There,
powers are stationed, principalities drawn up in order, who keep the doors
of heaven, and challenge him who ascends. Who shall give me passage, unless
I proclaim that Christ is Almighty? The gates are shut,--they are not
opened to any and every one; not every one who will shall enter, unless he
also believes according to the true Faith. The Sovereign's court is kept
under guard.

   16. Suppose, however, that one who is unworthy hath crept up, hath
stolen past the principalities who keep the gates of heaven, hath sat down
at the supper of the Lord; when the Lord of the banquet enters, and sees
one not clad in the wedding garment of the Faith, He will cast him into
outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth,(1) if he keep not
the Faith and peace.

   17. Let us, therefore, keep the wedding garment which we have received,
and not deny Christ that which is His own, Whose omnipotence angels
announce, prophets foretel, apostles witness to, even as we have already
shown above.(2)

   18. Perchance, indeed, the prophet hath spoken of His entering in not
only with regard to the gates of the universal heaven; for there be other
heavens also where-into the Word of God passeth, whereof it is said: "We
have a great Priest, a High Priest, Who hath passed through the heavens,
Jesus, the Son of God."(1) What are those heavens, but even the heavens
whereof the prophet sayeth that "the heavens declare the glory of God"?(2)

   19. For Christ standeth at the door of thy soul. Hear Him speaking.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man open to Me, I will come
in to him, and I will sup with him, and he with Me."(3) And the Church
saith, speaking of Him: "The voice of my brother soundeth at the door."(4)

   20. He stands, then--but not alone, for before Him go angels, saying:
"Lift up the gates, O ye the princes." What gates? Even those of the which
the Psalmist sings in another place also: "Open to me the gates of
righteousness."(5) Open, then, thy gates to Christ, that He may come into
thee--open the gates of righteousness, the gates of chastity, the gates of
courage and wisdom.

   21. Believe the message of the angels: "Be ye lift up, ye everlasting
doors, and the King of glory shall come in, the Lord of Sabaoth." Thy gate
is the loud confession made with faithful voice; it is the door of the
Lord, which the Apostle desires to have opened for him, as he says: "That a
door of the word may be opened for me, to proclaim the mystery of
Christ."(6)

   22. Let thy gate, then, be opened to Christ, and let it be not only
opened, but lifted up, if, indeed, it be eternal and not condemned to ruin;
for it is written: "And be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors." The lintel
was lift up for Isaiah, when the seraph touched his lips and he saw the
Lord of Sabaoth.

   23. Thy gates shall be lifted up, then, if thou believest the Son of
God to be eternal, omnipotent, above and beyond all praise and
understanding, knowing all things, both past an d to come, whilst if thou
judgest Him to be of limited power and knowledge, and subordinate, thou
liftest not up the everlasting doors.

   24. Be thy gates lifted up, then, that Christ may come in unto thee,
not such a Christ as the Arians take Him to be--petty, and weak, and
menial--but Christ in the form of God, Christ with the Father; that He may
enter such as He is, exalted above the heaven and all things; and that He
may send forth upon thee His holy Spirit. It is expedient for thee that
thou shouldst believe that He hath ascended and is sitting at the right
hand of the Father, for if in impious thought thou detain Him amongst
things created and earthly, if He depart not for thee, ascend not for thee,
then to thee the Comforter shall not come, even as Christ Himself hath told
us: "For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I
depart, I will send Him unto you."(1)

   25. But if thou shouldst seek Him amongst earthly beings, even as Mary
of Magdala sought Him, take heed lest He say to thee, as unto her: "Touch
Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto My Father."(2) For thy gates are
narrow--they give me no passage--they cannot be lifted up, and therefore I
cannot come in.

   26. Go thy way, therefore, to my brethren--that is, to those
everlasting doors, which, as soon as they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter
is an "everlasting door," against whom the gates of hell shall not
prevail.(3) John and James, the sons of thunder, to wit,(4) are
"everlasting doom." Everlasting are the doors of the Church, where the
prophet, desirous to proclaim the praises of Christ, says: "That I may tell
all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion."(5)

   27. Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even
angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to
worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy
Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that
thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee,
has not suffered for thee. "If I had not come," saith the Scripture, "and
spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for
their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also."(6) Who, then, hates
Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonour?--for as it is love's part to
render, so it is hate's to withdraw honour.(7) He who hates, calls in
question; he who loves, pays reverence.

CHAPTER III.

The words, "The head of every man is Christ ... and the head of Christ is
God" misused by the Arians, are now turned back against them, to their
confutation. Next, another passage of Scripture, commonly taken by the same
heretics as a ground of objection, is called in to show that God is the
Head of Christ, in so far as Christ is human, in regard of His Manhood, and
the unwisdom of their opposition upon the text, "He who planteth He who
watereth are one," is displayed. After which explanations, the meaning of
the doctrine that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and
that the faithful are in Both, is expounded.

   28. Now let us examine some other objections raised by the Arians. It
is written, say they, that "the head of every man is Christ, and the head
of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."(1) Let them, if they
please, tell me what they mean by this objection--whether to join together,
or to dissociate, these four terms. Suppose they mean to join them, and say
that God is the Head of Christ in the same sense and manner as man is the
head of woman. Mark what a conclusion they fall into. For if this
comparison proceeds on the supposed equality of the terms of it, and these
four--woman, man, Christ, and God--are viewed together as in virtue of a
likeness resulting from their being of one and the same nature, then woman
and God will begin to come under one definition.

   29. But if this conclusion be not satisfactory, by reason of its
impiety, let them divide, on what principle they will. Thus, if they will
have it that Christ stands to God the Father in the same relation as woman
to man, then surely they pronounce Christ and God to be of one substance,
inasmuch as woman and man are of one nature in respect of the flesh, for
their difference is in respect of sex. But, seeing that there is no
difference of sex between Christ and His Father, they will acknowledge then
that which is one, and common to the Son and the Father, in respect of
nature, whereas they will deny the difference lying in sex.

   30. Does this conclusion content them? Or will they have woman, man,
and Christ to be of one substance, and distinguish the Father from them?
Will this, then, serve their turn? Suppose that it will, then observe what
they are brought to. They must either confess themselves not merely Arians,
but very Photinians, because they acknowledge only the Manhood of Christ,
Whom they judge fit only to be placed on the same scale with human beings.
Or else they must, however contrary to their leanings, subscribe to our
belief, by which we dutifully and in godly fashion maintain that which they
have come at by an irapious course of thought, that Christ is indeed, after
His divine generation,(1) the power of God, whilst after His putting on of
the flesh, He is of one substance with all men in regard of His flesh,
excepting indeed the proper glory of His Incarnation,(2) because He took
upon Himself the reality, not a phantom likeness, of flesh.

   31. Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions
of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head
of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the
creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the
Apostle] "the Head of Christ is God;" to bring before our thoughts both the
Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation
in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God,
oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty.

   32. But the saying, that in respect of the Incarnation God is the Head
of Christ, leads on to the principle that Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head
of man, as the Apostle has clearly expressed in another passage, where he
says: "Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the
Church;"(3) whilst in the words following he has added: "Who gave Himself
for her."(4) After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for
His self-surrender issued from His Incarnation.

   33. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a
servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered, But it is nothing
against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He
is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the
Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His
sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him.

   34. But who can with a good conscience deny the one Godhead of the
Father and the Son, when our Lord, to complete His teaching for His
disciples, said: "That they may be one, even as we also are one."(4) The
record stands for witness to the Faith, though Arians turn it aside to suit
their heresy; for, inasmuch as they cannot deny the Unity so often spoken
of, they endeavour to diminish it, in order that the Unity of Godhead
subsisting between the Father and the Son may seem to De such as is unity
of devotion and faith amongst men, though even amongst men themselves
community of nature makes unity thereof.

   35. Thus with abundant clearness we disprove the objection commonly
raised by Arians, in order to loosen the Divine Unity, on the ground that
it is written: "But he who planteth and he who watereth are one." This
passage the Arians, if they were wise, would not quote against us; for how
can they deny that the Father and the Son are One, if Paul and Apollos are
one, both in nature and in faith? At the same time, we do grant that these
cannot be one throughout, in all relations, because things human cannot
bear comparison with things divine.(1)

   36. No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father,
no separation in power, no separation in wisdom, by reason of the Unity of
the Divine Substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we ofttimes
find it written, yet [He dwells in the Son] not as sanctifying one who
lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no
void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the
other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does Godhead
entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. We,
contrariwise, shall be One in Christ through Power received [from another]
and dwelling in us.

   37. The letter [of the unity] is common, but the Substance of God and
the substance of man are different. We shall be, the Father and the Son.
[already] are, one; we shall be one by grace, the Son is so by substance.
Again, unity by conjunction is one thing, unity by nature another. Finally,
observe what it is that Scripture hath already recorded: "That they may all
be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee."(2)

   38. Mark now that He said not "Thou in us, and we in Thee," but "Thou
in Me, and I in Thee," to place Himself apart from His creatures. Further
He added: "that they also may be in Us," in order to separate here His
dignity and His Father's from us, that our union in the Father and the Son
may appear the issue, not of nature, but of grace, whilst with regard to
the unity of the Father and the Son it may be believed that the Son has not
received this by grace, but possesses by natural right of His Sonship.

CHAPTER IV.

The passage quoted adversely by heretics, namely, "The Son can do nothing
of Himself," is first explained from the words which follow; then, the text
being examined, word by word, their acceptation in the Arian sense is shown
to be impossible without incurring the charge of impiety or absurdity, the
proof resting chiefly on the creation of the world and certain miracles of
Christ.

   39. Again, another objection that the Arians bring up, denying that the
Power of the Father and the Son can be one and the same, is rested on His
saying: "Verily, verily, I say unto you; the Son can do nothing of Himself,
but what He hath seen the Father doing."(1) And therefore they affirm that
the Son has done nothing of Himself, and can do nothing, save what He hath
seen the Father doing.

   40. O wise foreknowledge of the arguments of unbelievers, which made
further provision of means whereby to answer questions, by adding the words
that follow: "For whatsoever the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son also,
in like fashion,"(2) for this indeed is the sequel. Why, then, is it
written: "The Son doeth the same things," and not "such like things," but
that thou mightest judge that in the Son there is unity in the Father's
works, not imitation of them?

   41. But to put their proofs in turn upon trial: I would have them
answer the question, whether the Son sees the works of the Father. Does He
see, I ask, or not? If He sees them, then He also does them; if He does
them, let heretics cease to deny the omnipotence of Him Whom they confess
able to do all things that He has seen the Father doing.

   42. But what are we to understand by "hath seen"? Has the Son any need
of bodily eyes? Nay, if they will affirm this of the Son, they will make
out in the Father also a need of bodily activity,(3) in order that the Son
may see that which He Himself is to do.

   43. Furthermore, what mean the words: "The Son can do nothing of
Himself"? Let us put this question, and debate it. Now is there anything
impossible to God's Power and Wisdom? These, observe, are names of the Son
of God, Whose Might is certainly not a gift received from another, but just
as He is the Life,(1) not depending upon another's quickening action, but
Himself quickening others, because He is the Life; so also He is Wisdom,(2)
not as one that is ignorant acquiring wisdom, but making others wise from
His own store; so, too, He is Power,(3) not as having through weakness
obtained increase of strength, but being Himself Power, and bestowing power
upon the strong.

   44. How, then, does Power assert, as it were, under oath: "Verily,
verily I say unto you," which means: "Of a truth, of a truth, I tell
you"?(4) Truly, then, Thou speakest, Lord Jesus, and dost affirm, repeating
indeed thy solemn declaration, that Thou canst do nothing, save what Thou
hast seen the Father doing. Thou didst make the universe. Did Thy Father
then make another universe, for Thee to take as a model? So must Thy
blasphemers confess that there are two, or a multitude of universes, as
philosophers affirm, and thus also entangle themselves in this heathen
error,(5) or, if they will follow the truth, let them say that what Thou
hast made, Thou didst make, without any pattern.

   45. Tell me, Lord, when Thou sawest Thy Father incarnate, and walking
upon the sea, for I know not, I hold it impious to believe this thing of
the Father, knowing that Thou only hast taken our flesh upon Thee. When
sawest Thou the Father at a marriage-feast, turning water into wine?(6)
Nay, but I have read that Thou alone art the only Son, begotten of the
Father. I have been taught that Thou alone, in the mystery of the
Incarnation, wast born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin. The things, then,
which we have cited as Thy doings, the Father did not, but Thou alone,
without guidance of any work done by Thy Father, for the purchase of the
world's salvation with Thy Blood, didst come forth spotless from the
Virgin's womb.

   46. When they say, "The Son can do nothing of Himself," they indeed
except nothing, so that one blasphemer has even said: "He cannot make even
a gnat,"(7) mocking with so headstrong profanity and with insolence so
overweening the majesty of Supreme Power; yet perhaps they may think the
mystery of Thine Incarnate Life a needful exception. But say, Lord Jesu,
what earth the Father made without Thee. For without Thee He made no
heaven, seeing that it is written: "By the Word of the Lord were the
heavens established."

   47. But neither did the Father make the earth without Thee, for it is
written: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made."(1) For if the Father made aught without Thee, God the Word, then not
all things were made by the Word, and the Evangelist lies. Whereas if all
things were made by the Word, and if by Thee all things begin to be, which
before were not, then surely Thou Thyself, of Thyself, hast made what Thou
didst not see made by the Father; though perchance our adversaries may have
recourse to that theory of Plato, and place before Thee the ideas supposed
by philosophers, which, indeed, we know have been exploded by philosophers
themselves. On the other hand, if Thou Thyself hast of Thyself made all
things, vain are the assertions of the unbelieving, which ascribe progress
in learning to the Maker of all, Who of Himself supplies the teaching of
His craft.

   48. But if heretics deny that either the heavens or the earth were made
by Thee, let them take heed into what a gulf they are by their own madness
hurling themselves, seeing that it is written: "Perish the gods, which have
not made heaven and earth." (2) Shall He then perish, O Arian, Who has
found and saved that which had perished? But to purpose.

CHAPTER V.

Continuing the exposition of the disputed passage, which he had begun,
Ambrose brings forward four reasons why we affirm that something cannot be,
and shows that the first three fail to apply to Christ, and infers that the
only reason why the Son can do nothing of Himself is His Unity in Power
with the Father.

   49. In what sense can the Son do nothing of Himself? Let us ask what it
is that He cannot do. There are many different sorts of impossibilities.
One thing is naturally impossible, another is naturally possible, but
impossible by reason of some weakness. Again, there are things which are
rendered possible by strength, impossible by unskilfulness or weakness, of
body and mind. Further, there are things which it is impossible to change,
by reason of the law of an unchangeable purpose, the endurance of a firm
will, and, again, faithfulness in friendship.

   50. To make this clearer, let us consider the matter in the light of
examples. It is impossible for a bird to pursue a course of learning in any
science or become trained to any art: it is impossible for a stone to move
in any direction, inasmuch as it can only be moved by the motion of another
body. Of itself, then, a stone is incapable of moving, and passing from its
place. Again, an eagle cannot be taught in the ways of human learning.

   51. It is, to take another example, impossible for a sick man to do a
strong man's work; but in this case the reason of the impossibility is of a
different kind, for the man is rendered unable, by sickness, to do what he
is naturally capable of doing. In this case, then, the cause of the
impossibility is sickness, and this kind of impossibility is different from
the first, since the man is hindered by bodily weakness from the
possibility of doing.(1)

   52. Again, there is a third cause of impossibility. A man may be
naturally capable, and his bodily health may allow of his doing some work,
which he is yet unable to do by reason of want of skill, or because his
rank in life disqualifies him; because, that is, he lacks the required
learning or is a slave.(2)

   53. Which of these three different causes of impossibility, think you,
which we have enumerated (setting aside the fourth) can we meetly assign to
the case of the Son of God? Is He naturally insensible and immovable, like
a stone? He is indeed a stone of stumbling to the wicked, a cornerstone for
the faithful;(3) but He is not insensible, upon Whom the faithful affection
of sentient peoples are stayed. He is not an immovable rock, "for they
drank of a Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."(4) The work
of the Father, then, is not rendered impossible to Christ by diversity of
nature.

   54. Perchance we may suppose some things were made impossible for Him
by reason of weakness. But He was not weakly Who could heal the weaknesses
of others by His word of authority. Seemed He weak when bidding the
paralytic take up his bed and walk?(1) He charged the man to perform an
action of which health was the necessary condition, even whilst the patient
Was yet praying a remedy for his disease. Not weak was the Lord of hosts
when He gave sight to the blind,(2) made the crooked to stand upright,
raised the dead to life,(3) anticipated the effects of medicine at our
prayers, and cured them that besought Him, and when to touch the fringe of
His robe was to be purified.(4)

   55. Unless, peradventure, you thought it was weakness, you wretches,
when you saw His wounds. Truly, they were wounds piercing His Body, but
there was no weakness betokened by that wound, whence flowed the Life of
all, and therefore was it that the prophet said: "By His stripes we are
healed."(5) Was He, then, Who was not weak in the hour when He was wounded,
weak in regard of His Sovereignty? How, then, I ask? When He commanded the
devils, and forgave the offences of sinners?(6) Or when He made entreaty to
the Father?

   56. Here, indeed, our adversaries may perchance enquire: "How can the
Father and the Son be One, if the Son at one time commands, at another
entreats?" True, They are One; true also, He both commands and prays: yet
whilst in the hour when He commands He is not alone, so also in the hour of
prayer He is not weak. He is not alone, for whatsoever things the Father
doeth, the same things doeth the Son also, in like manner. He is not weak,
for though in the flesh He suffered weakness for our sins yet that was the
chastisement of our peace upon Him,(7) not lack of sovereign Power in
Himself.

   57. Moreover, that thou mayest know that it is after His Manhood that
He entreats, and in virtue of His Godhead that He commands, it is written
for thee in the Gospel that He said to Peter: "I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not."(8) To the same Apostle, again, when on a former
occasion he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," He made
answer: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build My Church, and I
will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."(9) Could He not, then,
strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He
gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the
foundation of the Church? Consider, then, the manner of His entreaty, the
occasions of His commanding. He entreats, when He is shown to us as on the
eve of suffering: He commands, when He is believed to he the Son of God.

   58. We see, then, that two sorts of impossibility furnish no
explanation,(1) inasmuch as the Power of God can be neither insensible nor
weakly. Will you then proffer the third kind [as an account of the matter],
namely, that He can do nothing, just as an unskilled apprentice can do
nothing without his master's instructions, or a slave can do nothing
without his lord. Then didst Thou speak falsely, Lord Jesu, in calling
Thyself Master and Lord, and Thou didst deceive Thy disciples by Thy words:
"Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am."(2) Nay, but
Thou, O Truth, wouldst never have deceived men, least of all them whom Thou
didst call friends.(3)

   59. Yet if our enemies sunder Thee from the Creator, as being
unskilled, let them see how they affirm that skill was lacking to Thee,
that is to say, to the Divine Wisdom; for all that, however, they cannot
divide the unity of substance that Thou hast with the Father. It is not,
indeed, by nature, but by reason of ignorance, that the difference exists
between the craftsman and the unskilled; but neither is handicraft
attributable to the Father, nor ignorance to Thee, for there is no such
thing as ignorant wisdom.

   60. Therefore, if insensibility is no attribute of the Son, and if
neither weakness, nor ignorance, nor servility, let unbelievers put it to
their minds for meditation that both by nature and sovereignty the Son is
One with the Father, and by its working His power is not at cross-purpose
with the Father, inasmuch as "all things that the Father hath done, the Son
doeth likewise," for no one can do in like fashion the same work that
another has done, unless he shares in the unity of the same nature, whilst
he is also not inferior in method of working.

   61. Yet I would still enquire what it is that the Son cannot do, unless
He see the Father doing it. I will take the fool's line, and propound some
examples drawn from things of a lower world. "I am become a fool; ye have
compelled me."(4) What indeed is more foolish than to debate over the
majesty of God, which rather occasions questionings, than godly instruction
which is in faith.(5) But to arguments let arguments reply; let words make
answer to them, but love to us, the love which is in God, issuing of a pure
heart and good conscience and faith unfeigned. And so I stickle not to
introduce even the ludicrous for the confutation of so vain a thesis.

   62. How, then, does the Son see the Father? A horse sees a painting,
which naturally it is unable to imitate. Not thus does the Son behold the
Father. A child sees the work of a grown man, but he cannot reproduce it;
certainly not thus, again, does the Son see the Father.

   63. If, then, the Son can, by virtue of a common hidden power of the
same nature which He has with the Father, both see and act in an invisible
manner, and by the fulness of His Godhead execute every decree of His Will,
what remains for us but to believe that the Son, by reason of indivisible
unity of power, does nothing, save what He has seen the Father doing,
forasmuch as because of His incomparable love the Son does nothing of
Himself, since He wills nothing that is against His Father's Will? Which
truly is the proof not of weakness but of unity.(1)

CHAPTER VI.

The fourth kind of impossibility (49) is now taken into consideration, and
it is shown that the Son does nothing that the Father approves not, there
being between Them perfect unity of will and power.

   64. The Son, moreover,--to consider now our fourth premiss,--is not
self-assertive, for He, the Divine Assessor,(2) hath done nought that is
not in agreement with His Father's Will. Further, the Father hath seen the
things that the Son made, and pronounced them very good; for so it is
written in Genesis: "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.
And God saw the light that it was good."(3)

   65. Now, did the Father say on that occasion, "Let there be such light
as I Myself have made," or "Let there be light"--light having as yet not
existed; or did the Son ask what sort of light the Father made?(4) Nay, the
Son made light, according to His own Will, and so far in accordance with
the Father's good pleasure, that He approved. It is of new, original work
by the Son that the place speaks.

   66. Again, if, as Arian, expositions of the Scriptures make out, it is
a discredit to the Son to have made what He saw, whereas the Scriptures
present Him as having made what He [before] saw not, and to have given
being to things which as yet were not, what should they say of the Father,
Who praised that He had seen, as though He could not have foreseen the
things that were to be made?

   67. The Son, therefore, sees the Father's work in like manner as the
Father sees the Son's, and the Father praises not the work as one would
praise work of another's doing, but recognizes it as His own, for
"whatsoever things the Father hath done, the same doeth the Son, in like
manner." [So was it written, that] you might understand one and the same
work to be the work both of the Father and of the Son. And thus the Son
does nothing save what is approved of by the Father, praised by the Father,
willed by the Father, because His whole Being is of the Father; and He is
not as the created being, which commits many faults, ofttimes offending the
Will of its Creator, in lusting after and falling into sin. Nought, then,
is of the Son's doing, save what is pleasing to the Father, forasmuch as
one Will, one Purpose, is Theirs, one true Love, one effect of action.

   68. Furthermore, to prove to you that it comes of Love, that the Son
can do nothing of Himself save what He hath seen the Father doing, the
Apostle has added to the words, "Whatsoever the Father hath done, the same
things doeth the Son also, in like manner," this reason: "For the Father
loveth the Son," and thus Scripture refers the Son's inability to do,
whereof it testifies, to unity in Love that suffers no separation or
disagreement.

   69. But if the inseparableness of the Persons in Love rest, as it truly
does, upon [identity of] nature, thou surely they are also inseparable, for
the same reason, in action, and it is impossible that the work of the Son
should not be in agreement with the Father's Will, when what the Son works,
the Father works also, and what the Father works, the Son works also, and
what the Son speaks, the Father speaks also, as it is written: "My Father,
Who dwelleth in Me, He it is that speaketh, and the works that I do He
Himself doeth."(1) For the Father appointed nought save by the exercise of
His Power and Wisdom, forasmuch as He made all things wisely, as it is
written: "In wisdom hast Thou made them all"(1) and likewise, God the Word
made nought without the Father's participation.

   70. Not without the Father does He work; not without His Father's Will
did He offer Himself for that most holy Passion, the Victim slain for the
salvation of the whole world;(2) not without His Father's Will concurring
did He raise the dead to life. For example, when He was at the point to
raise Lazarus to life, He lifted up His eyes and said, "Father, I thank
Thee, for that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou dost always hear
Me, but for the sake of the multitude that standeth round I spake, that
they may believe that Thou hast sent Me,"(3) in order that, though speaking
agreeably to His assumed character of man, in the flesh,(4) He might still
express His oneness with the Father in will and operation, in that the
Father hears all and sees all that the Son wills, and therefore also the
Father sees the Son s doings, hears the utterances of His Will, for the Son
made no request, and yet said that He had been heard.

   71. Again, we cannot suppose that the Father hears not all, whatsoever
the Son's will resolves; and to show that He is always heard by the Father,
not as a servant, not as a prophet, but as Son, He said: "And I knew that
Thou dost always hear Me, but for the sake of the multitude which standeth
round I spake, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me."

   72. It is for our sakes, therefore, that He renders thanks, lest we
should suppose that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person,
when we hear of one and the same work being wrought by the Father and the
Son. Further, to show us that His rendering of thanks had not been the
tribute due from one wanting in power, that, on the contrary, He, as Son of
God, ever claimed for Himself the possession of divine authority, He cried,
"Lazarus, come forth." Here, surely, is the voice of command, not of
prayer.

CHAPTER VII.

The doctrine had in view for enforcement is corroborated by the truth that
the Son is the Word of the

   Father--the Word, not in the sense in which we understand the term, but
a living and active Word. This being so, we cannot deny Him to beof the
same Will, Power, and Substance with the Father.

   73. To return, however, to what we had in hand before, and finish the
task set before us. The Son, as the Word. carries out His Father's Will.
Now, a word, as we understand and use it, is an utterance. There are
syllables and sounds, which, however, are not at variance with the thought
of our mind, and what we apprehend and are affected by inwardly we give
token of by the testimony of the spoken word, which, as it were, works [for
us]. But the words we speak have no direct efficacy in themselves, it is
the Word of God alone, which is neither an utterance, nor an "inward
concept," as they call it, but works efficaciously, is living, and has
healing power.

   74. Wouldst thou know what is the nature of the Word--hear the
Scriptures. "For the Word of God is living and mighty, yea, working
effectually, sharp and keener than any the sharpest sword, piercing even to
the sundering of soul and spirit, of limbs and marrow."(1)

   75. Hearest thou, then, the Word of God, and wilt separate Him from the
Father's Will and Power? Thou hearest Him called the living Word, the
healing Word--seek not then to compare Him with the word of our mouth; for
if the word we utter, through it have not eyes to see, nor ears to hear,
yet speaks, and still the knowledge of what it speaks is wrought by virtue
of hidden mysteries of man's nature, how can he escape the charge of
blasphemy, who requires that some sort of bodily vision and hearing shall
go along with the Godhead in the Word of God, and thinks that the Son can
do nothing of Himself, save what He shall have seen the Father doing,
though (as we have said) there is in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the
same Will, both to do and not to do, and the same Power, by reason of unity
in the same substance.

   76. But if, though men are, as a rule, different in respect of their
thoughts and feelings, they yet agree as to the meaning of a single
proposition, what ought we to think as concerning the Father and the Son of
God, seeing that in the Substance of the Godhead there is that is imitated
by human love?

   77. Let us, however, suppose--as our adversaries would have it--that
the Son does, as it were, copy the pattern of that which He has seen His
Father doing. But even this, we must confess, means that He is of the same
substance, for none can completely imitate the working of another, unless
he be one with him in the same nature.

CHAPTER VIII.

The heretical objection, that the Son cannot be equal to the Father,
because He cannot beget a Son, is turned back upon the authors of it. From
the case of human nature it is shown that whether a person begets offspring
or not, has nothing to do with his power. Most of all must this be true
since, otherwise, the Father Himself would have to be pronounced wanting in
power. Whence it follows that we have no right to judge of divine things by
human, and must take our stand upon the authority of Holy Writ, otherwise
we must deny all power either to the Father or to the Son.

   78. There is a fool's demurrer, your Majesty, which certain persons are
given to raising, in order to show the Father and the Son to be not equal
together, saying that the Father is Almighty, because He hath begotten the
Son, but that the Son is not Almighty, because He hath not been able to
beget.

   79. But see how wild is their blasphemy, how their philosophers' logic
confutes itself. For the raising of this question must lead either to their
confessing with their own mouths that the Son is co-eternal with the
Father, or, if they impose a beginning upon the Son's existence, to their
assigning of necessity a beginning to the Father's power. When, therefore,
they deny that the Son is Almighty, they are on the road to assert--which
is impious--that the Father began to be Almighty by help of the Son.

   80. For if the Father is Almighty by reason of begetting the Son, then,
certainly, either the Son is co-eternal with the Father, because if the
Father is eternally Almighty, then the Son also is eternal, or, if there
was a time when there was not an eternal Son, there was by consequence a
time when there was not an Almighty Father. For when they would make out
that there was a time when the Son began to be, they are sliding back into
[the error of] saying that the Father's Power also has not been from
everlasting, but began to be in consequence of the generation of the Son.
So, in their desire to do dishonour to the Son of God, they do so increase
His honour as to seem to make Him, contrary to all right belief, the source
of His Father's Power, though the Son saith, "All things that the Father
hath are Mine"(1)--that is to say, not the things which He has bestowed
upon the Father, but which He has received from the Father, by right as the
Son Whom the Father has begotten.

   81. And therefore we do declare the Son to be Eternal Power;(1) if,
then, His Power and Godhead be eternal, surely His Sovereignty is eternal
also. He, then, who dishonours the Son dishonours the Father, and is an
enemy and offender against duty and love. Let us honour the Son, in Whom
the Father is well pleased, for it is the Father's pleasure that praise be
given to the Son, in Whom He Himself is well pleased.

   82. Let us, however, make answer to the conclusion they strive to
establish; but we seem to have sought, in pursuit of a personal appeal, to
escape from the difficulty of treating the question before us. The Father,
they say, has begotten a Son; the Son has not. What proof is this that they
are not equal? To beget is the Father's natural function, as a Father, and
no necessary outcome of His Sovereign Power.(2) Furthermore, dutiful regard
places persons on an equality with each other, and does not sunder them.
Again, our own experience of what holds good amongst us frail mortals
teaches us that it may frequently happen that weak men have sons, whilst
stronger men have not; that slaves have children, whilst their masters are
childless; and that the poor beget offspring, whilst rich men are unblessed
with any.

   83. But if our adversaries say that this too may be the result of
infirmity, inasmuch as men may desire to beget children, but be unable to
do so; then, though things divine are not to be judged of and determined by
things human, yet let them understand that with men also, as with God,
whether one has children or no, is not dependent upon or derived of his
authoritative power, but upon the personal attributes of a father, and that
begetting lies not in the power of our will, but is contingent upon our
qualities of body; for if it were a matter of sovereign authority, then the
mightier king would have the greater number of sons. To have sons, then, or
to be childless, therefore, is not in necessary connection or relation to
sovereign authority. Is it, then, so with nature?

   84. If you [my Arian adversaries] regard what you object as natural
weakness, and rely upon examples taken from the nature of mankind, remember
that the Father's nature is the same as the Son's, and therefore you do
either confess the Son to be a true Son, and dishonour the Father in the
Person of the Son, by reason of Their unity in one and the same Nature (for
as the Father is by Nature God, so also is the Son; whereas the Apostle
says that the "gods many" are not so by nature, but are only so called);
or, if you deny Him to be a true Son, that is to say, possessing the same
Nature, then He is not begotten, and if the Son is not begotten, the Father
did not beget Him.

   85. The conclusion we come at, therefore, on the line of your
persuasion, is that God the Father is not Almighty, because He could not
beget, if He did not beget the Son, but created Him. But forasmuch as the
Father is Almighty, He being, as you hold, the Almighty in so far as He is
the only Author of Being, then surely He has begotten His Son, and not
created Him. Howbeit, we ought to believe His word before yours. He says:
"I have begotten,"(1) and that more than once, witnessing to Himself as
begetting.

   86. It is no sign, then, of infirmity, whether of nature or authority,
in Christ, that He has not begotten, for to beget, as we have already said
ofttimes, bears no relation to supremacy of authority, but to a personal
property in a nature.(2) For if the Omnipotence of the Father is thereby
constituted, that He hath a Son, then He might have been more Almighty had
He begotten more Sons.

   87. Then is His power exhausted in the begetting of One? Nay, but I
will show that Christ also hath sons, whom He begets every day, but with
that generation, or rather regeneration, which is related to personal
authority rather than nature, for adoption is the exercise and bestowal of
authority, and generation the manifestation of a property, as Scripture
itself hath taught us: for John saith that "He was in this world, and the
world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and
His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He
power(3) to become sons of God, to them which believe in His Name."(4)

   88. We say, therefore, that it is the function and exercise of His
Authority that He has made us sons of God, whereas the oracles of God
discover that His generation is in relation to personal attribute, for the
Wisdom of God saith: "I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High,"(5)
that is to say not of compulsion, but free, not under bond of authority,
but born in a hidden birth, according to personal powers of Supreme
Sovereignty and rightfulness of authority. Again, concerning the same
Wisdom, Which is the Lord Jesus, the Father saith in another place: "Out of
the womb I begat Thee, before the morning star."(1)

   89. Now this He said, not to make us think of a bodily womb,(2) but to
show that true generation is His proper activity,(3) for if we understand
the words as speaking of generation from a body, then [we imply] the Father
Almighty conceived and brought forth in travail. But far be it from us that
we should make this weak bodily frame the measure of God's greatness. The
word "womb" represents the hidden mystery, the inner sanctuary of the
Father's being, into which neither angels nor archangels nor powers nor
dominations, nor any created nature, hath been able to enter. For the Son
is always with the Father, and in the Father--with the Father, by virtue of
the distinction, without division, proper to the Eternal Trinity;(4) in the
Father, by reason of the essential unity of the Divine Nature.

   90. What room here, then, for one to sit in judgment upon the Godhead,
to call in question the Father and the Son,--the One for begetting, the
Other for not begetting. No man condemns his servant or handmaid for
begetting (or bearing) offspring; but those Arians condemn Christ for not
begetting--they do condemn Him, for they privately pass sentence of
condemnation upon Him, when they take from His glory and dignity. The
question, why they have not begotten offspring, does not lead those who are
joined in marriage into loss of their love, or denial of each other's
merits, but the Arians, because Christ hath not begotten a Son, make light
of His sovereignty.

   91. Why, ask they, is the Son not a Father? Because, on the other side,
the Father is not a Son. Why has not Christ begotten? Even because the
Father is not begotten. Yet the Son stands none the lower, because He is
not a Father; nor the Father, because He is not a Son, for the Son said:
"All things that the Father hath are Mine"(5)--so truly is generation
involved in the Father's personal attributes, and comes not by mere right
of sovereignty.

92. The Substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that
which is distinct,(1) an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance. We hold the
distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a
distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality;(2) and
thus we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each existing from and
to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two  Fathers, nor
in two Sons, nor in two Spirits. For "there is one God, the Father, of Whom
are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all
things, and we by Him."(3) There is One born of  the Father, the Lord
Jesus, and therefore He is the Only-begotten.  "There is also One Holy
Spirit,"(4) as the same Apostle hath said. So we believe, so we read, so we
hold. We know the fact of distinction, we know nothing of the hidden
mysteries; we pry not into the causes, but keep the outward signs
vouchsafed unto us.

   93. O monstrous wickedness, that they who have no power over their own
procreation should claim and usurp power to enquire into the Divine
Generation! Let them deny, them, that the Son is equal to the Father,
forasmuch as He hath not begotten; let them deny that the Son is equal to
the Father, because He hath a Father! But if they talked after this fashion
about men, who sometimes desire to beget sons, yet cannot, we should call
it an insult, just as we should so call it, if of two men, one having sons
and the other childless, the latter were said to be inferior to the former
on that ground. So monstrous also, I say, does it seem, in regard simply to
men, that one should therefore be esteemed the more lightly because he hath
a father. Peradventure, indeed, the Arians suppose that Christ is in the
position of one in a family, and frets because He is not set free and
independent of His Father's authority, and is not empowered to administer
the estate. But Christ is not under tutelage; nay, rather has He abolished
all tutelage.(5)

   94. How then, let them tell us, would they have these things to be?--a
true generation, the true Son begotten of God the Father, that is, of the
Substance of the Father, or of another substance? If they say "begotten of
the Father, that is, of the Substance of God," well and good, for then they
acknowledge the Son as begotten of the Substance of the Father. If, then,
they are of one Substance, surely they are also of one sovereign Power.
Whereas, if the Son is begotten of another substance, how can the Father be
Almighty, and the Son not Almighty? For what advantage hath God, if He have
made His Son of another substance, when confessedly the Son, on His part,
hath of another substance made us sons of God? The Son, therefore, is
either of one Substance with the Father, or of one sovereign Power.

   95. Our adversaries' question, then, falls flat, because they cannot
judge Christ--or rather, because He is clear, when He is judged.(1) They
are worthy, however, to be condemned upon their own sentence, who raise
this question against us, for if the Son be therefore not equal to the
Father, because He hath not begotten a Son, then by all means let them who
sow discussions of this kind(2) confess, if they have not children, that
their very servants are to be preferred before themselves, inasmuch as they
cannot be the equals of those who have children--whereas, if they have
children, let them regard the merit thereof as due not to themselves, but
of right to their sons.

   96. The objection, then, holds not together, that the Son cannot be
equal to the Father, by reason of the Father having begotten the Son,
whilst the Son has begotten no Son of Himself, for the spring: begets the
stream, though the stream begets no spring out of itself, and light begets
radiance, and not radiance light, yet the nature of radiance and light is
one.(3)

CHAPTER IX.

Various quibbling arguments, advanced by the Arians to show that the Son
had a beginning of existence, are considered and refuted, on the ground
that whilst the Arians plainly prove nothing, or if they prove anything,
prove it against themselves, (inasmuch as He Who is the beginning of all
cannot Himself have a beginning), their reasonings do not even hold true
with regard to facts of human existence. Time could not be before He was,
Who is the Author of time--if indeed at some time He was not in existence,
then the Father was without His Power and Wisdom. Again, our own human
experience shows that a person is said to exist before he is born.

   97. Now that our opponents have failed to maintain their objection
against the truth of His Son's equality with the Father, on the ground of
His Generation, let them see that their well known device of controversy,
their stock misrepresentation, is frustrated. Their common use is to
propound this riddle: "How can the Son be equal with the Father? If He is a
Son, then before He was begotten He was not in existence. If He was in
existence, why was He begotten?" And men who advance difficulties raised by
Arius yet sturdily deny that they are Arians.

   98. Accordingly, they demand our answer, intending, if we say, "The Son
existed before He was begotten," to meet us with a subtle retort, that "If
so, then, before He was begotten, He was created, and there is no
difference between Him and the rest of created beings, for He began to be a
creature before He began to be the Son." To which they add: "Why was He
begotten, when He was already in existence? Because He was imperfect, and
in order that He might afterwards be made more perfect?" Whilst if we reply
that the Son did not exist before He was begotten, they will immediately
reply: "Then by being begotten He was brought into existence, not having
existed before He was begotten," so as to lead on from this to the
conclusion that "the Son existed, when He did not exist.":

   99. But let those who propound this difficulty and endeavour to enwrap
the truth in a cloud tell us themselves whether the Father exerts His power
of begetting within or without limits of time. If they say "within limits
of time," then they will attribute to the Father what they object against
the Son, so as to make the Father seem to have begun to be what He was not
before. If their answer is "without such limits," then what is left them
but to resolve for themselves the problem they have propounded, and
acknowledge that the Son is not begotten under limits and conditions of
time, since they deny that the Father so begets?

   100. If the Son, then, is not begotten within limits of time, we are
free to judge that nothing can have existed before the Son, Whose being is
not confined by time. If, indeed, there was anything in being before the
Son, then it instantly follows that in Him were not created all things in
heaven or in earth, and the Apostle is shown to have erred in so setting it
down in his Epistle,(2) whereas, if before He was begotten there was
nothing, I see not wherefore He, before Whom none was, should be said to
have been after any.

   101. With the consideration whereof we must join another most
blasphemous objection of theirs, which covers a subtle purpose to confuse
the sense and understanding of simple folk. They ask whether everything
that comes to an end had also at any time a beginning. If they are told
that what has an end also had a beginning, then they return to the charge
with the question whether the Father has ceased to beget His Son. This by
our consent being granted them, they conclude that the generation of the
Son had a beginning. The which if you allow, it seems to follow that if the
Generation had a beginning, it appears to have begun in Him Who was
begotten; so that one, who had not existed before, may be called
"begotten"--their intent being to close the inquiry by laying down as
conclusive that there was a time when the Son existed not.

   102. Besides this, there are other vain objections, such as persons of
their glibness of tongue would readily urge. If, say they, the Son is the
Word of the Father, then He is called "begotten," inasmuch as He is the
Word. But then since He is the Word, He is not a work. Now the Father has
spoken "in divers manners,"(1) whence it follows that He has begotten many
Sons, if He has spoken His Word, not created it as a work of His hands. O
fools, talking as though they knew not the difference between the word
uttered and the Divine Word, abiding eternally, born of the Father--born, I
say, not uttered only--in Whom is no combination of syllables, but the
fulness of the eternal Godhead and life without end!(2)

   103. Follows another blasphemy, whereby they enquire whether it was of
His own free will, or on compulsion, that the Father begat [His Son],
intending, if we say, "Of His own free will," that we should appear as
though we acknowledged that the Father's Will preceded the [Divine]
Generation, and to answer that there being something that preceded the
existence of the Son, the Son is not co-eternal with the Father, or that
He, like the rest of the world, is a being created, forasmuch as it is
written, "He hath made all things, as many as He would,"(3) though this is
spoken, not of the Father and the Son, but of those creatures which the Son
made. Whereas if we answered that the Father begat [His Son] on compulsion,
we should seem to have attributed infirmity to the Father.

   104. But in the eternal Generation there is no foregoing condition,
neither of will, nor of unwillingness, and therefore I can neither say that
the Father begat of His free Will, nor yet that He begat on compulsion, for
to beget depends not upon possibility as determined by will, but rather
appears to stand in a certain right and property of the hidden being of the
Father. For just as the Father is not good because He wills to be so, or is
compelled to be so, but is above these conditions--is good, that is, by
nature,--even so the putting forth of His generative power is neither of
will nor of necessity.

   105. Yet let us grant their proposal, Granted that the Generation
depends on the Will of Him Who generates; when do they say that this act of
will took place? If it was in the beginning, then, plainly; the Son was in
the beginning. If the Will is eternal, then the Son also is eternal. If the
Will began to exist, then God the Father, as He was, was so displeased with
Himself, that He made a change in His condition, that is to say, without
His Son He was displeasing to Himself; in His Son He began to be well
pleased.

   106. To follow out the consequences thereof. If the Father conceived,
after the manner of human nature, a desire to beget, then did He also pass
through all the experiences which befal men before the birth takes place--
but we find that generation is not determined merely by will, but is an
object of wish.

   107. Thus do they betray their own ungodliness, who would have it that
Christ's generation had a beginning, in order that it may seem, not that
true begetting of the Word abiding, but the utterance of words that pass
and are forgotten, and that by intrusion of [the premiss of] a multitude of
sons, they may [be warranted to] deny Christ's personal possession of the
divine attributes, to the end that He may be regarded as neither the only-
begotten nor the first-begotten Son; and lastly, that given the belief that
His existence had a beginning, it may also be deemed as appointed to have
an end.

   108. But neither had the Son of God any beginning, seeing that He
already was at the beginning, nor shall He come to an end, Who is the
Beginning and the End of the Universe;(1) for being the Beginning, how
could He take and receive that which He already had,(2) or how shall He
come to an end, being Himself the End of all things, so that in that End we
have an abiding-place without end? The Divine Generation is not an event
occurring in the course of time, and within its limits, and therefore
before it time is not, and in it time has no place.

   109. Again, their aimless and futile question finds no loophole for
entry, even when directed upon the creation itself;(3) nay, indeed,
temporal existences appear, in certain cases, to admit of no division of
time. For instance, light generates radiance, but we can neither conceive
that the radiance begins to exist after the light, nor that the light is in
existence before the radiance, for where there is a light,(4) there is
radiance, and where there is radiance there is also a light; and thus we
can neither have a light without radiance, nor radiance without light,
because both the light is in the radiance, and the radiance in the light.
Thus the Apostle was taught to call the Son "the Radiance of the Father's
Glory,"(5) for the Son is the Radiance of His Father's light, co-eternal,
because of eternity of Power; inseparable, by unity of brightness.

   110. If then we can neither understand the mystery of, nor dissociate,
these created objects in the sky above us, which we see, can we comprehend
Him Whom we see not, Who is above every created existence, God, as He is in
the very Holy of Holies of His own Generation? Can we make time a barrier
between Him and the Son, when all time is the creation of the Son?

   111. Let them cease therefore, and say no more that before He was
begotten the Son was not. For the word "before" is a mark of time, whereas
the Generation is before all times,(1) and therefore that which comes after
aught comes not before it, and the work cannot be before the maker, seeing
that necessarily objects made take their commencement from the craftsman
who makes them. How can the customary action of any created object be
regarded as existing prior to the maker of it, whilst all time is a
creation, and every creation has taken its being from its creator?

   112. I would, therefore, further examine our opponents, who esteem
themselves so cunning, and have them make good the application of their
theory to human existence, seeing that they use it to disparage the glory
of God's Existence, and keep far away from any confession of an inscrutable
mystery in the Divine Generation. I would have them find ground for their
objection in the facts of human generation. Of God's Son they assert that
before He was begotten He was not,--that is to say, they say this of the
Wisdom, the Power, the Word of God, Whose Generation knows nothing prior to
itself. But if, as they would have us believe, there was a time when the
Son existed not (the which it is blasphemy to affirm), then there was a
time when God lacked the fulness of Divine Perfection, if afterwards He
passed through a process of begetting a Son.

   113. To show them, however, the weakness and transparency of their
objection, though it has no real relation to any truth, divine or human, I
will prove to them that men have existed before they were born. Else, let
them show that Jacob, who whilst yet hidden in the secret chamber of his
mother's womb supplanted his brother, had not been appointed and ordained,
ere ever he was born;(2) let them show that Jeremiah had not likewise been
so, before his birth, -Jeremiah, to whom the message comes: "Before I
formed thee in thy mother's womb, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
from the belly, I sanctified thee, and appointed thee for a prophet amongst
the nations."(3) What testimony can we have stronger than the case of this
great prophet, who was sanctified before he was born, and known before he
was shaped?

   114. What, again, shall I say of John, of whom his holy mother
testifies that, whilst he yet lay in her womb, he perceived in spirit(4)
the presence of his Lord, and leaped for joy, as we remember it to be
written, his mother saying: "For lo, as soon as the voice of the salutation
entered mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."(1) Was he, then,
who prophesied, in existence or not? Nay, surely he was--surely he was in
being who worshipped his Maker; he was in being who spake in his mother's
womb. And so Elisabeth was filled with the spirit of her son, and Mary
sanctified by the Spirit of hers, for thus you may find it recorded, that
"the babe leaped in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy
Ghost."(2)

   115. Consider the proper force of each word. Elisabeth was indeed the
first to hear the voice of Mary, but John was first to feel His Lord's
gracious Presence. Sweet is the harmony of prophecy with prophecy, of woman
with woman, of babe with babe. The women speak words of grace, the babes
move hiddenly, and as their mothers approach one another, so do they engage
in mysterious converse of love; and in a twofold miracle, though in diverse
degrees of honour, the mothers prophesy in the spirit of their little ones.
Who, I ask, was it that performed this miracle? Was it not the Son of God,
Who made the unborn to be?

   116. Thus your objection fails of reconcilement with the truths of
human existence--can it attain thereto with divine mysteries? What mean you
by your principle that "before He was begotten He was not"? Was the Father
engaged for some time in conception, so that certain epochs passed away
before the Son was begotten? Was He, like women, in travail of birth, so
that just this travail? What would you? Why seek we to pry into divine
mysteries? The Scriptures tell me the necessary effects of the Divine
Generation,(3) not how it is done.

CHAPTER X.

The objection that Christ, on the showing of St. John, lives because of the
Father, and therefore is not to be regarded as equal with the Father, is
met by the reply that for the Life of the Son, in respect of His Godhead,
there has never been a time when it began; and that it is dependent upon
none, whilst the passage in question must be understood as referring to the
His human life, as is shown by His speaking there of His body and blood.
Two expositions of the passage are given, the one of which is shown to
refer to Christ's Manhood, whilst the second teaches His equality with the
Father, as also His likeness with men. Rebuke is administered to the Arians
for the insult which they are seeking to inflict upon the Son, and the
sense in which the Son can be said to live "because of" the Father is
explained, as also the union of life with our the divine Life. A further
objection, based upon the Son's prayer that He may be glorified by the
Father, is briefly refuted.

   118. There are not a few who raise this further objection, that it is
written: "As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so
he that eateth Me, liveth also by Me."(1) "How," ask they, "is the Son
equal with the Father, when He has said that He lives by the Father?"

   119. Let those who oppose us on this ground tell us first what the Life
of the Son is. Is it a life bestowed by the Father upon one lacking life?
But how could the Son ever fail to possess life, He Himself being the Life,
as He says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."' Truly, His life is
eternal, even as His power is eternal. Was there a time, then, when (so to
speak) Life possessed not itself?

   120. Bethink you what is read this day concerning the Lord Jesus, that
"He died for our sakes, to the end that whether we wake or whether we
sleep, we may live with Him."(3) He Whose Death is Life, is not His Godhead
Life, seeing that the Godhead is Life eternal?

   121. But is His Life truly in the Father's power? Why, He showed that
even His bodily life was not in the power of any other, as we have it on
record: "I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it
from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and
again I have power to take it. This commandment have I received of My
Father."(4)

   122. Is His divine Life then to be regarded as depending upon the power
of another, when His bodily life was subject to no other power but His own?
For it would have been the power of another, but for the Unity of power.
But just as He gives us to understand that His laying down His life was
done of His own power, and of His free Will, so also He teaches us, in
laying it down in obedience to His Father's command, the unity of His own
with the Father's Will.

   123. If, then, there has neither been slime when the Life of the Son
took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us
consider what His meaning was when He said: "Even as the living Father hath
sent Me, and I live by the Father"? Let us expound His meaning as best we
can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.

   124. Take notice, then, what He said in an earlier part of His
discourse. "Verily, verily, I say unto you." He first teaches thee how thou
oughtest to listen. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in
you."(1) He first premised that He was speaking as Son of Man; dost thou
then think that what He hath said, as Son of Man, concerning His Flesh and
His Blood, is to be applied to His Godhead?

   125. Then He added: "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink
[indeed]."(2) Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou
perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of
the Lord's death,(3) and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words:
"A spirit hath not flesh and bones."(4) Now we, as often as we receive the
Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are
transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death."(5)

   126. Then, alter calling on us to take notice that He speaks as Son of
Man, and frequent repeated mention of His Flesh and His Blood, He adds:
"Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he
that eateth Me, he also liveth by Me." How then do they suppose that we are
to understand these words?--for the comparison can be shown as a double
one. The first comparison being after the following manner: "Even as the
living Father hath sent Me, I live by the Father;" the second: "Even as the
living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so also he that
eateth Me, he too liveth by Me."

   127. If our adversaries choose the former, the meaning is this, that,
"as I am sent by the Father and am come down from the Father, so (in
accordance therewith) I live by the Father." But in what character was He
sent, and came down, save as Son of Man, even as He Himself said before:
"No man hath ascended into heaven, save He that hath come down from heaven
as Son of Man."(6) Then, just as He was sent and came down as Son of Man,
so as Son of Man He lives by the Father. Furthermore, he that eateth Him,
as eating the Son of Man, doth himself also live by the Son of Man. Thus,
He has compared the effect of His Incarnation to His coming.

128. But if they choose the second method, do we not infer both the
equality of the Son with the Father, and His likeness to men, together,
though in clear mutual distinction? For what is the meaning of the words,
"Even as He Himself liveth by the Father, so we also live by Him," but that
the Son so quickeneth a man, as the Father hath in the Son quickened human
nature?(1) "For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so also
the Son quickeneth whom He will,"(2) as the Lord Himself hath already said.

   129. Thus the equality of the Son to the Father is established simply
upon unity in the action of quickening, since the Son so quickeneth as the
Father doth. Acknowledge therefore the eternity of His Life and
Sovereignty. Again, our likeness with the Son is discovered, and a certain
unity with Him in the flesh,(3) because that, like as the Son of God was
quickened in the flesh(4) by the Father, so also is man quickened; for thus
it is written, that as God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, so we also,
as men, are quickened by the Son of God.(5)

   130. According to this interpretation, then, immortality is not only
applied to our condition by grace of bounty, but is also proclaimed as the
property of Godhead--the latter, because it is the Godhead which
quickeneth; the former, because manhood is quickened in Christ.

   131. But if any would apply the force of either comparison to Christ's
Godhead, then the Son of God is put on one footing with men, so that the
Son of God lives by the Father just as we live by the Son of God. But the
Son of God bestows eternal life by free gift, we cannot so do. If then He
be placed on a level with us, He too does not bestow this gift. Let Arius'
disciples then have the due reward of their faith--which is, not to obtain
eternal life of the Son.

   132. I would now go further. If our opponents are pleased to apply the
teaching of this passage to the principle of the eternity of the Divine
Substance, let them hear a third exposition: Does not our Lord plainly
appear to say that as the Father is a living Father, so too the Son also
lives?-and who can but observe that here we must understand a reference to
unity of Life, forasmuch as the same Life is the Life of the Father and the
Life of the Son? "For as the Father hath Life in Himself, so hath He given
to the Son also to have Life in Himself."(1) He hath given--by reason of
unity with Him. He hath given, not to take away, but that He may be
glorified in the Son. He hath given, not that He, the Father, might keep
guard over it, but that the Son might have it in possession.

   133. But the Arians think that they must oppose hereto the fact that He
had said, "I live by the Father." Of a certainty (suppose that they
conceive the words as referring to His Godhead) the Son lives by the
Father, because He is the Son begotten of the Father,--by the Father,
because He is of one Substance with the Father,--by the Father, because He
is the Word given forth from the heart of the Father,(2) because He came
forth from the Father, because He is begotten of the "bowels of the
Father,"(3) because the Father is the Fountain and Root of the Son's being.

   134. But peradventure they may urge: "If you hold that the Son, in
saying, 'And I live by the Father,' spoke of the unity of life subsisting
between the Father and the Son, does it not follow that He discovered the
unity of life between the Son and mankind in saying that 'he that eateth
Me, the same liveth by Me'?"

   135. Even so. Just as I confess the unity of celestial Life subsisting
in Father and Son by reason of the unity of the substance of the Godhead,
so too, save as concerns the prerogatives of the Divine Nature or those
which are the effect of the Incarnation of our Lord, I affirm of the Son a
participation of spiritual life with us by virtue of the unity of His
Manhood with ours, for "as is the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly."(4) Further, even as in Him we sit at the right hand of the
Father, not in the sense that we share His throne, but that we rest in the
Body of Christ--even as, I say, we have part in Christ's session by reason
of corporal unity, so too we live in Christ by reason of unity of our
bodies with His Body.

   136. Not only, then, have I no fears of the text, "I live by the
Father," but I should have none, even though Christ had said, "I live by
help of the Father.

   137. Now another objection commonly urged by them starts from the text:
"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, to the end that
His Son may be glorified by Him."(2) But not only is the Son glorified
through the Father and by the Father, as it is written: "Glorify Me,
Father;"(3) and again: "Now hath the Son of Man been glorified, and God
hath been glorified in Him, and God glorifieth Him,"(4) but the Father also
is glorified through the Son and by the Son, for Truth hath said: "I have
glorified Thee upon earth."

   138. Even as the Son, therefore, is glorified through the Father, so
too He lives by the Father. There are some who have been led by
consideration of these words to the supposition that [the Greek] "do'xa"
means "opinion, belief," rather than "glory," and therefore have
interpreted as follows: "I have given thee a Do'xa upon earth, I have
finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do, and now, O Father, give me a
do'xa" that is to say: "I have taught men so to believe concerning Thee, as
to know that Thou art the true God; do Thou also establish in them,
concerning Me, the belief that I am Thy Son, and very God."

CHAPTER XI.

The particular distinction which the Arians endeavoured to prove upon the
Apostle's teaching that all things are "of" the Father and "through" the
Son, is overthrown, it being shown that in me passage cited the same
Omnipotence is ascribed both to Father and to Son, as is proved from
various texts, especially from the words of St. Paul himself, in which
heretics foolishly find a reference to the Father only, though indeed there
is no diminution or inferiority of the Son's sovereignty proved, even by
such a reference. Finally, the three phrases, "of Whom," "through Whom,"
"in Whom," are shown to suppose or imply no difference (of power), and each
and all to hold true of the Three Persons.

   139. Now we come to that laughable method, attempted by some, of
showing a difference of Power to subsist between

Father and Son, on the strength of apostolic testimony, it being written
"But for us there is One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in
Him, and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we
through Him."(1) It is urged that no small difference in degree of Divine
Majesty is signified in the affirmation that all things are "of" the
Father, and "through" the Son. Whereas nothing is clearer than that here a
plain reason is given of the Omnipotence of the Son, inasmuch as whilst all
things are "of" the Father, none the less are they all "through" the
Son.(2)

   140. The Father is not "amongst" all things, for to Him it is confessed
that "all things serve Thee."(3) Nor is the Son reckoned "amongst"  all
things, for "all things were made by Him,"(4) and "all things exist
together(5) in Him, and He is above all the heavens."(6) The Son,
therefore, exists not "amongst" but above all things, being, indeed, after
the flesh, of the people,(7) of the Jews, but yet at the same time God over
all, blessed for ever, (8) having a Name which is above every name,(9) it
being said of Him, "Thou hast put all things in subjection under His
feet."(10) But in making all things subject to Him, He left nothing that is
not subject, even as the Apostle hath said.(11) But suppose that the
Apostle's words were intended with reference to the Incarnate Lord; how
then can we doubt the incomparable majesty of His Divine Generation?

   141. Certain it is, then, that between Father and Son there can be no
difference of Power. Nay, so far is such difference from being present,
that the same Apostle has said that all things are "of" Him, by Whom are
all things, as followeth: "For of Him and through Him and in Him are all
things."(12)

   142. Now if, as they suppose, it is the Father alone Who is spoken of,
it cannot be that He is at once Omnipotent because all things are of Him,
and not Omnipotent because all things are through Him.(13) On their own
showing, then, they will declare the Father lacking in Power, and not
Omnipotent, or at the least they will be confessing with their own mouth,
all against their will though it be, the Omnipotence of the Son as well as
of the Father.

   143. Howbeit, let them decide whether they will understand this
affirmation as made concerning the Father. If they do so decide then all
things are "through" Him also. If they decide that it is the Son Who is
spoken of, then all things are "of" Him as well as "of" the Father. But if
all things are "through" the Father also, then surely there is no argument
for diminishing from the honour due to the Son; and if all things are "of"
the Son, the Son must be honoured in like manner as the Father is.

   144. In case our opponents should suspect that we are taking advantage
of some intrusion of a single spurious verse into the text, let us review
the whole passage. "O depth of the riches of God's wisdom and knowledge!"
exclaims the Apostle, "how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways
past finding out! For Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been
His counsellor? Or who hath been first to give unto Him, and shall be
recompensed? For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things. To Him
be glory for ever!"(1)

   145. Who, then, think they, is here spoken of--the Father or the Son?
If it be the Father--then we answer that the Father is not the Wisdom of
God, for the Son is. But what is there that is impossible to Wisdom, of
Whom it is written: "Seeing that she is almighty and abiding, she maketh
all things new m herself"?(2)  We read of Wisdom, then, not as approaching,
but as abiding.(3) Thus have you the authority of Solomon to teach you of
the Omnipotence and Eternity of Wisdom, and of her Goodness as well, for it
is written: "But malice overcometh not Wisdom."(4)

   146. But to purpose. "How unsearchable," saith the Apostle, "are His
judgments!" Now if "the Father hath given all judgment to the Son,"(1) it
seems that the Father points to the Son as Judge.

   147. But now, to show us that He is speaking of the Son, not of the
Father, St. Paul proceeds: "Who was first in giving to Him?" For "the
Father hath given to the Son," but it was as acknowledging the rights of
Him Whom He has begotten, not by way of largess. Therefore, it being
undeniable that the Son has received at the hands of the Father, as it is
written, "All things have been given unto Me of My Father,"(3) yet, in
saying, "Who was first in giving to Him?" the Apostle has not denied that
the Son has received gifts of the Father, by virtue of His Nature, but he
has indeed shown that, of Father and Son, Neither can be said to be before
the Other, forasmuch as, albeit the Father has given gifts unto the Son,
yet He has not so bestowed them as upon one that began to be after Him;
because the uncreate and incomprehensible Trinity, Which is of One Eternity
and Glory, admits neither difference of time nor degree of precedence.

   148. If, however, we hold ourselves more bound to observe those Greek
manuscripts which show "ti's prose'dwken autw(i)" it is clear that He to
Whom nothing can be added is not unequal to Him Who is perfect and
complete. Therefore, if this passage from the Apostle, in its entirety, is
better understood with reference to the Son, we see that we must also
believe concerning the Son, that all things are of Him, even as it is
written: "For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things."

   149. Be it so, nevertheless, that they suppose the passage to be
intended of the Father, then let us call to mind that even as we read of
all things being of Him, so too we read of all things being through Him,
that is to say, the authority of the Father and of the Son is extended over
the whole created universe. And, though we have already proved the
Omnipotence of the Son by the Omnipotence of the Father,(4) still--
forasmuch as they are ever bent upon disparagement--let them consider that
they disparage the Father as well as the Son. For if the Son be limited in
might, because all things are through Him, do we say further, that the
Father likewise is limited, because all things are through Him also?

    150. But to bring them to understand that these phrases involve no
difference, I will once again show that it is the same person, "of" whom
anything is, and "through" whom anything is, and that we read of things
being related in both these ways to the Father. For we find: "Faithful is
God, through Whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son."(1) Let
our adversaries weigh the meaning of the Apostle's words. We are called
"through" the Father--they raise no controversy: we are created "through"
the Son--and this they have set down as a mark of inferiority.(2) The
Father has called us into fellowship with His Son, and this truth we, as in
duty bound, devoutly receive. The Son has created all things, and Arius'
followers imagine that here they have not the decree of a free Will, but a
forced service, slavishly performed!

   151. Again, to obtain fuller understanding that, forasmuch as we are
called through the Father into fellowship with His Son, there is no
difference of Power in the Father and the Son, [note that] the fellowship
itself has its beginning of the Son, as it is written: "For from His
fulness have we all received," though, if we follow the Greek text of the
Gospel, we ought to render "of His fulness."(3)

   152. See, then, how there is fellowship both through the Father and of
the Son, and yet not a different fellowship, but one and the same. "And
that our fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."(4)

   153. Observe, further, that Scripture speaks of our having one
fellowship not only "of" the Father and the Son, but also "of" the Holy
Spirit. "The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ," saith the Apostle, "and the
love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."(5)

   154. Now, I ask, wherein does He, through Whom are all things, appear
less than He, of Whom are all things? Is it because He is declared to be
the Worker? But the Father also works, for He is true who said, "My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work."(6) Therefore, even as the Father worketh, so
worketh the Son also; and so He Who worketh is not limitary in power nor
abject, for the Father also worketh; which being so, that which is common
to the Son with the Father, or even which the Son has by the Father, ought
not to be the less esteemed, lest heretics further dishonour the Father in
the Person of the Son.

   155. Not to be passed over for silencing the disputings of Arian
misbelief are those words of the same Saint John, which he set down in
another Scripture: "If ye know that He is just, know that he which doeth
righteousness is born of Him."(1) But who is righteous, save the Lord, Who
loveth righteousness?(2) Or whom--as the foregoing texts warn us--have we
to assure us of everlasting life, if we have not the Son? If, therefore,
the Son of God hath promised us everlasting life, and He is righteous,
surely we are born "of" Him. Else, if our adversaries deny that we are born
of the Son by grace, they likewise deny His righteousness.

   156. Thou must therefore believe that all things are of the Son of God
[even as of God the Father, for even as God is the Father of all, so
likewise is the Son the Author and Creator of all. We see, then, the vanity
of this their questioning, forasmuch as it holds good of the Son [as of the
Father], that "of Him and through Him and in Him are all things."

   157. We have shown how all things are "of" Him, and likewise how all
things are also "through" Him. Who then doubts that all things are "in"
Him, when another Scripture saith: "For in Him are all things founded, that
are in the heavens, and in Him they were created, and He is before all
things, and all things consist in Him"? (Col. i. 16). Of Him, then, thou
hast grace; Himself thou hast for thy Creator; in Him thou findest the
foundation of all things.

CHAPTER XII.

The comparison, found in the Gospel of St. John, of the Son to a Vine and
the Father to a husbandman, must be understood with reference to the
Incarnation. To understand it with reference to the Divine Generation is to
doubly insult the Son, making Him inferior to St. Paul, and bringing Him
down to the level of the rest of mankind, as well as in like manner the
Father also, by making Him not merely to be on one footing with the same
Apostle, but even of no account at all. The Son, indeed, in so far as being
God, is also the husbandman, and, as regards His Manhood, a grape-cluster.
True statement of the Father's pre-eminence.

   158. There is yet another Scripture, which our opponents commonly
object against us, in order to prove their division of the Godhead of the
Father from the Godhead of the Son, namely, our Lord's words in the Gospel:
"I am the true Vine and My Father is the Husbandman." The vine and the
husbandman, say they, are of different natures, and the vine is in the
power of the husbandman.

   159. Thus, then, ye would have us believe that the Son, as touching His
Godhead, is like to a vine, so that without a vine-dresser He is nothing,
and may be neglected or even rooted up. Thus ye juggle up a lie from the
letter of the Scripture which sayeth that our Lord called Himself the Vine,
intending thereby the mystery of His Incarnation.(1) Howbeit, if ye are
bent on it that we dispute upon the letter, I too confess, yea, I proclaim,
that the Son called Himself the Vine. For woe be to me, if I deny the
pledge(2) of the salvation of His people!

   160. How then do you purpose to understand the truth that the Son of
God called Himself the Vine? If you interpret the saying with respect to
the Substance of His Godhead, and if you suppose such a diversity of
Godhead between the Father and the Son as there is of nature between a
husbandman and a vine, you do double insult both to Father and to Son--to
the Son, because if, as you affirm, He is, as touching His Godhead, beneath
a husbandman, then must He on the same showing be esteemed lower than the
Apostle Paul, forasmuch as Paul indeed called himself a husbandman, as we
find it written: "I have planted, Apollos hath watered: but God hath given
the increase."(3) Will you have Paul, then, to be better than the Son of
God?

   161. Thus far the one insult. As for the other, it lies herein, that if
the Son is the Vine in respect of His eternally-begotten Person, then, He
having said: "I am the Vine, ye are the branches,"(4) that divinely-
begotten One appears to be of one substance with us. But" who is like unto
Thee among the gods, O Lord?"(5) as it is written; and again, in the
Psalms: "For who is there among the clouds that shall be equal to the Lord?
Or who among the sons of God shall be like unto God."(6)

   162. Moreover, ye disparage not only the Son, but the Father also. For
if the term "husbandman" is to comprehend in its designation all the
prerogative of the Father's Sovereignty, then, seeing that Paul too is a
husbandman, you set the Apostle, to whom you deny that the Son is equal, on
an even footing with the Father.

   163. Again, it being written, "But neither he which planteth is
anything, nor he that watereth; but God, Who giveth the increase,"(1) you
will rest the fulness of the Father's Majesty in a name which, as you see,
stands for weakness. For if he that planteth is nothing, and he that
watereth is nothing, but it is God, Who giveth the increase [Who is all],
observe what your blasphemy intends--even to expose the Father to contempt
under the title of a husbandman, and to demand another God to provide the
increase of the Father's labour. Wickedly, therefore, do they think to
extol the Dignity of God the Father by this use of the term "husbandman,"
in which God the Father is brought down to the level of man, as being
designated by a common title.

   164. Yet what wonder if, as ye heretics would have it, the Father is to
be exalted above a Son Whose Godhead differs not a whir from the common
condition of mankind? If ye suppose the Son to have been entitled the Vine
with respect to His Godhead, then do ye esteem Him not only as liable to
corruption and subject to changes of wind and weather, but even as
partaking of manhood only, forasmuch as the Vine and its branches are of
one nature, so that the Son of God appears, not to have taken upon Him our
flesh, through the mystery of Incarnation, but to have altogether sprung
into being from the flesh.

   165. But I will indeed openly confess that His flesh, though born in a
new and mysterious birth, was yet of the same nature with ours, and that
this is the pledge of our salvation, not the source of the Divine
Generation. He indeed is the Vine, for He bears my sufferings, whensoever
manhood, hitherto frail, leans on Him and so matures with plenteous fruit
of renewed devotion.

   166. Yet if the husbandman's power allure thee, tell me, prithee, who
it was that spake in the prophet, saying: "0 Lord, make it known to me,
that I may know; then saw I their thoughts. I was led as a harmless lamb to
the slaughter and knew it not: they took counsel together against me,
saying, Come, let us throw wood into his bread."(2) For if the Son here
speaks of the mystery of His coming Incarnation--for it were blasphemy to
suppose that the words are spoken concerning the Father--then surely it is
the Son Who speaks in an earlier passage: "I have planted thee as a
fruitful vine--how art Thou become bitter, and a wild vine?"(3)

167. And thus thou seest that the Son also is the husbandman,--the Son, of
one Name with the Father, one work, one dignity and Substance. If, then,
the Son is both Vine and Husbandman, plainly we infer the meaning of the
Vine with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation.

   168. But not only has our Lord called Himself a Vine--He has also given
Himself, by the voice of the prophet, the title of a Grape-cluster--even
when Moses, at the command of the Lord, sent spies to the Valley of the
Cluster.(1) What is that valley but the humility of the Incarnation and the
fruitfulness of the Passion? I indeed think that He is called the Cluster,
because that from the Vine brought out of Egypt, that is, the people of the
Jews, there grew a fruit for the world's good. No man, truly, can
understand the Cluster as a token of the Divine Generation--or if there be
any who so understand it, they leave no conclusion open but that we should
believe that Cluster to have sprung from the Vine: And thus in their folly
they attribute to the Father that which they refuse to believe of the Son.

   169. But if there be now left no room for doubt that the Son of God is
called the Vine with respect and intention to His Incarnation,(1) you see
what hidden truth it was to which our Lord had regard in saying, "The
Father is greater than I."(2) For after this premised, He proceeded
immediately: "I am the true Vine, and My Father is the Husbandman," that
you might know that the Father is greater in so far as He dresses and tends
our Lord's flesh, as the husbandman dresses and tends his vines. Further,
our Lord's flesh is that which could increase in stature with age,(3) and
be wounded through suffering, to the end that the whole human race might
rest guarded from the pestilent heat of the pleasures of this world, under
the shadow of the Cross whereon Its limbs are spread.


BOOK V.

PROLOGUE.

Who is a faithful and wise servant? His reward is pointed out in the case
of Peter, as also in the case of Paul. Ambrose, being anxious to follow
Paul's guidance, wished this book to be added to the others, for it could
not be included in the preceding one. The subject for discussion is then
stated, and the reason for such a discussion given. He must needs be
pardoned, for usury is to be demanded from every servant for the money
which has been entrusted to him. Their faithfulness is the usury desired in
his own case. He will be happy if he may hope for a reward; but he does not
look so much for the recompense of the saints, as for exemption from
punishment. He urges all to seek to merit this.

   1. "Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made
ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that
servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (2) Not
worthless is this servant: some great one ought he to be. Let us think who
he may be.

   2. It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself to feed His flock, who
merits thrice to hear the words: "Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed
My sheep."(3) And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of
faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice
admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord,
in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before
His Crucifixion.(4)

   3. Blessed also is that servant who can say: "I have fed you with milk
and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it."(5) For he
knew how to feed them. Who of us can do this? Who of us can truly say: "To
the weak became Ins weak, that I might gain the weak"?(6)

   4. Yet he, being so great a man, and chosen by Christ for the care of
His flock, so as to strengthen the weak and to heal the sick,--he, I say,
rejects forthwith after one admonition(7) a heretic from the fold entrusted
to him, for fear that the taint of one erring sheep might infect the whole
flock with a spreading sore. He further bids that foolish questions and
contentions be avoided.(8)

   5. How, then, shall we act, being but ignorant dwellers set amongst
these fresh tares in the old-standing harvest field?(9) If we are silent,
we shall seem to be giving way; and if we contend against them, there is
the fear that we too shall be held to be carnal. For it is written of
matters of this sort, which beget strife: "The servant of the Lord must not
strive, but be gentle unto all, apt to teach, patient, with moderation
instructing those that oppose themselves."(1) And in another place: "If any
man is contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of God."(2)
For this reason it was our intention to write somewhat, in order that our
writings might without any din answer the impiety of heretics on our
behalf.

   6. And so we prepare to commence this our Fifth Book, O Emperor
Augustus. For it was but right that the Fourth Book should end with our
discussion on the Vine, lest otherwise we should seem to have overloaded
that book with a tumultuous mass of subjects, rather than to have filled it
with the fruit of the spiritual vineyard. On the other hand, it was not
seemly that the gathering of the vintage of the faith should be left
unfinished, whilst there was still all abundance of such great matters for
discussion.

   7. In the Fifth Book, therefore, we speak of the indivisible Godhead of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (omitting, however, a full
discussion on the Holy Ghost), being urged by the teaching of the Gospel to
let out on interest to human minds the five talents(3) of the faith
entrusted to these five books being as it were the principal; lest perhaps
when the Lord comes, and finds His money hidden in the earth, He may say to
me: "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I do
not sow; and gather where I have not strawed; thou oughtest therefore to
have put My money to the exchangers, that at My coming I might have
received Mine Own,"(4) or as it stands in another book: "And I," it says,
"at My coming might have received it with usury."(5)

   8. I pray those to pardon me, whom the boldness of such a lengthy
address displeases. The thought of my office compels me to entrust to
others what I have received. "We are stewards of the heavenly
mysteries."(6) We are ministers, but not all alike. "But," it says, "even
as the Lord gave to every man, I have planted; Apollos watered; but God
gave the increase."(7) Let each one then strive that be may be able to
receive a reward according to his labour. "For we are labourers together
with God," as the Apostle said; "we are God's husbandry, God's
building."(1) Blessed therefore is he who sees such usury on his principal;
blessed too is he who beholds the fruit of his work; blessed again is he
"who builds upon the foundation of faith, gold, silver, precious
stones."(2)

   9. Ye who hear or read these words are all things to us. Ye are the
usury of the money-lender,--the usury on speech, not on money; ye are the
return given to the husbandman; ye are the gold, the silver, the precious
stones of the builder. In your merits lie the chief results of the labours
of the priest; in your souls shines forth the fruit of a bishop's work; in
your progress glitters the gold of the Lord; the silver is increased if ye
hold fast the divine words. "The words of the Lord are pure words, as
silver tried in the fire; proved on the earth, purified seven times."(3) Ye
therefore will make the lender rich, the husbandman to abound in produce;
ye will prove the master-builder to be skilful. I do not speak boastfully;
for I do not desire so much my own advantage as yours.

   10. Oh that I might safely say of you at that time: "Lord, Thou gavest
me five talents, behold I have gained five other talents;"(4) and that I
might show the precious talents of your virtues! "For we have a treasure in
earthen vessels."(5) These are the talents which the Lord bids us
spiritually to trade with, or the two coins of the New and the Old
Testament, which that Samaritan in the Gospel left for the man robbed by
the thieves, for the purpose of getting his wounds healed.(6)

   11. Neither do I, my brethren, with greedy desires, long for this, so
that I may be set over many things; the recompense I get from the fact of
your advance is enough for me. Oh that I may not be found unworthy of that
which I have received! Let those things which are too great for me be
assigned to better men. I demand them not! Yet mayest Thou say, O Lord: "I
will give unto this last, even as unto thee."(7) Let the man that deserves
it receive authority over ten cities.(8)

   12. Let him be such an one as was Moses, who wrote the Ten Words of the
Law. Let him be as Joshua, the son of Nun, who subdued five kings, and
brought the Gibeonites into subjection, that he might be the figure of a
Man of his own name Who was to come, by Whose power all fleshly lust should
be overcome, and the Gentiles should be converted, so that they might
follow the faith of Jesus Christ rather than their former pursuits and
desires. Let him be as David, whom the young maidens came to meet with
songs, saying: "Saul hath triumphed over thousands, David over ten
thousands."(1)

   13. It is enough for me, if I am not thrust out into the outer
darkness, as he was, who hid the talent entrusted to him in the earth so to
speak, of his own flesh. This the ruler of the synagogue did, and the other
rulers of the Jews; for they employed(2),(3) the words of the Lord, which
had been entrusted to them, on the ground as it were of their bodies; and,
delighting in the pleasures of the flesh, sunk the heavenly trust as though
into the pit of an overweening heart.

   14. Let us then not keep the Lord's money buried and hidden in the
flesh; nor let us hide our one talent in a napkin;(4) but like good money-
changers let us ever weigh it out with labour of mind and body, with an
even and ready will, that the word may be near, even in thy mouth and in
thy heart.(5)

   15. This is the word of the Lord, this is the precious talent, whereby
thou art redeemed. This money must often be seen on the tables of souls, in
order that by constant trading the sound of the good coins may be able to
go forth into every land, by the means of which eternal life is purchased.
"This is eternal life," which Thou, Almighty Father, givest freely, that we
may know "Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent."(6)

CHAPTER I.

How impious the Arians are, in attacking that on which human happiness
depends. John ever unites the Son with the Father, especially where he
says: "That they may know Thee, the only true God, etc." In that place,
then, we must understand the words "true God" also of the Son; for it
cannot be denied that He is God, and it cannot be said He is a false god,
and least of all that He is God by appellation only. This last point being
proved from the Apostle's words, we rightly confess that Christ is true
God.

   16. Wherefore let the Arians observe, how impious they are in calling
in question our hope and the object of our desires. And since they are wont
to cry out on this point above all others, saying that Christ is distinct
from the only and true God, let us confute their impious ideas so far as
lies in our power.

   17. For on this point they ought rather to understand, that this is the
benefit, this the reward of perfect virtue, namely, this divine and
incomparable gift, that we may know Christ together with the Father, and
not separate the Son from the Father; as also the Scriptures do not
separate them. For the following tells rather for the unity than for the
diversity of the Divine Majesty, namely, that the knowledge of the Father
and of the Son gives us the same recompense, and one and the same honour;
which reward no man will have but he that has known both the Father and the
Son. For as the knowledge of the Father procures eternal life, so also does
the knowledge of the Son.

   18. Therefore as the Evangelist forthwith at the outset joined the Word
with God the Father in his devout confession of faith, saying: "And the
Word was with God;"(1) and here too, in writing the words of the Lord:
"That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou
hast sent,"(2) he has undoubtedly, by thus connecting Them, bound together
the Father and the Son, so that no one may separate Christ as true God from
the majesty of the Father, for union does not dissever.

   19. Therefore in saying, "That they may know Thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent," he put an end to the Sabellians, and
has also put the Jews out of court,--those at any rate who heard him speak;
so that the former might not suppose the Same to be the Father as the Son,
which they might have done if he had not added also Christ, and that the
latter might not sever the Son from the Father.

   20. But, I ask, why do they not think we ought to gather and understand
this from what has been already said; that as he has declared the Father to
be only, true God, so we may understand Jesus Christ also to be only, true
God? For it could not be expressed in any other way, for fear he might seem
to be speaking of two Gods. For neither do we speak of two Gods; and yet we
confess the Son to be of the same Godhead with the Father.

   21. May we ask, therefore, on what grounds they think a distinction is
made in the Godhead, and whether they deny Christ to be God? But they
cannot deny it. Do they deny Him to be true God? But if they deny Him to be
true God, let them say whether they declare Him to be a false God, or God
by appellation only. For according to the Scriptures the word "God" is used
either of the true God, or by appellation only, or of a false god. True God
as the Father; God by appellation as the saints; a false god like the
demons and idols. Let them say then how they will acknowledge and describe
the Son of God. Do they suppose the name of God to have been falsely
assumed; or was there in truth merely an indwelling of God within Him, as
it were by appellation only?

   22. I do not think they can say the name was falsely assumed, and so
involve themselves in the open wickedness of blasphemy; lest they should
betray themselves on the one hand to the demons and idols, and on the other
to Christ, by insinuating that the name of God was falsely given to Him.
But if they think He is called God because He had an indwelling of the
Godhead within Him,--as many holy men were (for the Scripture calls them
Gods to whom the word of God came),(1)--they do not place Him before other
men, but think He is to be compared with them; so that they consider Him to
be the same as He has granted other men to be, even as He says to Moses: "I
have made thee a god unto Pharaoh."(2) Wherefore it is also said in the
Psalms: "I have said, ye are gods."(3)

   23. This idea of these blasphemers Paul puts aside; for he said: "For
though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth."(4) He
said not: "There be gods," but "There be that are called gods." But
"Christ, as it is written, "is the same yesterday and to-day."(5) "He is,"
it says; that is, not only in name but also in truth.

   24. And well is it written: "He is the same yesterday and to-day," so
that the impiety of Arius might find no room to pile up its profanity. For
he, in reading in the second psalm of the Father saying to the Son, "Thou
art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,"(6) noted the word "to-day," not
"yesterday," referring this which was spoken of the assumption of our flesh
to the eternity of the divine generation; of which Paul also says in the
Acts of the Apostles: "And we declare unto you the promise which was made
to our fathers: for God has fulfilled the same to our children, in that He
hath raised up the Lord Jesus Christ again, as it is written in the second
psalm: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee."(1) Thus the
Apostle, filled with the Holy Ghost, in order that he might destroy that
fierce madness of his, said: "The same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever."
"Yesterday" on account of His eternity; "to-day" on account of His taking
to Himself a human body.

   35. Christ therefore is, and always is; for He, Who is, always is. And
Christ always is, of Whom Moses says: "He that is hath sent me."(2) Gabriel
indeed was, Raphael was, the angels were; but they who sometime have not
been are by no means with equal reason said always to be. But Christ, as we
read, "was not it is, and, it is not, but, it is was in Him."(3) Wherefore
it is the property of God alone to be, Who ever is.

   26. Therefore if they dare not say He is God by appellation, and it is
a mark of deep impiety to say He is a false god, it remains that He is true
God, not unlike to the true Father, but equal to Him. And as He sanctifies
and justifies whom He will,(4) not by assuming that power from without
Himself, but having within Himself the power of sanctification, how is He
not true God? For the Apostle called Him indeed true God, Who according to
His nature was God, as it is written: "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God,
ye did service unto them, who by nature were not gods;"(5) that is, who
could not be true gods, for this title by no means belonged to them by
nature.

CHAPTER II.

Since it has been proved that the Son is true God, and in that is not
interior to the Father, it is shown that by the word solus (alone) when
used of the Father in the Scriptures, the Son is not excluded; nay, that
this expression befits Him above all, and Him alone. The Trinity is alone,
not amongst all, but above all. The Son alone does what the Father does,
and alone has immortality. But we must not for this reason separate Him
from the Father in our controversies. We may, however, understand that
passage of the Incarnation. Lastly the Father is shut out from a share in
the redemption of men by those who would have the Son to be separated from
Him.

   27. We have fully demonstrated by passages of Scripture, in the earlier
books, that Christ is true, yea, very true God. Therefore if Christ, as it
has been taught, is true God, let us enquire why they desire to separate
the Son from the Father, when they read that the Father is the only true
God.

   28. If they say that the Father alone is true God, they cannot deny
that God the Son alone is the Truth; for Christ is the Truth. Is the Truth
then something inferior to Him that is true, seeing that according to the
use of terms a man is called true from the word "truth," as also wise from
wisdom, just from justice? We donor deem it so between the Father and the
Son. For there is nothing wanting to the Father, because the Father is full
of truth; and the Son, because He is the Truth, is equal to Him that is
true.

   29. But that they may know, when they see the word "alone," that the
Son is in no wise to be separated from the Father, let them remember it was
said by God in the Prophets: "I stretched forth the heavens alone."(1) The
Father certainly did not stretch them forth without the Son. For the Son
Himself, Who is the Wisdom of God, says: "When He prepared the heavens I
was present with Him."(2) And Paul declares that it was said of the Son:
"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and
the heavens are the work of Thy hands."(3) Whether therefore the Son made
the heavens, as also the Apostle would have it understood, whilst He
Himself certainly did not alone spread out the heavens without the Father;
or as it stands in the Book of Proverbs: "The Lord in wisdom hath rounded
the earth, in understanding hath He prepared the heavens;"(4) it is proved
that neither the Father made the heavens alone without the Son, nor yet the
Son without the Father. And yet He who spread out the heavens is said to be
alone.

   30. To show indeed how plainly we must understand the expression
"alone" of the Son (although we may never believe that He did anything
without the knowledge of the Father), we have here also another passage,
where it is written: "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and walketh as
it were on a pavement over the sea."(5) For the Gospel of the Lord has
taught us that it was not the Father but the Son that walked upon the sea,
when Peter asked Him, saying, "Lord, bid me come unto Thee."(6) But even
prophecy itself gives proof of this. For holy Job prophesied of the coming
of the Lord; of Whom he said in truth that He would vanquish the great
Leviathan,(7) and it was done. For that dread Leviathan that is, the devil,
He smote, and struck down, and laid low in the last times by the adorable
Passion of His own Body.(1)

   31. The Son therefore is only and true God for this also is assigned to
the Son as His sole right. For of no created being can it be accurately
said that he is alone. How can he to whom fellowship in creation belongs be
separated from the rest, as though he were alone? Thus man is seen to be a
rational being amongst all earthly creatures, yet he is not the only
rational being; for we know that the heavenly works of God also are
rational, we confess that angels and archangels are rational beings. If
then the angels are rational, man cannot be said to be the only rational
being.

   32. But they say that the sun can be said to be alone, because there is
no second sun. But the sun himself has many things in common with the
stars, for he travels across the heavens, he is of that ethereal and
heavenly substance, he is a creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works
of God. He serves God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him
with all.(2) Therefore he cannot accurately be said to be alone, for he is
not set apart from the rest.

   33. Wherefore since no created being can be compared with the Godhead
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Which is alone, not amongst
all, but over all (our declaration concerning the Spirit being meanwhile
held back); as the Father is said to be the only true God, because He has
nothing in common with others; so also is the Son alone the Image of the
true God, He alone is the Hand of the Father, He alone is the Virtue and
Wisdom of God.

   34. Thus the Son alone does what the Father does; for it is written:
"Whatsoever things I do, He doth."(3) And since the work of the Father and
of the Son is one, it is well said of the Father and the Son, that God
worked alone; wherefore also when we speak of the Creator, we own both the
Father and the Son. For assuredly when Paul said, "Who served the creature
more than the Creator,"(4) he neither denied the Father to be the Creator,
from Whom are all these things, nor yet the Son, through Whom are all
things.(5)

   35. And it does not seem out of agreement with this that it is written:
"Who alone hath immortality."(6) For how could He not have immortality Who
has life in Himself? He has it in His nature; He has it in His essential
Being; and He has it not as a temporal grace, but owing to His eternal
Godhead. He has it not by way of a gift as a servant, but by peculiar fight
of His Generation, as the co-eternal Son. He has it, too, as has the
Father. "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to
the Son to have life in Himself."(1) As He has it, it says, so He has given
it. Thou hast learnt already how He gave it,(2) that thou mayest not think
it to be a free gift of grace, when it is a secret of His generation.
Since, then, there is no divergence of life between the Father and the Son,
how can it be supposed that the Father alone has immortality, whilst the
Son has it not?

   36. Wherefore let them understand that in this passage the Son is not
to be separated from the Father, Who is the only true God. For they cannot
prove that the Son is not the only and true God, especially as here also it
may be gathered, as I have said, that Christ too is true and only God; or
the passage may at least be understood partly in reference to the Godhead
of the Father and the Son, and partly to the Incarnation of Christ: for
knowledge is not perfect unless it confesses Jesus Christ from eternity to
be only-begotten God, true Son of God, and, according to the flesh,
begotten of a Virgin. Which also this very Evangelist has taught us
elsewhere, saying: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh, is of God."(3)

   37. Lastly, the whole of our passage teaches us that it is not improper
in this verse to understand a reference to the sacrament of the
Incarnation. For thus it is written: "Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy
Son."(4) When, therefore, He states that the hour is come, and prays to be
glorified, how can one suppose Him to have spoken but only in accordance
with the assumption of our flesh? For the Godhead has no fixed moments of
time, nor does eternal light stand in need of glorification. Therefore in
the only true God, Who is the Father, we also understand the only true Son
of God to be in accordance with the unity of the Godhead. And in the name
of Jesus Christ, which He received when born of the Virgin, we acknowledge
the sacrament of the Incarnation.

   38. But if they wish to separate the Son, when they read that the
Father is the only true God, I suppose that when they read of the
Incarnation of the Son: "This is the stone which was set at naught of you
builders, which is become the head of the corner;" and further: "There is
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved;"(1)
then they imagine the Father is to be cut off from the benefit of imparting
salvation to us. But there is neither salvation without the Father, nor
eternal life without the Son.

CHAPTER III.

To the objection of the Arians, that two Gods are introduced by a unity of
substance, the answer is that a plurality of Gods is more likely to be
inferred from diversity of substance. Further, their charge recoils upon
themselves. Manifold diversity is the reason why two men cannot be said to
be one man, though all men are called individually man, where a unity of
nature is referred to. There is one nature alone in them, but there is
wholly a unity in the Divine Persons. Therefore the Son is not to be
severed from the Father, especially as they dare not deny that worship is
due to Him.

   39. But the Arians maintain the following: If you say that, as the
Father is the only true God, so also is the Son, and confess that the
Father and the Son are both of one substance, you introduce not one God,
but two. For they who are of one substance seem not to be one God but two
Gods. Just as two men or two sheep or more are spoken of, but a man and a
sheep are not spoken of as two men or two sheep, but as one man and one
sheep.

   40. This is what the Arians say; and by this cunning argument they
attempt to catch the more simple-minded. However if we read the divine
Scriptures we shall find that plurality occurs rather amongst those things
which are of a diverse and different substance, that is, heterou'sia. We
have this set forth in the books of Solomon, in that passage in which he
said: "There are three things impossible to understand, yea, a fourth which
I know not, the track of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a
rock, the path of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man in his youth."(2)
An eagle and a ship and a serpent are not of one family and nature, but of
a distinguishable and different substance, and yet they are three. On the
testimony of Scripture, therefore, they learn that their arguments are
against themselves.

   41. Therefore, in saying that the substance of the Father and of the
Son is diverse and their Godhead distinguishable, they themselves assert
there are two Gods. But we, when we confess the Father and' the Son, in
declaring them still to be of one Godhead, say that there are not two Gods,
but one God. And this we establish by the word of the Lord. For where there
are several, there is a difference either of nature or of will and work.
Lastly, that they may be refuted on their own witness, two men are
mentioned: But though they are of one nature by right of birth, yet in time
and thought and work and place, they are apart; and so one man cannot be
spoken of under the signification and number of two; for there is no unity
where there is diversity. But God is said to be one, and the glory and
completeness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is thus expressed.

   42. Such, indeed, is the truth of unity that, when the nature alone of
human birth or of human flesh is indicated, one man is the term used for
the many, as it is written "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man
can do unto me;"(1) that is, not the one person of a man, but the one
flesh, the one frailty of human birth. It added also: "It is better to
trust in the Lord than to trust in man."(2) Here, too, it did not denote
one particular man, but a universal condition. Then, immediately after it
added, speaking of many: "It is better to put confidence in the Lord than
to put confidence in princes."(3) Where man is spoken of, as we have
already said, there the common unity of the nature, which exists between
all is indicated; but where the princes are mentioned, there is a certain
distinction between their different powers.

   43. Amongst men, or in men, there exists a unity in some one thing,
either in love, or desire, or flesh, or devotion, or faith. But a universal
unity, that embraces within itself all things agreeably to the divine
glory, is the property of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alone.

   44. Wherefore the Lord also, in pointing out the diversity that exists
among men, who have nothing in common that can tend towards the unity of an
indivisible substance, says: "In your law it is written that the testimony
of two men is true."(4) But though He had said, "The testimony of two men
is true," when He came to the testimony of Himself and His Father, He said
not: "Our testimony is true, for it is the testimony of two Gods;" but: "I
am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth
witness of Me.", Earlier He also says: "If I judge, My judgment is true;
for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me."(2) Thus, both in
one place and the other, He indicated both the Father and the Son, but
neither implied the plurality, nor severed the unity of their divine
Substance.

   45. It is plain, then, that whatsoever is of one substance cannot be
severed, even though it be not single, but one. By singleness I mean that
which the Greeks call monoth's. Singleness has to do with a person; unity
with a nature. That those things which are of a different substance are
wont to be called, not one alone, but many, though already proved on the
testimony of the prophet, the Apostle himself has stated in so many words,
saying: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
earth."(3) Dost thou see, then, that those who are of different substances,
and not of the verity of one nature, are called "gods"? But the Father and
the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods, but "One God, the
Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are
all things."(4) "One God," he says, "and one Lord Jesus;" and above: "One
God, not two Gods;" and then: "One Lord, not two Lords."(5)

   46. Plurality, therefore, is excluded, but the unity is not destroyed.
But as, on the one hand, when we read of the Lord Jesus, we do not
dissociate the Father, as I have already said, from the prerogative of
ruling, because He has that in common with the Son; so, on the other hand,
when we read of the only true God, the Father, we cannot sever the Son from
the prerogative of the only true God, for He has that in common with the
Father.

   47. Let them say what they feel or what they think, when we read: "Thou
shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve."(6) Do they
think Christ should not be worshipped, and that He Ought not to be served?
But if that woman of Canaan who worshipped Him,(7) merited to gain what she
asked for, and the Apostle Paul, who confessed himself to be the servant of
Christ in the very outset of his letters, merited to be an Apostle "not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ;"(8) let them say what they think
should follow. Would they prefer to join with Arius in a league of
treachery, and so show, by denying Christ to be the only true God, that
they consider He should neither be worshipped nor served? Or would they
sooner go in company with Paul, who in serving and worshipping Christ did
not disown in word and heart the only true God, Whom he acknowledged with
dutiful service?

CHAPTER IV.

It is objected by heretics that Christ offered worship to His Father. But
instead it is shown that this must be referred to His humanity, as is clear
from an examination of the passage. However, it also offers fresh witness
to His Godhead, as we often see it happening in other actions that Christ
did.

   48. But if any one were to say that the Son worships God the Father,
because it is written, "Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we
worship,"(1) let him consider when it was said, and to whom, and to whose
wishes it was in answer.

   49. In the earlier verses of this chapter it was stated, not without
reason, that Jesus, being weary with the journey, was sitting down, and
that He asked a woman of Samaria to give Him drink;(2) for He spoke as man;
for as God He could neither be weary nor thirst.

   50. So when this woman addressed Him as a Jew, and thought Him a
prophet, He answers her, as a Jew who spiritually taught the mysteries of
the Law: "Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship." "We," He
says; for He joined Himself with men. But how is He joined with men, but
according to the flesh? And to show that He answered as being incarnate, He
added: "for salvation is of the Jews."(3)

   51. But immediately after this He put aside His human feelings, saying:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship
the Father."(4) H e said not: "We shall worship." This He would certainly
have said, if He had a share in our obedience.

   52. And when we read that Mary worshipped Him,(5) we ought to learn
that it is not possible for Him under the same nature both to worship as a
servant, and to be worshipped as Lord; but rather that as man He is said to
worship among men, and that as Lord He is worshipped by His servants.

   53. Many things therefore we read and believe, in the light of the
sacrament of the Incarnation. But even in the very feelings of our human
nature we may behold the Divine Majesty. Jesus is wearied with His journey,
that He may refresh the weary; He desires to drink, when about to give
spiritual drink to the thirsty; He was hungry, when about to supply the
food of salvation to the hungry; He dies, to live again; He is buried, to
rise again; He hangs upon the dreadful tree, to strengthen those in dread;
He veils the heaven with thick darkness, that He may give light; He makes
the earth to shake, that He may make it strong; He rouses the sea, that He
may calm it; He opens the tombs of the dead, that He may show they are the
homes of the living; He is made of a Virgin, that men may believe He is
born of God; He feigns not to know, that He may make the ignorant to know;
as a Jew He is said to worship, that the Son may be worshipped as true God.

CHAPTER V.

Ambrose answers those who press the words of the Lord to the mother of
Zebedee's children, by saying that they were spoken out of kindness,
because Christ was unwilling to cause her grief. Ample reason for such
tenderness is brought forward. The Lord would rather leave the granting of
that request to the Father, than declare it to be impossible. This answer
of Christ's, however, is not to His detriment, as is shown both by His very
words, and also by comparing them with other passages.

   54. "How," they say, "can the Son of God be the only true God, like to
the Father, when He Himself said to the sons of Zebedee: 'Ye shall drink
indeed of My cup; but to sit on My right hand or on My left, is not Mine to
give to you, but to those for whom it has been prepared of My Father'?"(1)
This, then, is, as you desire, your proof of divine inequality; though in
it you ought rather to reverence the Lord's kindness and to adore His
grace; if, that is, you could but perceive the deep secrets of the virtue
and wisdom of God.

   55. For think of her who, with and for her sons, makes this request. It
is a mother, who in her anxiety for the honour of her sons, though somewhat
unrestrained in the measure of her desires, may for all that yet find
pardon. It is a mother, old in years, devout in her zeal, deprived of
consolation; who at that time, when she might have been helped and
supported by the aid of her able bodied offspring, suffered her children to
leave her, and preferred the reward her sons should receive in following
Christ to her own pleasure. For they when called by the Lord, at the first
word, as we read, left their nets and their father and followed Him.(1)

   56. She then, somewhat yielding to the devotion of a mother's zeal,
besought the Saviour, saying: "Grant that these my two sons may sit the one
on Thy right hand, the other on Thy left in Thy kingdom."(2) Although it
was an error, it was an error of a mother's affections; for a mother's
heart knows no patience. Though eager for the object of her desires, yet
her longing was pardonable, for she was not greedy for money, but for
grace. Not shameless was her request, for she thought not of herself, but
of her children. Contemplate the mother, reflect upon her.

   57. But it is nothing wonderful if the feelings of parents for their
children seem nothing to you, who think the love of the Almighty Father for
His only-begotten Son a trifling matter. The Lord of heaven and earth was
ashamed (to speak as accords with the assumption of our flesh and the
virtues of the soul)--He was ashamed, I say, and, to use His own word,
disturbed, to refuse a share even in His own seat to a mother making
request for her sons. You maintain sometimes that the proper Son of the
eternal God stands to give service, at other times you would have His co-
session to be as that of an attendant, that is, not because there is a
oneness of majesty, but because it is the order of the Father; and you deny
to the Son of God, Who is true God, that which He plainly was unwilling to
refuse to men.

   58. For He thought of the mother's love, who solaced her old age with
the thought of her sons' reward, and, though harassed with a mother's
longings, endured the absence of those dearest pledges of her love.

   59. Think also of the woman, that is, the weaker sex, whom the Lord had
not yet strengthened by His own Passion. Think, I say, of a descendant of
Eve, the first woman, sinking under the inheritance of unrestrained
passion, which had been passed on to all; one, too, whom the Lord had not
yet redeemed with His own Blood, and from whom He had not yet washed out in
His Blood the desire implanted in the hearts of all for unbounded honour
even beyond what is right. Thus the woman offended owing to an inherited
tendency to wrong.

   60. And what wonder if a mother should strive to win preference for her
children (which is far better than if she had done it for herself), when
even the Apostles themselves, as we read, strove amongst themselves, as to
who should have the preference?(1)

   61. The physician, therefore, ought not to wound a mother who has been
deprived of all, nor a suffering mind, with shameful reproaches, lest when
the request had been made and had been proudly denied, she should grieve
over the condemnation of her petition as being unreasonable.

   62. Lastly, the Lord, Who knew that a mother's affection is to be
honoured, answered not the woman, but her sons, saying: "Are ye able to
drink of the cup that I shall drink of?" When they say: "We are able,"
Jesus says to them: "Ye shall drink indeed of My cup; but to sit on My
right hand and on My left is not Mine to give to you, but to those for whom
it is prepared of My Father."(2)

   63. How patient and kind the Lord is; how deep is His wisdom and good
His love! For wishing to show that the disciples asked for no slight thing,
but one they could not obtain, He reserved His own peculiar rights for His
Father's honour, not fearing to detract aught from His own rights: "Who
thought it not robbery to be equal with God;"(3) and loving, too, His
disciples (for "He loved them," as it is written, "unto the end"),(4) He
was unwilling to seem to refuse to those whom He loved what they desired;
He, I say, the good and holy Lord, Who would rather keep some of His own
prerogative secret, than lay aside aught of His love. "For charity
suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not, and seeketh not her
own."(5)

   64. Lastly, that you may learn it was no sign of weakness, but rather
of tenderness, that He said: "It is not Mine to give to you;" note that
when the sons of Zebedee make the request without their mother, He said
nothing about the Father; for thus it is written: "It is not Mine to give
to you, but those for whom it has been prepared."(6) So the Evangelist Mark
has stated it. But when the mother makes this request on her sons' behalf,
as we find it in Matthew, He says: "It is not Mine to give to you, but to
those for whom it has been prepared of My Father."(7) Here He added: "of My
Father," for a mother's feelings demanded greater tenderness.

   65. But if they think that by saying, "For whom it hath been prepared
of My Father," He assigned greater power to His Father, or detracted aught
from His own; let them say whether they think there is any detraction from
the Father's power, because the Son in the Gospel says of the Father: "The
Father judgeth no man."(1)

   66. But if we think it impious to believe that the Father has handed
over all judgment to the Son in such wise that He has it not Himself,--for
He has it, and cannot lose what the Divine Majesty has by its very nature,-
-we ought to consider it equally impious to suppose that the Son cannot
give what either men can merit, or any creature can receive; especially as
He Himself has said: "I go unto My Father, and whatsoever ye shall ask of
Him in My name, that will I do."(2) For if the Son cannot give what the
Father can give, the Truth has lied, and cannot do what the Father has been
asked for in His name. He therefore did not say: "For whom it has been
prepared of My Father," in order that requests should be made only of the
Father. For all things which are asked of the Father, He has declared that
He will give. Lastly, He did not say: "Whatsoever ye shall ask of Me, that
will I do;" but: "Whatsoever ye shall ask of Him in My name, that will I
do."

CHAPTER VI.

Wishing to answer the above-stated objection somewhat more fully, he
maintains that this request, had it not been impossible in itself, would
have been possible for Christ to grant; especially as the Father has given
all judgment to Him; which gift we must understand to have been given
without any feature of imperfection. However, he proves that the request
must be reckoned amongst the impossibilities. To make it really possible,
he teaches that Christ's answer must be taken in accordance with His human
nature, and shows this next by an exposition of the passage. Lastly, he
once more confirms the reply he as given on the impossibility of Christ's
session.

   67. I Ask now whether they think the request made by the wife and sons
of Zebedee was possible or impossible to human circumstances, or to any
created being? If it was possible, how is it that He Who made all things
which were not had not the power of granting a seat to His apostles on His
right hand and on His left? or how was it that He, to Whom the Father gave
all judgment, could not judge of men's merits?

   68. We know well in what way He gave it; for how did the Son, who
created all things out of nothing, receive it as though in want? Had He not
the judgment of those whose natures He had made? The Father gave all
judgment to the Son, "that all men should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father."(1) It is not therefore the power of the Son, but our
knowledge of it, that increases; nor does what is learnt by us add aught to
His being, but only to our advantage; so that by knowing the Son of God, we
may have eternal life.

   69. As, then, in our knowledge of the Son of God His honour, but our
profit, not His, is concerned; if any one thinks that the power of God is
augmented by that honour, He must also believe that God the Father can
receive augmentation; for He is glorified by our knowledge of Him, as is
the Son: as it is written on the word of the Son: "I have glorified Thee
upon the earth."(2) Therefore if that which was asked for was at all
possible, it certainly was in the power of the Son to grant it.

   70. Let them show, if they consider it possible, who of men or of other
created beings sits either on the right hand or the left of God. For the
Father says to the Son: "Sit Thou on My right hand."(3) Therefore if any
one sits on the right hand of the Son, the Son is found to be sitting (to
speak in human wise) between Himself and the Father.

   71. A thing impossible for man, then, was asked of Him. But He was
unwilling to say that men could not sit with Him; seeing that He desired
His divine glory should be veiled, and not revealed before He rose
again.(4) For before this, when He had appeared in glory between His
attendants Moses and Elias, He had warned His disciples that they should
tell no man what they had seen.

   72. Therefore if it was not possible for men or other created beings to
merit this, the Son ought not to seem to have less power because He gave
not to His apostles, what the Father has not given to men or other created
beings. Or else let them say to which of them He has given it. Certainly
not to the angels; of whom Scripture says that all the angels stood round
about the throne.(5) Thus Gabriel said that he stands, as it says: "I am
Gabriel that stand before God."(6)

   73. Not to the angels, then, has He given it, nor to the elders who
worship Him that sitteth; for they do not sit upon the seat of majesty, but
as the Scripture has said, round about the throne; for there are four and
twenty other seats, as we have it in the Revelation of John: "And upon the
seats four and twenty elders sitting."(1) In the Gospel also the Lord
Himself says: "When the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye
also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel."(2) He did not say that a share in His own throne could be given to
the apostles, but that there were those other twelve thrones; which,
however, we ought not to think of as referring to actual sitting down, but
as showing the happy issue of spiritual grace.

   74. Lastly, in the Book of the Kings, Micaiah the prophet said: "I saw
the Lord God of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven
standing around Him, on His right hand and on His left."(3) How then, when
the angels stand on the right hand and on the left of the Lord God, when
all the host of heaven stands, shall men sit on the right hand of God or on
His left, to whom is promised as a reward for virtue likeness to the
angels, as the Lord says: "Ye shall be as the angels in heaven?"(4) "As the
angels," He says, not "more than the angels."

   75. If, then, the Father has given nothing more than the Son, the Son
certainly has given nothing less than the Father. Therefore the Son can in
no wise be less than the Father.

   76. Suppose, however, that it had been possible for men to obtain what
was desired; what does it mean when He says: "But to sit on My right hand
and on My left is not Mine to give to you"?(5) What is "Mine"? Above He
said: "Ye shall drink indeed of My cup;" and again He added: "It is not
Mine to give to you." Above He said "Mine," and again lower down He said
"Mine." He made no change. And so the earlier passages tell us why He said
"Mine."

   77. For being asked by a woman as man to allow her sons to sit on His
right hand and His left, because she asked Him as man, the Lord also as
though only man answered concerning His Passion: "Are ye able to drink of
the cup that I shall drink of?"(6)

   78. Therefore because He spoke according to the flesh of the Passion of
His Body, He wished to show that according to the flesh He left behind Him
an example and pattern to us of the endurance of suffering; but that
according to His position as man He could not grant them fellowship in the
throne above. This is the reason why He said: "It is not Mine;" as also in
another place He says: "My doctrine is not Mine."(1) It is not, He says,
spoken after my flesh; for the words which are divine belong not to the
flesh.

   79. But how plainly He showed His tenderness for His disciples, whom He
loved, saying first: "Will ye drink of My cup?" For as He could not grant
what they sought, He offered them something else, so that He might mention
what He would assign to them, before He denied them anything; in order that
they might understand that the failure lay more in the equity of their
request to Him, than in the wish of their Lord to show kindness.

   80. "Ye shall indeed drink of My cup," He says; that is, "I will not
refuse you the suffering, which My flesh will undergo. For all that I have
taken on Myself as man, ye can imitate. I have granted you the victory of
suffering, the inheritance of the cross. 'But to sit on My right hand and
on My left is not Mine to give to you."' He did not say, "It is not Mine to
give," but: "It is not Mine to give to you;" meaning by this, not that He
lacked the power, but that His creatures were wanting in merit.

   81. Or take in another way the words: "It is not Mine to give to you,"
that is. "It is not Mine, for I came to teach humility; it is not Mine, for
I came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister; it is not Mine, for I
show justice, not favour."

   82. Then, speaking of the Father, He added: "For whom it has been
prepared," to show that the Father also is not wont to give heed merely to
requests, but to merits; for God is not a respecter of persons.(2)
Wherefore also the Apostle says: "Whom He did foreknow, He also did
predestinate."(3) He did not predestinate them before He knew them, but He
did predestinate the reward of those whose merits He foreknew.

   83. Rightly then is the woman checked, who demanded what was
impossible, as a special kind of privilege from Him the Lord, Who of His
own free gift granted not only to two apostles, but to all the disciples,
those things which He had adjudged to be given to the saints; and that too
without a prayer from any one, as it is written: "Ye shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."(4)

   84. Therefore, although we may think the demand to have been possible,
there is no room for false attacks. However, when I  read that the seraphim
stand,(1) how can I suppose that men may sit on the right hand or the left
of the Son of God? The Lord sits upon the cherubim, as it says: "Thou that
sittest upon the cherubim, show myself."(2) And how shall the apostles sit
upon the cherubim?

   85. And I do not come to this conclusion of my own mind, but because of
the utterances of our Lord's own mouth. For the Lord Himself later on, in
commending the apostles to the Father, says: "Father, I will that they also
whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am."(3) But if He had thought
that the Father would give the divine throne to men, He would have said: "I
will that where I sit, they also may sit with Me." But He says: "I will
that they be with Me," not "that they may sit with Me;" and "where I am,"
not "as I am."

   86. Then follow the words: "That they may see My glory." Here too He
did not say: "that they may have My glory," but "that they may see" it. For
the servant sees, the Lord possesses; as David also has taught us, saying:
"That I may see the delight of the Lord."(4) And the Lord Himself in the
Gospel has revealed it, stating: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God."(5) "They shall see," He says; not "They shall sit with God
upon the cherubim."

   87. Let them therefore cease to think little of the Son of God
according to His Godhead, lest they should think little also of the Father.
For he who believes wrongly of the Son cannot think rightly of the Father;
he who thinks wrongly of the Spirit cannot think rightly of the Son. For
where there is one dignity, one glory, one love, one majesty, whatsoever
thou thinkest is to be withdrawn in the case of any one of the Three
Persons, is withdrawn from all alike, For that can never have completeness
which thou canst separate and divide into various portions.

CHAPTER VII.

Objection is taken to the following passage: "Thou hast loved them, as Thou
hast loved Me." To remove it, he shows first the impiety of the Arian
explanation; then compares these words with others; and lastly, takes the
whole passage into consideration. Hence he gathers that the mission of
Christ, although it is to be received according to the flesh, is not to His
detriment. When this is proved he shows how the divine mission takes place.

   88. There are some, O Emperor Augustus, who in their desire to deny the
unity of the divine Substance, strive to make little of the love of the
Father and the Son, because it is written: "Thou hast loved them, as Thou
hast loved Me."(1) But when they say this, what else do they do but adopt a
likeness of comparison between the Son of God and men?

   89. Can men indeed be I loved by God as the Son is, in Whom the Father
is well-pleased?(2) He is well-pleasing in Himself; we through Him. For
those in whom God sees His own Son after His own likeness, He admits
through His Son into the favour of sons. So that as we go through likeness
unto likeness, so through the Generation of the Son are we called unto
adoption. The eternal love of God's Nature is one thing, that of grace is
another.

   90. And if they start a debate on the words that are written: "And Thou
hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me," and think a comparison is
intended; they must think that the following also was said by way of
comparison: "Be ye merciful, as your Father Which is in heaven is
merciful;"(3) and elsewhere: "Be ye perfect, as My Father Which is in
heaven is perfect."(4) But if He is perfect in the fulness of His glory, we
are but perfect according to the growth of virtue within us. The Son also
is loved by the Father according to the fulness of a love that ever
abideth, but in us growth in grace merits the love of God.

   91. Thou seest, then, how God has given grace to men, and dost thou
wish to dissever the natural and indivisible love of the Father and the
Son? And dost thou still strive to make nothing of words, where thou dost
note the mention of a unity of majesty?

   92. Consider the whole of this passage, and see from what standpoint He
speaks; for thou hearest Him saying: "Father, glorify Thou Me with the
glory which I had with Thee before the world was."(5) See how He speaks
from the standpoint of the first man. For He begs for us in that request
those things which, as Man, He remembered were granted in paradise before
the Fall, as also He spoke of it to the thief at His Passion: "Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, today shall thou be with Me in paradise."(6) This
is the glory before the world was. But He used the word "world" instead
"men," as also thou hast it: "Lo! the whole world goeth after Him;"(1) and
again "That the world may know that Thou hast sent Me."(2)

   93. But that thou mightest know the great God, even the life-giving and
Almighty Son of God, He has added a proof of His majesty by saying: "And
all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine."(3) He has all things, and dost
thou turn aside the fact that He was sent, to wrong Him?

   94. But if thou dost not accept the truth of His mission according to
the flesh, as the Apostle spoke of it,(4) and dost raise out of a mere word
a decision against it, to enable thee to say that inferiors are wont to be
sent by superiors; what answer wilt thou give to the fact that the Son was
sent to men? For if thou dost think that he who is sent is inferior to him
by whom he is sent, thou must learn also that an inferior has sent a
superior, and that superiors have been sent to inferiors. For Tobias sent
Raphael the archangel,(5) and an angel was sent to Balsam,(6) and the Son
of God to the Jews.

   95. Or was the Son of God inferior to the Jews to whom He was sent? For
of Him it is written: "Last of all He sent unto them His only Son, saying,
They will reverence My Son."(7) And mark that He mentioned first the
servants, then the Son, that thou mayest know that God, the only-begotten
Son according to the power of His Godhead, has neither name nor lot in
common with servants. He is sent forth to be reverenced, not to be compared
with the household.

   96. And rightly did He add the word "My," that we might believe He
came, not as one of many, nor as one of a lower nature or of some inferior
power, but as true from Him that is true, as the Image of the Father's
Substance.

   97. Suppose, however, that he who is sent is inferior to him by whom he
is sent. Christ then was inferior to Pilate; for Pilate sent Him to Herod.
But a word does not prejudice His power. Scripture, which says that He was
sent from the Father, says that He was sent from a ruler.

   98. Wherefore, if we sensibly hold to those things which be worthy of
the Son of God, we ought to understand Him to have been sent in such a way
that the Word of God, out of the incomprehensible and ineffable mystery of
the depths of His majesty, gave Himself for comprehension to our minds, so
far as we could lay hold of Him, not only when He "emptied" Himself, but
also when He dwelt in us, as it is written: "I will dwell in them."(1)
Elsewhere also it stands that God said: "Go to, let us go down and confound
their language."(2) God, indeed, never descends from any place; for He
says: "I fill heaven and earth."(3) But He seems to descend when the Word
of God enters our hearts, as the prophet has said: "Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make His paths straight."(4) We are to do this, so that, as He
Himself promised, He may come together with the Father and make His abode
with us.(5) It is clear, then, how He comes.

CHAPTER VIII.

Christ, so far as He is true Son of God, has no Lord, but only so far as He
is Man; as is shown by His words in which He addressed at one time the
Father, at another the Lord. How many heresies are silenced by one verse of
Scripture! We must distinguish between the things that belong to Christ as
Son of God or as Son of David. For under the latter title only must we
ascribe it to Him that He was a servant. Lastly, he points out that many
passages cannot be taken except as referring to the Incarnation.

   99. Wherefore also it is plain how He calls Him Lord, Whom He knew as
Father. For He says: "I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and
earth."(6) First Wisdom spoke of His own Father, and then proclaimed Him
Lord of creation. For this reason the Lord shows in His Gospel that no
lordship is exercised where there is a true offspring, saying: "What think
ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The son of David. Jesus
saith to them, How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: The
Lord said unto my Lord: Sit Thou on My right hand"? Then he added: "If
David in spirit then call Him Lord. how is He his son? And no man was able
to answer Him a word."(7)

   100. With what care did the Lord provide for the faith in this witness
because of the Arians! For He did not say: "The spirit calls Him Lord," but
that "David spake in spirit;" in order that men might believe that as He is
his, that is, David's son according to the flesh, so also He is his Lord
and God according to His Godhead. Thou seeest, then, that there is a
distinction between the titles that are used of relationship and of
lordship.

   101. And rightly did the Lord speak of His own Father, but of the Lord
of heaven and earth; so that thou, when thou readest of the Father and the
Lord, mayest understand it is the Father of the Son, and the Lord of
Creation. In the one title rests the claim of nature, in the other the
authority to rule. For taking on Himself the form of a servant, He calls
Him Lord, because He has submitted to service; being equal to Him in the
form of God, but being a servant in the form of His body: for service is
the due of the flesh, but lordship is the due of the Godhead. Wherefore
also the Apostle says: "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
glory,"(1) that is, terming Him God of the adoption of humanity but the
Father of glory. Did God have two Sons, Christ and Glory? Certainly not.
Therefore if there is one Son of God, even Christ, Christ is Glory. Why
dost thou strive to belittle Him who is the glory of the Father?

   102. If then the Son is glory, and the Father is glory (for the Father
of glory cannot be anything else than glory), there is no separation of
glories, but glory is one. Thus glory is referred to its own proper nature,
but lordship to the service of the body that was assumed. For if the flesh
is subject to the soul of a just man as it is written: "I chastise my body
and bring it into subjection;"(2) how much more is it subject to the
Godhead, of Which it is said: "For all things serve Thee"?(3)

   103. By one question the Lord has shut out both Sabellians and
Photinians and Arians. For when He said that the Lord spoke to the Lord,
Sabellius is set aside, who will have it that the same Person is both
Father and Son. Photinus is set aside, who thinks of Him merely as man; for
none could be Lord of David the King, but He Who is God, for it is written:
"Thou shalt worship the Lord 'thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."(4)
Would the prophet who ruled under the Law act contrary to the Law? Arius is
set aside, who hears that the Son sits on the right hand of the Father; so
that if he argues from human ways, he refutes himself, and makes the poison
of his blasphemous arguments to flow back upon himself. For in interpreting
the inequality of the Father and the Son by the analogy of human habits
(wandering from the truth in either case), he puts Him first Whom he makes
little of, confessing Him to be the First, Whom he hears to be at the right
hand. The Manichaean also is set aside, for he does not deny that He is the
Son of David according to the flesh, Who, at the cry of the blind men,
"Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us,"' was pleased at their faith
and stood and healed them. But He does deny that this refers to His
eternity, if He is called Son of David alone by those who are false.

   104. For "Son of God" is against Ebion,(2) "Son of David," is against
the Manichees; 3 "Son of God" is against Photinus,(4) "Son of David" is
against Marcion;(5) "Son of God" is against Paul of Samosata,(6) "Son of
David" is against Valentinus;(7) "Son of God" is against Arius and
Sabellius, the inheritors of heathen errors. "Lord of David "is against the
Jews, who beholding the Son of God in the flesh, in impious madness
believed Him to be only man.

   105. But in the faith of the Church one and the same is both Son of God
the Father and Son of David. For the mystery of the Incarnation of God is
the salvation of the whole of creation, according to that which is written:
"That without God He should taste death for every man;"(8) that is, that
every creature might be redeemed without any suffering at the price of the
blood of the Lord's Divinity, as it stands elsewhere: "Every creature shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption."(9)

   106. It is one thing to be named Son according to the divine Substance,
it is another thing to be so called according to the adoption of human
flesh. For, according to the divine Generation, the Son is equal to God the
Father; and, according to the adoption of a body, He is a servant to God
the Father. "For," it says, "He took upon Him the form of a servant."(10)
The Son is, however, one and the same. On the other hand, according to His
glory, He is Lord to the holy patriarch David, but his Son in the line of
actual descent, not abandoning aught of His own, but acquiring for Himself
the rights that go with the adoption into our race.

   107. Not only does He undergo service in the character of man by reason
of His descent from David, but also by reason of His name, as it is
written: "I have found David My Servant;"(11) and elsewhere: "Behold I will
send unto you My Servant, the Orient is His name.(1) And the Son Himself
says: "Thus saith the Lord, that formed Me from the womb to be His servant,
and said unto Me: It is a great thing for Thee to be called My Servant.
Behold I have set Thee up for a witness to My people, and a light to the
Gentiles, that Thou mayest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."(2)
To whom is this said, if not to Christ? Who being in the form of God,
emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant.(3) But what can be
in the form of God, except that which exists in the fulness of the Godhead?

   108. Learn, then, what this means: "He took upon Him the form of a
servant." It means that He took upon Him all the perfections of humanity in
their completeness, and obedience in its completeness. And so it says in
the thirtieth Psalm: "Thou hast set my feet in a large room. I am made a
reproach above all mine enemies. Make Thy face to shine upon Thy
servant."(4) "Servant" means the Man in whom He was sanctified; it means
the Man in whom He was anointed; it means the Man in whom He was made under
the law, made of the Virgin; and, to put it briefly, it means the Man in
whose person He has a mother, as it is written: "O Lord, I am Thy Servant,
I am Thy Servant, and the Son of Thy hand-maid;"(5) and again: "I am cast
down and sore humbled."(6)

   109. Who is sore humbled, but Christ, Who came to free all through His
obedience? "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."(7) Who received the cup
of salvation? Christ the High Priest, or David who never held the
priesthood, nor endured suffering? Who offered the sacrifice of
Thanksgiving?(8)

   110. But that is insufficient; take again: "Preserve My soul, for I am
holy."(9) Did David say this of himself? Nay, He says it, Who also says:
"Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy
One to see corruption."(10) The Same then says both of these.

   111. He has added further: "Save Thy Servant;"(11) and, further on:
"Give Thy strength to Thy servant, and to the Son of Thy handmaid;"(12)
and, elsewhere, that is, m Ezekiel: "And I will set up one Shepherd over
them, and He shall rule them, even My Servant David. He shall feed them,
and He shall be their Shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My
Servant David a prince among them."(1) Now David the Son of Jesse was
already dead. Therefore he speaks of Christ, Who for our sakes was made the
Son of a handmaiden in the form of man; for according to His divine
Generation He has no Mother, but a Father only: nor is He the fruit of
earthly desire, but the eternal Power of God.

   112. And so, also, when we read that the Lord said: "My time is not yet
full come;"(2) and: "Yet a little while I am with you;" and: "I go unto Him
that sent Me;"(3) and: "Now is the Son of Man glorified;"(4) we ought to
refer all this to the sacrament of the Incarnation. But when we read: "And
God is glorified in Him, and God hath glorified Him;" s what doubt is there
here, where the Son is glorified by the Father, and the Father is glorified
by the Son?

   113. Next, to make clear the faith of the Unity, and the Union of the
Trinity, He also said that He would be glorified by the Spirit, as it
stands: "He shall receive of Mine, and shall glorify Me."(6) Therefore the
Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son of God. How, then, did He say: "If I
glorify Myself, My glory is nothing."(7) Is then the glory of the Son
nothing? It is blasphemy to say so, unless we apply these words to His
flesh; for the Son spoke in the character of man, for by comparison with
the Godhead, there is no glory of the flesh.

   114. Let them cease from their wicked objections which are but thrown
back upon their own falseness. For they say, it is written: "Now is the Son
of Man glorified." I do not deny that it is written: "The Son of Man is
glorified." But let them see what follows:

   "And God is glorified in Him." I can plead some excuse for the Son of
Man, but He has none for His Father; for the Father took not flesh upon
Himself. I can plead an excuse, but do not use it. He has none, and is
falsely attacked. I can either understand it in its plain sense, or I can
apply to the flesh what concerns the flesh. A devout mind distinguishes
between the things which are spoken after the flesh or after the Godhead.
An impious mind turns aside to the dishonour of the Godhead, all that is
said with regard to the littleness of the flesh.

CHAPTER IX.

The saint meets those who in Jewish wise object to the order of the words:
"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the oly Ghost," with the
retort that the Son also is often placed before the Father; though he first
points out that an answer to this objection has been already given by him.

   115. Why is it that the Arians, after the Jewish fashion, are such
false and shameless interpreters of the divine words, going indeed so far
as to say that there is one power of the Father, another of the Son, and
another of the Holy Ghost, since it is written: "Go ye, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost"? And why do they make a distinction of divine power owing to the
mere order of words?

   116. Though I have already given this very witness for a unity of
majesty and name in my former books, yet if they make this the ground of
debate, I can maintain on the testimony of the Scriptures that the Son is
mentioned first in many places, and that the Father is spoken of after Him.
Is it therefore a fact that, because the name of the Son is placed first,
by the mere accident of a word, as the Arians would have it, the Father
comes second to the Son? God forbid, I say, God forbid. Faith knows nothing
of such order as this;it knows nothing of a divided honour of the Father
and the Son. I have not read of, nor heard of, nor found any varying degree
in God. Never have I read of a second, never of a third God. I have read of
a first God,(1) I have heard of a first and only God.

   117. If we pay such excessive regard to order, then the Son ought not
to sit at the right hand of the Father, nor ought He to call Himself the
First and the Beginning. The Evangelist was wrong in beginning with the
Word and not with God, where he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God."(2) For, according to the order of human usage, he
ought to name the Father first. The Apostle also was ignorant of their
order, who says: "Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of Go;"(3) and elsewhere: "The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost."(4) If we follow the order of the words, he has placed the Son
first, and the Father second. But the order of the words is often changed;
and therefore thou oughtest not to question about order or degree, in the
case of God the Father and His Son, for there is no severance of unity in
the Godhead.

CHAPTER X.

The Arians openly take sides with the heathen in attacking the words: "He
that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me," etc. The true meaning of the
passage is unfolded; and to prevent us from believing that the Lord forbade
us to have faith in Him, it is shown how He spoke at one time as God, at
another as Man. After bringing forward examples of various results of that
faith, he shows that certain other passages also must be taken in the same
way.

   118. LAST of all, to show that they are not Christians, they deny that
we are to believe on Christ, saying that it is written: Me that believeth
on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me."(1) I was awaiting
this confession; why did you delude me with your quibbles? I knew I had to
contend with heathens. Nay, they indeed are converted, but ye are not. If
they believe, that the sacrament [of Baptism] is safe; ye have received it,
and destroyed it, or perchance it has never been received, but was
unreal(1) from the first.

   119. It is written, they say: "He that believeth on Me, believeth not
on Me, but on Him that sent Me." But see what follows, and see how the Son
of God wishes to be seen; for it continues: "And he that seeth Me, seeth
Him that sent Me,"(3) for the Father is seen in the Son. Thus, He has
explained what He had spoken earlier, that he who confesses the Father
believes on the Son. For he who knows not the Son, neither knows the
Father. For every one that denies the Son has not the Father, but he that
confesses the Son has both the Father and the Son.(4)

   120. What, then, is the meaning of "Believeth not on Me"? That is, not
on that which you can perceive in bodily form, nor merely on the man whom
you see. For He has stated that we are to believe not merely on a man, but
that thou mayest believe that Jesus Christ Himself is both God and Man.
Wherefore, for both reasons He says: "I came not from Myself;"(3) and
again: "I am the beginning, of which also I speak to you."(6) As Man He
came not from Himself; as Son of God He takes not His beginning from men;
but "I am," He says, "Myself 'the beginning of which also I speak to you.'
Neither are the words which I speak human,' but divine."

   121. Nor is it right to believe that He denied we were to believe on
Him, since He Himself said: "That whosoever believeth on Me should not
abide in darkness;"(1) and in another place again: "For this is the will of
My Father that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on
Him, may have eternal life;"(2) and again: "Ye believe in God, believe also
in Me."(3)

   122. Let no one, therefore, receive the Son without the Father, because
we read of the Son. The Son hath the Father, but not in a temporal sense,
nor by reason of His passion, nor owing to His conception, nor by grace. I
have read of His Generation, I have not read of His Conception. And the
Father says: "I have begotten;"(4) He does not say: "I have created." And
the Son calls not God His Creator in the eternity of His divine Generation,
but Father.

   123. He represents Himself also now in the character of man, now in the
majesty of God; now claiming for Himself oneness of Godhead with the
Father, now taking upon Him all the frailty of human flesh; now saying that
He has not His own doctrine, and now that He seeks not His own will; now
pointing out that His testimony is not true, and now that it is true. For
He Himself has said: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not
true."(5) Later on He says: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is
true."(6)

   124. And how is Thy testimony, Lord Jesus, not true? Did not he who
believed it, though he hung upon the cross, and paid the penalty for the
crime he owned to, cast aside the deserts of the robber and gain the reward
of the innocent?(7)

   125. Was Paul deceived, who received his sight, because he believed;(8)
which sight he had lost, before he believed?

   126. And did Joshua, the son of Nun, err in recognizing the leader of
the heavenly host?(9) But after he believed, be forthwith conquered, being
found worthy to triumph in the battle of faith. Again, he did not lead
forth his armed ranks into the fight, nor did he overthrow the ramparts of
the enemy's walls, with battering rams or other engines of war, but with
the sound of the seven trumpets of the priests. Thus the blare of the
trumpet and the badge of the priest brought a cruel war to an end.

   127. A harlot saw this; and she who in the destruction of the city lost
all hope of any means of safety, because her faith had conquered, bound a
scarlet thread in her window, and thus uplifted a sign of her faith and the
banner of the Lord's Passion;(1) so that the semblance of the mystic blood,
which should redeem the world, might be in memory. So, without, the name of
Joshua was a sign of victory to those who fought; within, the semblance of
the Lord's Passion was a sign of salvation to those in danger. Wherefore,
because Rahab understood the heavenly mystery, the Lord says in the Psalm:
"I will be mindful of Rahab and Babylon that know Me."(2)

   128. How, then, is Thy testimony not true, O Lord, except it be given
in accordance with the frailty of man? For "every man is a liar."(3)

   129. Lastly, to prove that He spoke as man, He says: "The Father that
sent Me, He beareth witness of Me."(4) But His testimony as God is true, as
He Himself says: "My record is true: for I know whence I come, and whither
I go, but ye know not whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the
flesh."(5) They judge then not after the Godhead but after the manhood, who
think that Christ had not the power of bearing witness.

   130. Therefore, when thou hearest: "He that believeth, believeth not on
Me;" or: "The Father that sent Me, He gave Me a commandment;"(6) thou hast
now learnt whither thou oughtest to refer those words. Lastly, He shows
what the commandment is, saying: "I lay down My life, that I may take it
again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself."(7) Thou
seest, then, what is said so as to show He had full power to lay down or to
take up His life; as He also said: "I have power to lay it down, and I have
power again to take it up. This commandment have I received of My
Father."(8)

   131. Whether, then, a command, or, as some Latin manuscripts have it, a
direction was given, it was certainly not given to Him as God, but as
incarnate man, with reference to the victory He should gain in undergoing
His Passion.

CHAPTER XI.

We must refer the fact that Christ is said to speak nothing of Himself, to
His human nature. After explaining how it is fight to say that He hears and
sees the Father as being God, He shows conclusively, by a large number of
proofs, that the Son of God is not a creature.

   132. Are we indeed to bring the Son of God to such a low estate that He
may not know how to act or speak, except as He hears, and are we to suppose
that a fixed measure of action or of speech is assigned to Him, because it
is written: "I speak not of Myself," and, further on: "As the Father hath
said unto Me, even so I speak"?(1) But those words have reference to the
obedience of the flesh, or else to the faith in the Unity. For many learned
men allow that the Son hears, and that the Father speaks to the Son through
the unity of their Nature; for that which the Son, through the unity of
their will, knows that the Father wills, He seems to have heard.

   133. Whereby is meant no personal duty, but an indivisible sentence of
co-operation. For this does not signify any actual hearing of words, but
the unity of will and of power, which exists both in the Father and in the
Son. He has stated that this exists also in the Holy Spirit, in another
place, saying, "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall
hear, that shall He speak,"(2) so that we may learn that whatsoever the
Spirit says, the Son also says; and whatsoever the Son says, the Father
says also; for there is one mind and one mode of working in the Trinity.
For, as the Father is seen in the Son, not indeed in bodily appearance, but
in the unity of the Godhead, so also the Father speaks in the Son, not with
a voice of earth, not with a human sound, but in the unity of Their work.
So when He had said: "The Father that dwelleth in Me, He speaketh; and the
works that I do, He doeth;"(3) He added: "Believe Me, that I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe Me for the very work's
sake."(4)

   134. This is what we understand according to the whole course of the
holy Scriptures; but the Arians, who will not think of God the things that
be right, may be put to silence by an example just suited to their deserts;
that they may not believe everything in carnal fashion, since they
themselves do not see the works of their father the devil with bodily eyes.
So the Lord has declared of their fellows the Jews, saying: "Ye do what ye
have seen your father doing;"(1) though they are reproved not because they
saw the work of the devil, but because they did his will, since the devil
unseen works out sin in them in accordance with their own wickedness, We
have written this, as the Apostle did, because of the folly of these
traitors.(2)

   135. But we have sufficiently proved by examples from Scripture that it
is a property of the unity of the divine majesty that the Father should
abide in the Son, and that the Son should seem to have heard from the
Father those things which He speaks. How else can we understand the unity
of majesty than by the knowledge that the same deference is paid to the
Father and the Son? For what can be better put than the Apostle's saying
that the Lord of glory was crucified?(3)

   136. The Son then is the God of glory and the Lord of glory, but glory
is not subject to creatures; the Son therefore is not a creature.

   137. The Son is the Image of the Father's Substance;(4) but every
creature is unlike that divine Substance, but the Son of the Father is not
unlike God; therefore the Son is not a creature.

   138. The Son thought it not robbery to be equal with God;(5) but no
creature is equal with God, the Son, however, is equal; therefore the Son
is not a creature.

   139. Every creature is changeable; but the Son of God is not
changeable; therefore the Son of God is not a creature.

   140. Every creature meets with chance occurrences of good and evil
after the powers of its nature, and also feels their passing away; but
nothing can pass away from or bring addition to the Son of God in His
Godhead; therefore the Son of God is not a creature.

   141. Every work of His God will bring into judgment;(6) but the Son of
God is not brought into judgment; for He Himself judges; therefore the Son
of God is not a creature.

   142. Lastly, that thou mayest understand the unity, the Saviour in
speaking of His sheep says: "No man is able to pluck them out of My hand.
My Father Which gave them to Me is greater than all, and no man is able to
pluck them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one."(7)

143. So the Son gives life as does the Father. "For as the Father raiseth
up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He
will."(1) So the Son raises up as does the Father: so too the Son preserves
as does the Father. He Who is not unequal in grace, how is He unequal in
power? So also the Son does not destroy, as neither does the Father.
Therefore lest any one should believe there were two Gods, or should
imagine a diversity of power, He said that He was one with His Father. How
can a creature say that? Therefore the Son of God is not a creature.

   144. It is not the same thing to rule as to serve; but Christ is both a
King and the Son of a King. The Son of God therefore is not a servant.
Every creature, however, gives service. But the Son of God, Who makes
servants become the sons of God, does not give service. Therefore the Son
of God is not a servant.

CHAPTER XII.

He confirms what has been already said, by the parable of the rich man who
went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom; and shows that
when the Son delivers up the kingdom to the Father, we must not regard the
fact that the Father is said to put all things in subjection under Him, in
a disparaging way. Here we are the kingdom of Christ, and in Christ's
kingdom. Hereafter we shall be in the kingdom of God, where the Trinity
will reign together.

   145. Is divine fashion has He represented that parable of the rich man,
who went to a far-off country to receive a kingdom, and to return,(2) thus
describing Himself in the substance of the Godhead, and of His Manhood. For
He being rich in the fulness of His Godhead, Who was made poor for us
though He was rich and an eternal King," and the Son of an eternal King;
He, I say, went to a foreign country in taking on Him a body, for He
entered upon the ways of men as though upon a strange journey, and came
into this world to preparefor Himself a kingdom from amongst us.

   146. Jesus therefore came to this earth to receive for Himself a
kingdom from us, to whom He says: "The kingdom of God is within you."(3)
This is the kingdom which Christ has received, this the kingdom which He
has delivered to the Father. For how did He receive for Himself a kingdom,
Who was a King eternal? "The Son of Man therefore came to receive a kingdom
and to return." The Jews were unwilling to acknowledge Him, of whom He
says: "They which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and
slay them."(1)

   147. Let us follow the course of the Scriptures. He Who came will
deliver up the kingdom to God the Father; and when He has delivered up the
kingdom, then also shall He be subject to Him, Who has put all things in
subjection under Him, that God may be all in all.(2) If the Son of God has
received the kingdom as Son of Man, surely as Son of Man also He will
deliver up what He has received. If He delivers it up as Son of Man, as Son
of Man He confesses His subjection indeed under the conditions of the
flesh, and not in the majesty of His Godhead.

   148. And dost thou make objections and contemn Him, because God has put
all things in subjection under Him, when thou hearest that the Son of Man
delivers up the kingdom to God, and hast read, as we said in our earlier
books: "No man can come to Me, except the Father draw him; and I will raise
him up at the last day"?(3) If we follow it literally, see rather and
notice the unity of honour each gives to other: The Father has put all
things in subjection under the Son, and the Son delivers the kingdom to the
Father. Say now which is  the greater, to deliver up, or to raise up to
life?  Do we not after human fashion speak of the service of delivering up,
and the power of raising to life? But both the Son delivers up to the
Father, and also the Father to the Son. The Son raises to life, and the
Father also raises to life, Let them create the fiction of a blasphemous
division where there is a unity of power.

   149. Let the Son then deliver up His kingdom to the Father. The kingdom
which He delivers up is not lost to Christ, hut grows. We are the kingdom,
for it was said to us: "The kingdom of God is within you."(4) And we are
the kingdom, first of Christ, then of the Father; as it is written: "No man
cometh to the Father, but by Me."(5) When I am on the way, I am Christ's;
when I have passed through, I am the Father's; but everywhere through
Christ, and everywhere under Him.

   150. It is a good thing to be in the kingdom of Christ, so that Christ
may be with us; as He Himself says: "Lo I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world."(6) But it is better to be with Christ: "For to depart
and be with Christ is far better."(1) Though we are under sin in this
world, Christ is with us, that "by the obedience of one man many may be
made just."(2) And if I escape the sin of this world, I shall begin to be
with Christ. And so He says: "I will come again, and receive you unto
Myself;"(3) and further on: "I will that where I am, there ye may be also
with Me."(4)

   151. Therefore we are now under Christ's rule, whilst we are in the
body, and are not yet stripped of the form of a servant, which He put upon
Him, when He "emptied Himself." But when we shall see His glory, which He
had before the world was, we shall be in the kingdom of God, in which are
the patriarchs and prophets, of whom it is written: "When ye shall see
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God;"(5)
and shall thus acquire a deeper knowledge of God.

   152. But in the kingdom of the Son the Father also reigns; and in the
kingdom of the Father the Son also reigns: for the Father is in the Son,
and the Son in the Father; and in whomsoever the Son dwells, in him also
the Father dwells; and in whomsoever the Father dwells, in him also the Son
dwells, as it is written: "Both I and My Father will come to Him, and make
Our abode with Him."(6) Thus as there is one dwelling, so also there is one
kingdom. Yea, and so far is the kingdom of the Father and of the Son but
one, that the Father receives what the Son delivers, and the Son does not
lose what the Father receives. Thus in the one kingdom there is a unity of
power. Let no one therefore sever the Godhead between the Father and the
Son.

CHAPTER XIII.

With the desire to learn what subjection to Christ means after putting
forward and rejecting various ideas of subjection, he runs through the
Apostle s words; and so puts an end to the blasphemous opinions of the
heretics on this matter. The subjection, which is shown to be future,
cannot concern the Godhead, since there has always been the greatest
harmony of wills between the Father and the Son. Also to that same Son in
His Godhead all things have indeed been made subject; but they are said to
be not yet subject to Him in this sense, because all men do not obey His
commands. But after that they have been made subject, then shall Christ
also be made subject in them, and the Father's work be perfected.

   153. But if the one name and right of God belong to both the Father and
the Son, since the Son of God is also true God, and a King eternal, the Son
of God is not made subject in His Godhead. Let us then, Emperor Augustus,
think how we ought to regard His subjection.

   154. How is the Son of God made subject? As the creature to vanity? But
it is blasphemous to have any such idea of the Substance of the Godhead.

   155. Or as every creature is to the Son of God, for it is rightly
written: "Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet"?(1) But
Christ is not made subject to Himself.

   156. Or as a woman to a man, as we read: "Let the wives be subject to
their husbands;"(2) and again: "Let the woman learn in silence in all
subjection"?(3) But it is impious to compare a man to the Father, or a
woman to the Son of God.

   157. Or as Peter said: "Submit yourselves to every human creature"?(4)
But Christ was certainly not so subject.

   158. Or as Paul wrote: "Submitting yourselves mutually to God and the
Father in the fear of Christ"?(5) But Christ was not subject either in His
own fear, nor in the fear of another Christ. For Christ is but one. But
note the force of these words, that we are subject to the Father, whilst we
also fear Christ.

   159. How, then, do we understand His subjection? Shall we review the
whole chapter which the Apostle wrote, so as to give no appearance of
having falsely withheld anything, or of having weakened its force with
intention to deceive? "If in this life only," he says, "we have hope in
Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But if Christ is risen from the
dead, He is the first-fruits of them that sleep."(6) Ye see how he
discusses the question of Christ's Resurrection.

   160. "' For since by one man,'" he says, "came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the
firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's, who have believed in His
coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to
God,even the Father, when He shall have put down all rule and authority and
power. For He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet. The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death; for He hath put all things
under His feet. But when He saith, all things are put under Him, it is
manifest that He is excepted Which did put all things under Him. But when
all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be
subject unto Him, that put all things under Him, that God may be all in
all."(1) Thus also the same Apostle said to the Hebrews: "But now we see
not yet all things put under Him."(2) We have heard the whole of the
Apostle's discourse.

   161. How, then, do we speak of His subjection? The Sabellians and
Marcionites say that this subjection of Christ to God the Father will be in
such wise that the Son will be re-absorbed into the Father. If, then, the
subjection of the Word means that God the Word is to be absorbed into the
Father; then whatsoever is made subject to the Father and the Son will be
absorbed into the Father and the Son, that God may be all and in all His
creatures. But it is foolish to say so. There is therefore no subjection
through re-absorption. For there are other things which are made subject,
those, that is to say, which are created, and there is Another, to Whom
that subjection is made. Let the expounders of a cruel re-absorption keep
silence.

   162. Would that they too were silent, who, as they cannot prove that
the Word of God and Wisdom of God can be re-absorbed, attribute the
weakness of subjection to His Godhead, saying that it is written: "But when
all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be
subject unto Him."(3)

   163. We see, then, that the Scripture states that He is not yet made
subject, but that this is to come: Therefore now the Son is not made
subject to God the Father. In what, then, do ye say that the Son will be
made subject? If in His Godhead, He is not disobedient, for He is not at
variance with the Father; nor is He made subject, for He is not a servant,
but the only Son of His own proper Father. Lastly, when He created heaven,
and formed the earth, He exercised both power and love. There is therefore
no subjection as that of a servant in the Godhead of Christ. But if there
is no subjection then the will is free.

   164. But if they think of this as the subjection of the Son, namely,
that the Father makes all things in union with His will, let them learn
that this is really a proof of inseparable power. For the unity of Their
will is one that began not in time, but ever existed. But where there is a
constant unity of will, there can be no weakness of temporal subjection.
For if He were made subject through His nature, He would always remain m
subjection; but since He is said to be made subject in time, that
subjection must be part of an assumed office and not of an everlasting
weakness: especially as the eternal Power of God cannot change His state
for a time, neither can the right of ruling fall to the Father in time. For
if the Son ever will be changed in such wise as to be made subject in His
Godhead, then also must God the Father, if ever He shall gain more power,
and have the Son in subjection to Himself in His Godhead, be considered now
in the meantime inferior according to your explanation.

   165. But what fault has the Son been guilty of, that we should believe
that He could hereafter be made subject in His Godhead? Has he as man
seized for Himself the right to sit at His Father's side, or has He claimed
for Himself the prerogative of His Father's throne, against His Father's
will? But He Himself says: "For I do always those things that please
Him."(1) Therefore if the Son pleases the Father in all things, why should
He be made subject, Who was not made subject before?

   166. Let us see then that there be not a subjection of the Godhead, but
rather of us in the fear of Christ, a truth so full of grace, and so full
of mystery. Wherefore, again, let us weigh the Apostle's words: "But when
all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be
subject unto Him that put all things under Him: that God may be all in
all." What then dost thou say? Are not all things now subject unto Him? Are
not the choirs of the saints made subject? Are not the angels, who
ministered to Him when on the earth."(2) Are not the archangels who were
sent to Mary to foretell the coming of the Lord? Are not all the heavenly
hosts? Are not the cherubim and seraphim, are not thrones and dominions and
powers which worship and praise Him?

   167. How, then, will they be brought into subjection? In the way that
the Lord Himself has said. "Take My yoke upon you."(3) It is not the fierce
that bear the yoke, but the humble and the gentle. This clearly is no base
subjection for men, but a glorious one: "that in the Name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven and things beneath; and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the
Father."(1) But for this reason all things were not made subject before,
for they had not yet received the wisdom of God, not yet did they wear the
easy yoke of the Word on the neck as it were of their mind. "But as many as
received Him," as it is written, "to them gave He power to become the sons
of God."(2)

   168. Will any one say that Christ is now made subject, because many
have believed? Certainly not. For Christ's subjection lies not in a few but
in all. For just as I do not seem to be brought into subjection, if the
flesh in me as yet lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh,(3) although I am in part subdued; so because the whole Church is the
one body of Christ, we divide Christ as long as the human race disagrees.
Therefore Christ is not yet made subject, for His members are not yet
brought into subjection. But when we have become, not many members, but one
spirit, then He also will become subject, in order that through His
subjection "God may be all and in all."

   169. But as Christ is not yet made subject, so is the work of God not
yet perfected; for the Son of God said: "My meat is to do the will of My
Father that sent Me, and to finish His work."(4) What manner of doubt is
there that the subjection of the Son in me iS still in the future, in whom
the work of the Father is unfinished, because I myself am not yet perfect?
I, who make the work of God to be unfinished, do I make the Son of God to
be in subjection? But that is not a matter of wrong, it is a matter of
grace. For in so far as we are made subject, it is to our profit, not to
that of the Godhead, that we are made subject to the law, that we are made
subject to grace. For formerly, as the Apostle himself has said, the wisdom
of the flesh was at enmity with God, for "it was not made subject to the
law,"(5) but now it is made subject through the Passion of Christ.

CHAPTER XIV.

He continues the discussion of the difficulty he has entered upon, and
teaches that Christ is not subject but only according to the flesh. Christ,
however, whilst in subjection in the Flesh, still gave proofs of His
Godhead. He combats the idea that Christ is made subject in This. The
humanity indeed, which He adopted, has been so far made subject in us, as
ours has been raised in that very humanity of His. Lastly, we are taught,
when that same subjection of Christ will take place.

   170. However, lest anyone should cavil, see what care Scripture takes
under divine  inspiration. For it shows to us in what Christ is made
subject to God, whilst it also teaches us in what He made the universe
subject to Himself. And so it says: "Now we see not yet all things put
under Him."(1) For we see Jesus made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death.(2) It shows therefore that He was made lower in taking
on Him our flesh. What then hinders Him from openly showing His subjection
in taking on Him our flesh, through which He subjects all things to
Himself, whilst He Himself is made subject in it to God the Father?

   171. Let us then think of His subjection. "Father," He says, "if Thou
be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will but Thine be
done."(3) Therefore that subjection will be according to the assumption of
human nature; as we read: "Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled
Himself, being made obedient unto death."(4) The subjection therefore is
that of obedience; the obedience is that of death; the death is that of the
assumed humanity; that subjection therefore will be the subjection of the
assumed humanity. Thus in no wise is there a weakness in the Godhead, but
there is such a discharge of pious duty as this.

   172. See how I do not fear their intentions. They allege that He must
be subject to God the Father, I say He was subject to Mary His Mother. For
it is written of Joseph and Mary: "He was subject unto them."(5) But if
they think so, let them say how the Deity was made subject to men.

   173. Let not the fact that He is said to have been made subject work
against Him, Who receives no hurt from the fact that He is called a
servant, or is stated to have been crucified, or is spoken of as dead. For
when He died He lived; when He was made subject He was reigning; when He
was buried He revived again. He offered Himself in subjection to human
power, yet at another time He declared He was the Lord of eternal glory. He
was before the judge, yet claimed for Himself a throne at the right hand of
God, as Judge forever. For thus it is written: "Hereafter ye shall see the
Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the
clouds of heaven."(1) He was scourged by the Jews, and commanded the
angels; He was born of Mary under the law;(2) He was before Abraham above
the law. On the cross He was revered by nature; the sun fled; the earth
trembled; the angels became silent. Could the elements see the Generation
of Him Whose Passion they feared to see? And will they uphold the
subjection of an adorable Nature in Him, in Whom they could not endure the
subjection of the body?

   174. But since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one
Nature, the Father certainly will not be in subjection to Himself. And
therefore the Son will not be in subjection in that in which He is one with
the Father; test it should seem that through the unity of the Godhead the
Father also is in subjection to the Son. Therefore, as upon that cross it
was not the fulness of the Godhead, but our weakness that was brought into
subjection, so also will the Son hereafter become subject to the Father in
the participation of our nature, in order that when the lusts of the flesh
are brought into subjection the heart may have no care for riches, or
ambition, or pleasures; but that God may be all to us, if we live after His
image and likeness, as far as we can attain to it, through all.

   175. The benefit has passed, then, from the individual to the
community; for in His flesh He has tamed the nature of all human flesh.
Thus, according to the Apostle: "As we have borne the image of the earthly,
so also shall we bear the image of the heavenly."(3) This thing certainly
cannot come to pass except in the inner man. Therefore, "laying aside all
these," that is those things which we read of: "anger, malice, blasphemy,
filthy communication;"(4) as he also says below: "Let us, having put off
the old man with his deeds, put on the new man, which is renewed in
knowledge after the image of Him that created Him."(5)

   176. And that thou mightest know that when he says: "That God may be
all in all," he does not separate Christ from God the Father, he also says
to the Colossians: "Where there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek,
Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all."(6) So
also saying to the Corinthians: "That God may be all and in all," he
comprehended in that the unity and equality of Christ with God the Father,
for the Son is not separated from the Father. And in like manner as the
Father worketh all and in all, so also Christ worketh all in all. If, then,
Christ also worketh all in all, He is not made subject in the glory of the
Godhead, but in us. But how is He made subject in us, except in the way in
which He was made lower than the angels, I mean in the sacrament of His
body? For all things which served their Creator from their first beginning
seemed not as yet to be made subject to Him in that.

   177. But if thou shouldst ask how He was made subject in us, He Himself
shows us, saying: "I was in prison, and ye came unto Me; I was sick, and ye
visited Me: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these ye
have done it unto Me."(1) Thou hearest of Him as sick and weak, and art not
moved. Thou hearest of Him in subjection, and art moved, though He is sick
and weak in Him in whom He is in subjection, in whom He was made sin and a
curse for us.

   178. As, then, He was made sin and a curse not on His own account but
on ours, so He became subject in us not for His own sake but for ours,
being not in subjection in His eternal Nature, nor accursed in His eternal
Nature. "For cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."(2) Cursed He was,
for He bore our curses; in subjection, also, for He took upon Him our
subjection, but in the assumption of the form of a servant, not in the
glory of God; so that whilst he makes Himself a partaker of our weakness in
the flesh, He makes us partakers of the divine Nature in His power. But
neither in one nor the other have we any natural fellowship with the
heavenly Generation of Christ, nor is there any subjection of the Godhead
in Christ. But as the Apostle has said that on Him through that flesh which
is the pledge of our salvation, we sit in heavenly places,(3) though
certainly not sitting ourselves, so also He is said to be subject in us
through the assumption of our nature.

   179. For who is so mad as to think, as we have said already,(4) that a
seat of honour is due to Him at the right hand of God the Father, when that
is granted to Christ according to the flesh by the Father of His
Generation, even a seat of a heavenly and equal power? The angels worship,
and dost thou attempt to overthrow the throne of God with impious
presumption?

   180. It is written, thou sayest, that "when we were dead in sins, He
hath quickened us in Christ, by Whose grace ye are saved, and hath raised
us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus. I acknowledge that it is so written; but it is not written that God
suffers men to sit on His right hand, but only to sit there in the Person
of Christ. For He is the foundation of all, and is the head of the
Church,(2) in Whom our common nature according to the flesh has merited the
right to the heavenly throne. For the flesh is honoured as having a share
in Christ Who is God, and the nature of the whole human race is honoured as
having a share in the flesh.

   181. As we then sit in Him by fellowship in our fleshly nature, so also
He, Who through the assumption of our flesh was made a curse for us (seeing
that a curse could not fall upon the blessed Son of God), so, I say, He
through the obedience of all will become subject in us; when the Gentile
has believed, and the Jew has acknowledged Him Whom he crucified; when the
Manichaean has worshipped Him, Whom he has not believed to have come in the
flesh; when the Arian has confessed Him to be Almighty, Whom he has denied;
when, lastly, the wisdom of God, His justice, peace, love, resurrection, is
in all. Through His own works and through the manifold forms of virtues
Christ will be in us in subjection to the Father. And when, with vice
renounced and crime at an end, one spirit in the heart of all peoples has
begun to cleave to God in all things, then will God be all and in all.(3)

CHAPTER XV.

He briefly takes up again the same points of dispute, and shrewdly
concludes from the unity of the divine power in the Father and the Son,
that whatever is said of the subjection of the Son is to be referred to His
humanity alone. He further confirms this on proof of the love, which exists
alike in either.

   182. Let us then shortly sum up our conclusion on the whole matter. A
unity of power puts aside all idea of a degrading subjection. His giving up
of power, and His victory as conqueror won over death, have not lessened
His power. Obedience works out subjection. Christ has taken obedience upon
Himself, obedience even to taking on Him our flesh, the cross even to
gaining our salvation. Thus where the work lies, there too is the Author of
the work. When therefore, all things have become subject to Christ, through
Christ's obedience, so that all bend their knees in His name, then He
Himself will be all in all. For now, since all do not believe, all do not
seem to be in subjection. But when all have believed and done the will of
God, then Christ will be all and in all. And when Christ is all and in all,
then will God be all and in all; for the Father abides ever in the Son.
How, then, is He shown to be weak, Who redeemed the weak?

   183. And lest thou shouldst by chance attribute to the weakness of the
Son, that it is written, that God hath put all things in subjection under
Him; learn that He has Himself brought all things into subjection to
Himself, for it is written: "Our conversation is in heaven, from whence
also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, Who shall change our vile
body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body according to the
working, whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself."(1) Thou has
learnt, therefore, that He can subdue all things unto Himself according to
the working of His Godhead.

   184. Learn now how He receives all things in subjection according to
the flesh, as it is written: "Who wrought in Christ, raising Him from the
dead, and setting Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, above
principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all
things under His feet."(2) According to the flesh then all things are given
to Him in subjection; according to which also He was raised from the dead,
both in His human soul and His rational subjection.

   185. Many nobly interpret that which is written: "Truly my soul will be
in subjection to God;"(3) He said soul not Godhead, soul not glory. And
that we might know that the Lord has spoken through the prophet of the
adoption of our human nature, He added: "How long will ye cast yourselves
upon a man?"(4) As also He says in the Gospel: "Why do ye seek to kill Me,
a man?"(5) And He added again: "Nevertheless they desired to refuse My
price, they ran in thirst, they blessed with their mouth, and cursed with
their heart."(6) For the Jews, when Judas brought back the price,(7) would
not receive it, running on in the thirst of madness, for they refused the
grace of a spiritual draught.

   186. This is the reverent interpretation of subjection, for since this
is the office of the Lord's Passion, He will be subject in us in that in
which He suffered. Do we ask wherefore? That "neither angels, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any
other creature may separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus."(1) we see then, from what has been said, that no creature is
excepted; but that every one, of whatever kind it may be, is enumerated
among those he mentioned above.

   187. At the same time, we must also think of the words which, after
first saying "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"(2) he wrote
next: "Neither death, nor life, nor any other creature can separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." we see, then, that the love of
God is the same as the love of Christ. Thus it was not without reason that
he wrote of the love of God, "which is in Christ Jesus," lest otherwise
thou mightest imagine that the love of God and of Christ was divided. But
there is nothing that love divides, nothing that the eternal Godhead cannot
do, nothing that is unknown to the Truth, or deceives Justice, or escapes
the notice of Wisdom.

CHAPTER IV.

The Arians are condemned by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David: for
they dare to limit Christ s knowledge. The passage cited by them in proof
of this is by no means free from suspicion of having been corrupted. But to
set this right, we must mark the word "Son." For knowledge cannot fail
Christ as Son of God, since He is Wisdom; nor the recognition of any part,
for He created all things. It is not possible that He, who made the ages,
cannot know the future, much less the day of judgment. Such knowledge,
whether it concerns anything great or small, may not be denied to the Son,
nor yet to the Holy Spirit. Lastly, various proofs are given from which we
can gather that this knowledge exists in Christ.

   188. Wherefore we ought to know that they who make such statements are
accursed and condemned by the Holy Spirit. For whom else but the Arians in
chief does the prophet condemn, seeing that they say that the Son of God
knows neither times nor years. For there is nothing which God is ignorant
of; and Christ, yea the most high Christ, is God, for He is "God over
all."(3)

   189. See how horrified holy David is at such men, in limiting the
knowledge of the Son of God. For thus it is written: "They are not in the
troubles of other men, neither will they be scourged with men; therefore
their pride has laid hold on them; they are covered with their wickedness
and blasphemy; their iniquity hath stood forth as it were with fatness;
they have passed on to the thoughts of their heart. "(1) Truly he condemns
those who think that divine things are to be regarded in the light of the
thoughts of the heart. For God is not subject to arrangement or order;
seeing that we do not perceive even those very things, which are common
among men and often occur in the history of the human race, to turn out
always after the arrangement of some stated rule, but often to happen
suddenly in some secret and mysterious manner.

   190. "They have thought," he says, "and have spoken wickedness. They
have spoken wickedness against the Most High. They have set their mouth
against heaven."(2) We see then that he condemns, as guilty of wicked
blasphemy, those who claim for themselves the fight to arrange the heavenly
secrets after the semblance of our human nature.

   191. And they have said: "How hath God known? And is there knowledge in
the Most High?"(3) Do not the Arians echo this daily, saying that all
knowledge cannot exist in Christ? For He, they say, stated that He knew not
the day nor hour. Do they not say, how did He know, while they maintain
that He could not know anything but what He heard and saw, and apply by a
blasphemous interpretation that which concerns the unity of the divine
Nature to weaken His power?

   192. It is written, they say: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no
man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father only."(4) First of all the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain
the words, "neither the Son." But it is not to be wondered at if they who
have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also falsified this passage. The
reason for which it seems to have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long
as it is applied to unfold such blasphemy.

   193. Suppose however that the Evangelist wrote thus. The name of "Son"
embraces both natures. For He is also called Son of Man, so that in the
ignorance attached to the assumption of our nature, He seems not to have
known the day of the judgment to come. For how could the Son of God be
ignorant of the day, seeing that the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge
of God are hidden in Him?(1)

   194. I ask then, whether He had this knowledge by reason of His Being,
or by chance? For all knowledge comes to us either through nature, or by
learning. It is supplied by nature, as for instance to a horse to enable it
to run, or to a fish to enable it to swim. For they do this without
learning. On the other hand, it is by learning that a man is enabled to
swim. For he could not do so unless he had learnt. Since therefore nature
enables dumb animals to do and to know what they have not learnt, why
shouldst thou give an opinion on the Son of God, and say whether He has
knowledge by instruction or by nature? If by instruction, then He was not
begotten as Wisdom, and gradually began to be perfect, but was not always
so. But if He has knowledge by nature, then He was perfect in the
beginning, He came forth perfect from the Father; and so needed no
foreknowledge of the future.

   195. He therefore was not ignorant of the days; for it does not fall to
the lot of the Wisdom of God to know in part and in part to be ignorant.
For how can He who made all things be ignorant of a part, since it is a
less thing to know than to make. For we know many things which we cannot
make, neither do we all know things in the same way but we know them in
part. For a countryman knows the force of the wind and the courses of the
stars in one way--the inhabitant of a city knows them in another way--and a
pilot in yet a third way. But although all do not know all things, they are
said to know them; but He alone knows all things in full, Who made all
things. The pilot knows for how many watches Arcturus continues, what sort
of a rising of Orion he will discover, but he knows nothing of the
connection of the Vergiliae and of the other stars, or of their number or
names, as does He "Who numbers the multitude of stars, and calleth them all
by their names;"(2) Whom indeed the power of His work cannot escape.

   196. How then do you wish the Son of God to have made these things?
Like a signet ring which does not feel the impression it makes? But the
Father made all things in wisdom,(3) that is, He made all things through
the Son, who is the Virtue and Wisdom of God.(4) But it befits such Wisdom
as that to know both the powers and the causes of His own works. Thus the
Creator of all things could not be ignorant of what He did--or be without
knowledge of what He had Himself given. Therefore He knew the day which He
made.

   197. But thou sayest that He knows the present and does not know the
future. Though this is a foolish suggestion, yet that I may satisfy thee on
Scriptural grounds, learn that He made not only what is past, but also what
is future, as it is written: "Who made things to come."(1) Elsewhere too
Scripture says: "By whom also He made the ages, who is the brightness of
His glory and the express Image of His Person."(2) Now the ages are past
and present and future  How then were those made which are future, unless
it is that His active power and knowledge contains within itself the number
of all the ages? For just as He calls the things that are not as though
they were, s so has He made things future as though they were. It cannot
come to pass that they should not be. Those things which He has directed to
be, necessarily will be. Therefore He who has made the things that are to
be, knows them in the way in which they will be.

   198. If we are to believe this about the ages, much more must we
believe it about the day of judgment, on the ground that the Son of God has
knowledge of it, as being already made by Him. For it is written:
"According to Thine ordinance the day will continue."(4) He did not merely
say "the day continues," but even "will continue," so that the things which
are to come might be governed by His ordinance  Does He not know what He
ordered? "He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye
shall He not see?"(5)

   199. Let us however see if by chance there may be some great thing,
which could be beyond the knowledge of its Creator; or at least let them
choose whether they will think of something great and superior to other
things, or something very little and mean. If it is very little and mean,
it is no loss, to speak after our fashion, to know nothing of worthless and
petty things. For as it is a sign of power to know the greatest things, it
seems rather to be a sign of inferior work to look upon what is worth less.
Thus He is freed from fastidiousness, yet is not deprived of His power.

   200. But if they think it a great and important thing to know the day
of judgment: Let them say what is greater or better than God the Father. He
knows God the Father, as He Himself says: "No man knoweth the Father but
the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him."(1) I say, does He
know the Father and yet not know the day? So then ye believe that He
reveals the Father, and yet cannot reveal the day?

   201. Next because you make certain grades, so as to put the Father
before the on, and the Son before the Holy Spirit, tell me whether the Holy
Spirit knew the day of judgment For no thing is written of Him in this
place. You deny it entirely. But what if I show you He knew it? For it is
written: "But God hath revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."(2) Wherefore, because He
searches the deep things of God, since God knows the day of judgment, the
Spirit also knows it. For He knows all that God knows, as also the Apostle
states, saying: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the
Spirit of God."(3) Take heed therefore lest either by denying that the Holy
Spirit knows, you should deny that the Father knows; (For the things of
God, the Spirit of God also knows, but the things which the Spirit of God
does not know, are not the things of God). Or by confessing that the Spirit
of God knows, what you deny that the Son of God knows, you should put the
Spirit before the Son in opposition to your own declaration. But to
hesitate on this point is not only blasphemous but also foolish.

   202. Now consider how knowledge is acquired, and let us show that the
Son Himself proved that He knew the day. For what we know we make clear
either by mention of time or place or signs or persons, or by giving their
order. How then did He not know the day of judgment Who described both the
hour and the place of judgment, and the signs and the cases?

   203. And so thou hast it: "In that hour he which shall be on the
housetop let him not come down to take his goods out of his house, and he
that is in the field, let him likewise not return back."(4) To such a point
in the future did He know the issues of dangers, that He even showed the
means of safety to those in danger.

  204. Could the Lord be ignorant of a day Who Himself said of Himself
that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath?(1)

   205. He has also elsewhere marked out a place, when He said to His
disciples who were showing Him the building of the temple, "Do ye see all
these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon
another which shall not be thrown down."(2)

   206. When questioned also about a sign by His disciples, He answered:
"Take heed that ye be not deceived. For many shall come in My name, saying
I am Christ;"(3) and further on He says: "and great earthquakes shall be in
divers places, and famines, and pestilences, and terrors from heaven, and
there shall be great signs."(4) Thus He has described both persons and
signs.

   207. In what manner He tells that the armies will surround Jerusalem,
or that the times of the Gentiles are to be fulfilled, and in what order,--
all this is disclosed to us by the witness of the Gospel words. Therefore
He knew all things.

CHAPTER XVII.

Christ acted for our advantage in being unwilling to reveal the day of
judgment. This is made plain by other words of our Lord and by a not
dissimilar passage from Paul's writings. Other passages in  which the same
ignorance seems to be attributed to the Father are brought forward to meet
those who are anxious to know why Christ answered His disciples, as though
He did not know. From these Ambrose argues against them that if they admit
ignorance and inability in the Father, they must admit that the same
Substance exists in the Son as in the Father; unless they prefer to accuse
the Son of falsehood; since it belongs neither to Him nor to the Father to
deceive, but the unity of both is pointed out in the passage named.

   208. But we ask for what reason He was unwilling to state the time. If
we ask it, we shall not find it is owing to ignorance, but to wisdom. For
it was not to our advantage to know; in order that we being ignorant of the
actual moments of judgment to come, might ever be as it were on guard, and
set on the watch-tower of virtue, and so avoid the habits of sin; lest the
day of the Lord should come upon us in the midst of our wickedness. For it
is not to our advantage to know but rather to fear the future; for it is
written: "Be not high-minded but fear."(5)

   209. For if He had distinctly stated the day, he would seem to have
laid down a rule of life for that one age which was nearest to the
judgment, and the just man in the earlier times would be more negligent,
and the sinner more free from care. For the adulterer cannot cease from the
desire of committing adultery unless he fears punishment day by day, nor
can the robber forsake the hiding places in the woods where he dwells,
unless he knows punishment is hanging over him day by day. For impurity
generally spurs them on, but fear is irksome to the end.

   210. Therefore I have said that it was not to our advantage to know;
nay, it is to our advantage to be ignorant, that through ignorance we might
fear, through watchfulness be corrected, as He Himself said: "Be ye ready,
for ye know not at what hour the Son of Man cometh."(1) For the soldier
does not know how to watch in the camp unless he knows that war is at hand.

   211. Wherefore at another time also the Lord Himself when asked by his
Apostles (Yes, for they did not understand it as Arius did, but believed
that the Son of God knew the future. For unless they had believed this,
they would never have asked the question.)--the Lord, I say, when asked
when He would restore the kingdom to Israel, did not say that He did not
know, but says: "It is not for you to know the times or years, which the
Father hath put in His own power."(2) Mark what He said: It is not for you
to know! Read again, "It is not for you.' "For you,' He said, not "for Me,"
for now He spoke not according to His own perfection but as was profitable
to the human body and our soul. "For you therefore He said, not "for Me."

   212. Which example the Apostle also followed: "But of the times and
seasons, brethren," he says, "ye have no need that I write unto you."(3)
Thus not even the Apostle himself, the servant of Christ, said that he knew
not the seasons, but that there was no need for the people to be taught;
for they ought ever to be armed with spiritual armour, that the virtue of
Christ may stand forth in each one. But when the Lord says: "Of the times
which the Father hath put in His own power, "(4) He certainly cannot be
without a share in His Father's knowledge, in whose power He is by no means
without a share. For power grows out of wisdom and virtue; and Christ is
both of these.

  213. But you ask, why did He not refuse His disciples as one who knew,
but would not say; and, why did He state instead that neither the angels
nor the Son knew?' I too will ask you why God says in Genesis: "I will go
down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry
that is come unto Me. And if not, that I may know."(2) Why does Scripture
also say of God: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower,
which the sons of men builded."(3) Why also does the prophet say in the
Book of the Psalms: "The Lord looked down upon the children of men, to see
if there were any that did understand, and that did seek God"?(4) Just as
though in one place, if God had not descended, and in the other, if He had
not looked down, He would have been ignorant either of men's work or of
their merits.

   214. But in the Gospel of Luke also thou hast the same, for the Father
says: "What shall I do? I will send My beloved Son; it may be that they
will reverence Him."(5) In Matthew and in Mark thou hast: "But He sent His
only Son, saying: they will reverence My Son;"(6) In one book He says: "It
may be that they will reverence My Son; "(7) and is in doubt as though He
does not know; for this is the language of one in doubt. But in the two
other books He says: "They will reverence My Son;" that is, He declares
that reverence will be shown.

   215. But God can neither be in doubt, nor can He be deceived. For he
only is in doubt, who is ignorant of the future; and he is deceived, who
has predicted one thing, whilst another has happened. Yet what is plainer
than the fact that Scripture states the Father to have said one thing of
the Son, and that the same Scripture proves another think to have taken
place? The Son was beaten, He was mocked, was crucified, and died.(8) He
suffered much worse things in the flesh than those servants who had been
appointed before. Was the Father deceived, or was He ignorant of it, or was
He unable to give help? But He that is true cannot make a mistake; for it
is written: "God is faithful Who doth not lie."(9). How was He ignorant,
Who knows all? What could He not do, Who could do all?

   216. Yet if either He was ignorant, or had not power (for you would
sooner agree to say that the Father did not know than own that the Son
knows), you see from this very fact that the Son is of one Substance with
the Father; seeing that the Son like the Father (to speak in accordance
with your foolish ideas) does not know all things, and cannot do all
things. For I am not so eager or rash in giving praise to the Son as to
dare to say that the Son can do more than the Father; for I make no
distinction of power between the Father and the Son.

   217. But perhaps you say that the Father did not say so, but that the
Son erred about the Father. So now you convict the Son not only of
weakness, but also of blasphemy and lying. However if you do not believe
the Son with regard to the Father, neither may you believe Him with regard
to that. For if He wished to deceive us in saying that the Father was in
doubt as though He knew not what would take place, He wished also to
deceive us about Himself in saying that He did not know the future. It
would be far more endurable for Him to stretch the veil of ignorance in
front of that which He does of His own accord, than that He should seem to
be deluded by a result contrary to what He had foretold in the things He
had declared of His Father.

   218. But neither is the Father deceived not does the Son deceive. It is
the custom of the holy Scriptures to speak thus, as the examples I have
already given, and many others testify, so that God feigns not to know what
He does know. In this then a unity of Godhead, and a unity of character is
proved to exist in the Father and in the Son; seeing that, as God the
Father hides what is known to Him, so also the Son, Who is the image of God
in this respect, hides what is known to Him.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Wishing to give a reason for the Lord's answer to the apostles, he assigns
the one received to Christ's tenderness. Then when another reason is
supplied by others he confesses that it is true; for the Lord spoke it by
reason of His human feelings. Hence he gathers that the knowledge of the
Father and the Son is equal, and that the Son is not inferior to the
Father. After having set beside the text, in which He is said to be
inferior, another whereby He is declared to be equal, he censures the
rashness of the Arians in judging about the Son, and shows that whilst they
wickedly make Him to be inferior, He is rightly called a Stone by Himself.

   219. We have been taught therefore that the Son of God is not ignorant
of the future. If they confess this, I too--that I may now answer why He
declared that neither angels, nor the Son, but only the Father knows--call
to mind His wonted love for His disciples also in this passage, and His
grace, which by its very frequency ought to have been known to all. For the
Lord, filled with deep love for His disciples, when they asked from Him
what He thought unprofitable for them to know, prefers to seem ignorant of
what He knows, rather than to refuse an answer. He loves rather to provide
what is useful for us, than to show His own power.

   220. There are, however, some not so faint-hearted as I. For I would
rather fear the deep things of God, than be wise. There are some, however,
relying on the words: "And Jesus increased in age and in wisdom and in
favour with God and man,"(1) who boldly say, that according to His Godhead
indeed He could not be ignorant of the future, but that in His assumption
of our human state He said that He as Son of Man was in ignorance before
His crucifixion. For when He speaks of the Son, He does not speak as it
were of another; for He Himself is our Lord the Son of God and the Son of a
Virgin. But by a word which embraces both, He guides our mind, so that He
as Son of Man according to His adoption of our ignorance and growth of
knowledge, might be believed as yet not fully to have known all things. For
it is not for us to know the future. Thus He seems to be ignorant in that
state in which He makes progress. For how does He progress according to His
Godhead, in Whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells?(2) Or what is there
which the Son of God does not know, Who said: "Why think ye evil in your
hearts?"(3) How does He not know, of Whom Scripture says: "But Jesus knew
their thoughts"?(4)

   221. This is what others say, but I--to return to my former point,
where I stated it was written of the Father: "It may be they will reverence
My Sen,"--I think indeed this was written in order that the Father, as He
was speaking of men, might also seem to have spoken with human feelings.
But still more am I inclined to think that the Son Who went about with men,
and lived the life of man, and took upon Him our flesh, assumed also our
feelings; so that after our ignorance He might say He knew not, though
there was not anything He did not know. For though He seemed to be a man in
the reality of His body, yet was He Life, and Light, and virtue came out of
Him,(5) to heal the wounds of the injured by the power of His Majesty.

   222. Ye see then that this matter has been solved for you, since the
saying of the Son is referred to the assumption of our state in its
fulness, and it was thus written concerning the Father, in order that you
might cease to cavil at the Son.

   223. There was nothing then of which the Son of God was ignorant, for
there was nothing of which the Father was ignorant. But if the Son was
ignorant of nothing, as we now conclude, let them say in what respect they
wish Him to seem to be inferior. If God has begotten a Son inferior to
Himself, He has granted Him less. If He has granted Him less, He either
wished to give less, or could only give less. But the Father is neither
weak nor envious, seeing that there was neither will nor power before the
Son. For wherein is He inferior, Who has all things even as the Father has
them? He has received all things from the Father by right of His
Generation,(1) and has shown forth the Father wholly by the glory of His
Majesty.

   224. It is written, they say: "For the Father is greater than I."(2) It
is also written: "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God"(3) It is
written again that the Jews wished to kill Him, because He said He was the
Son of God, making Himself equal with God.(4) It is written: "I and My
Father are one."(5) They read "one" they do not read "many." Can He then be
both inferior and equal in the same Nature? Nay, the one refers to His
Godhead, the other to His flesh.

   225. They say He is inferior: I ask who has measured it, who is of so
overweening a heart, as to place the Father and the Son before his judgment
seat to decide upon which is the greater? "My heart is not haughty nor are
mine eyes raised unto vanity,"(6) says David. King David feared to raise
his heart in pride in human affairs, but we raise ours even in opposition
to the divine secrets. Who shall decide about the Son of God? Thrones,
dominions, angels, powers? But archangels give attendance and serve Him,
cherubim and seraphim minister to Him and praise Him. Who then decides
about the Son of God, on reading that the Father Himself knows the Son, but
will not judge Him. "For no man knoweth the Son, but the Father."(7)
"Knoweth" it says, not "judgeth." It is one thing to know, another to
judge. The Father has knowledge in Himself. The Son has no power superior
to Himself. And again: "No man knoweth the Father, but the Son;" and He
Himself knows the Father, as the Father knows Him.

   226. But thou sayest that He said He was inferior, He said also He was
a Stone. Thou sayest more and yet dost impiously attack Him. I say less and
with reverence add to His honour. Thou sayest He is inferior and confessest
Him to be above the angels. I say He is less than the angels, yet do not
take from His honour; for I do not refute His Godhead, but I do proclaim
His pity.

CHAPTER XIX.

The Saint having turned to God the Father, explains why he does not deride
that the Son is inferior to the Father, then he declares it is not for him
to measure the Son of God, since it was given to an angel--nay, perhaps
even to Christ as man--to measure merely Jerusalem. Arius, he says, has
shown himself to be an imitator of Satan. It is a rash thing to hold
discussions on the divine Generation. Since so great a sign of human
generation has been given by Isaiah, we ought not to make comparisons in
divine things. Lastly he shows how carefully we ought to avoid the pride of
Arius, by putting before us various examples of Scriptures.

   227. To Thee now, Almighty Father, do I direct my words with tears. I
indeed have readily called Thee inapproachable, incomprehensible,
inestimable; but I dared not say Thy Son was inferior to Thyself. For when
I read that He is the Brightness of Thy glory, and the Image of Thy
Person,(1) I fear lest, in saying that the Image of Thy Person is inferior,
I should seem to say that Thy Person is inferior, of which the Son is the
Image; for the fulness of Thy Godhead is wholly in the Son. I have often
read, I freely believe, that Thou and Thy Son and the Holy Spirit are
boundless, unmeasurable, inestimable, ineffable. And therefore I cannot
appraise Thee so as to weigh Thee.

   228. But be it so, that I desired with a daring and rash spirit to
measure Thee? From whence, I ask, shall I measure Thee, The prophet saw a
line of flax with which the angel measured Jerusalem. An angel was
measuring, not Arius. And he was measuring Jerusalem, not God. And
perchance even an angel could not measure Jerusalem, for it was a man. Thus
it is written: "I raised mine eyes and saw and beheld a man, and in his
hand there was a line of flax."(1) He was a man, for a type of the body
that was to be assumed was thus shown. He was a man, of whom it was said:
"There cometh a man after me, Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to
unloose."(2) Therefore Christ in a type measures Jerusalem. Arius measures
God.

   229. Even Satan transforms himself into an angel of light;(3) what
wonder then if Arius imitates his Author in taking upon himself what is
forbidden? Though his father the devil did it not in his own case, that man
with intolerable blasphemy assumes to himself the knowledge of divine
secrets and the mysteries of the heavenly Generation. For the devil
confessed the true Son of God, Arius denies Him.

   230. If, then, I cannot measure Thee, Almighty Father, can I without
blasphemy discuss the secrets of Thy Generation? Can I say there is
anything more or less between Thee and Thy Son when He Himself Who was
begotten of Thee, says: "All things which the Father hath are Mine."(4) Who
has made Me a judge and a divider of human affairs? This the Son says,(5)
and do we claim to make a division and to give judgment between the Father
and the Son? A right feeling of duty avoids arbiters even in the division
of an inheritance. And shall we become arbiters, to divide between Thee and
Thy Son the glory of the uncreated Substance?

   231. "This generation," it says, "is an evil generation. It seeketh a
sign, and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the
prophet."(6) A sign of the Godhead then is not given, but only of the
Incarnation. Thus when about to speak of the Incarnation the prophet says:
"Ask thee a sign." And when the king had said: "I will not ask, neither
will I tempt the Lord," the answer was: "Behold a Virgin shall
conceive."(7) Therefore we cannot see a sign of the Godhead, and do we seek
a measure of it? Alas! woe is me! we impiously dare to discuss Him, to Whom
we cannot worthily pray!

   232. Let the Arians see to what they do. I have unlawfully compared
Thee, O Father, with Thy works in saying that Thou art greater than all. If
greater than Thy Son, as Arius maintains, I have judged wickedly.
Concerning Thee first will that judgment be. For no choice can be made
except by comparison, nor can anyone be put before another without a
decision being first given on Himself.

   233. It is not lawful for us to swear by heaven, but it is lawful to
judge about God. Yet Thou hast given to Thy Son alone judgment over all.

   234. John feared to baptize the flesh of the Lord, John forbade Him,
saying: "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?"(1) And
shall I bring Christ under my judgment.?

   235. Moses excuses himself from the Priesthood, Peter is for avoiding
the obedience demanded in the Ministry; and does Arius examine even the
deep things of God? But Arius is not the Holy Spirit. Nay, it was said even
to Arius and to all men: "Seek not that which is too deep for thee."

   236. Moses is prevented from seeing the face of God;(3) Arius merited
to see it in secret. Moses and Aaron among His Priests. Moses who appeared
with the Lord in glory, that Moses then saw only the back parts of God in
appearance; Arius beholds God wholly face to face! But" no one," it says,
"can see My face and live."(4)

   237. Paul also speaks of inferior beings: "We know in part and we
prophesy in part."(5) Arius says: "I know God altogether and not in part."
Thus Paul is inferior to Arius, and the vessel of election knows in part,
but the vessel of perdition knows wholly. "I know," he says, "a man,
whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell, God knoweth, how he
was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words."(6) Paul carried
up to the third heaven, knew not himself; Arius rolling in filth, knows
God. Paul says of himself: "God knows;" Arius says of God: "I know."

   238. But Arius was not caught up to heaven, although he followed him
who with accursed boastfulness presumed on what was divine, saying: "I will
set my throne upon the clouds; I will be like the Most High."(7) For as he
said: "I will be like the Most High," so too Arius wishes the Most High Son
of God to seem like himself, Whom he does not worship in the eternal glory
of His Godhead, but measures by the weakness of the flesh.


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/X, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic
Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 20108
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.