ST. AMBROSE'S EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, BOOK IV
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."a 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
be of 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] "<greek>doxa</greek>" means
"opinion, belief," rather than "glory," and therefore have interpreted as follows: "I
have given thee a <greek>doxa</greek> upon earth, I have finished the work
which Thou gavest Me to do, and now, O Father, give me a <greek>doxa</greek>" 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,s 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 un-searchable 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 "<greek>tis</greek> <greek>prosedwken</greek>
<greek>autw</greek>" 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.