BOOK III.

CHAPTER I.

Statement of the reasons wherefore the matters, treated of shortly in the 
two former, are dealt with more at length in the three later books. Defence 
of the employment of fables, which is supported by the example of Holy 
Writ, wherein are found various figures of poetic fable, in particular the 
Sirens, which are figures of sensual pleasures, and which Christians ought 
to be taught to avoid, by the words of Paul and the deeds of Christ.

    1. Forasmuch as your most gracious Majesty had laid command upon me to 
write for your own instruction some treatise concerning the Faith, and had 
yourself called me to your preesence and encouraged my timidity, I, being 
as one on the eve of battle,(2) composed but two books only, for the 
pointing out of certain ways and paths by which our faith progresses.

    2. Seeing, however, that certain malicious minds, bent on sowing 
disputes, have not yet exhausted the force of their assaults, whilst your 
gracious Majesty's pious anxiety calls me to further labours, inasmuch as 
you desire to try in more things him whom you have proved in a few, I am 
resolved to deal somewhat more particularly with the matters whereof I have 
already treated in a few words, lest it should be thought, not that I have 
advanced those propositions in quietness and confidence, but that I, having 
asserted them, doubted and so abandoned their defence.

    3. Again, seeing that we spoke of the Hydra and Scylla (I. vi. 46), and 
brought them in by way of comparison, to show how we must beware, whether 
of the ever-renewed outgrowths of infidelity, or the ill-omened shipwrecks 
made upon its shallows, if any one holds that such embellishments of an 
argument, borrowed from the romances of poets, are unlawful, and, from lack 
of opportunity to speak evil of my faith, assails something in my language, 
then let him know that not only phrases but complete verses of poetry have 
been woven into the text of Holy Writ.

    4. Whence, for instance, came that verse, "His offspring truly are 
we,"(2) whereof Paul, by prophetic experience,(3) taught, makes use? The 
course of prophetic speech avoids neither the Giants(4) nor the Valley of 
the Titans,(5) and Isaiah spake of sirens and the daughters of 
ostriches.(1) Jeremiah also hath prophesied concerning Babylon, that the 
daughters of sirens shall dwell therein,(2) in order to show that the 
snares of Babylon, that is, of the tumult of this world, are to be likened 
to stories of old-time lust, that seemed upon this life's rocky shores to 
sing some tuneful song, but deadly withal, to catch the souls of youth,--
which the Greek poet himself tells us that the wise man escaped through 
being bound, as it were, in the chains of his own prudence.(3) So hard a 
thing, before Christ's coming, was it esteemed, even for the stronger, to 
save themselves from the deceitful shows and allurements of pleasure.

    5. But if the poet judged the enticement of worldly pleasure and 
licence destructive of men's minds and a sure cause of shipwreck, what 
ought we to think, for whom it hath been written: "Train not the flesh in 
concupiscence"?(4) And again: "I chastise my body and bring it into 
servitude, lest whilst I preach to others, I myself become a castaway."(5)

    6. Truly, Christ won salvation for us, not by luxury but by fasting. 
Moreover, it was not to obtain favour for Himself, but to instruct us, that 
He fasted. Nor yet did He hunger because He was overcome by the weakness of 
the body, but by His hunger He proved that He had verily taken upon Himself 
a body; that so He might teach us that He had taken not only our body, but 
also the weaknesses of that body, even as it is written: "Surely He hath 
taken our infirmities and borne our sicknesses."(6)

CHAPTER II.

The incidents properly affecting the body which Christ for our sake took 
upon Him are not to be accounted to His Godhead, in respect whereof He is 
the Most Highest. To deny which is to say that the Father was incarnate. 
When we read that God is one, and that there is none other beside Him, or 
that He alone has immortality, this must be understood as true of Christ 
also, not only to avoid the sinful heresy above-mentioned 
(Patripassianism), but also because the activity of the Father and the Son 
is declared to be one and the same.

    7. It was a bodily weakness, then, that is to say, a weakness of ours, 
that He hungered; when He wept, and was sorrowful even unto death, it was 
of our nature. Why ascribe the properties and incidents of our nature to 
the Godhead? That He was even, as we are told, "made," is a property of a 
body. Thus, indeed, we read: "Sion our mother shall say: 'He is a man,' and 
in her He was made man, and the Most High Himself laid her foundations."(1) 
"He was made man," mark you, not "He was made God."(2)

    8. But what is He Who is at once the Most High and man, what but "the 
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus Who gave Himself as a 
ransom for us"?(3)   This place indeed refers properly to His Incarnation, 
for our redemption was made by His Blood, our pardon comes through His 
Power, our life is secured through His Grace. He gives as the Most High, He 
prays as man. The one is the office of the Creator, the other of a 
Redeemer. Be the gifts as distinct as they may, yet the Giver is one, for 
it was fitting(4) that our Maker should be our Redeemer.

    9. Who indeed can deny that we have plain evidence that Christ is the 
Most High? He who knows otherwise makes the sacrament of Incarnation to be 
the work of God the Father.(5) But that Christ is the Most High is removed 
beyond doubt by what Scripture hath said in another place, concerning the 
mystery of the Passion: "The  Most High sent forth His Voice, and the earth 
was shaken."(6) And in the Gospel you may read: "And thou, child, shalt be 
called the Prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the 
Lord, to prepare His ways."(7) Who is "the Highest"? The Son of God. He, 
then, Who is the Most High God is Christ.

    10. Again, whilst God is everywhere said to be One God, the Son of God 
is not separated from this Unity. For He Who is the Most High is alone, as 
it is written: "And let them know that Thy Name is the Lord: Thou alone art 
Most High over all the earth."(1)

    11. And so the adversaries' injurious conclusion is rejected with 
contempt and disgrace, which they drew from the Scripture speaking of God: 
"Who alone hath immortality and dwelleth in light unapproachable;(2) for 
these words are written of God which Name belongs equally to Father and to 
Son.

    12. If, indeed, wheresoever they read the Name of God, they deny that 
there is any thought of the Son [as well as the Father], they blaspheme, 
inasmuch as they deny the Son's Divine Sovereignty, and they shall appear 
as though they shared the sinful error of the Sabellians in teaching the 
Incarnation of the Father. Let them, indeed explain how they can fail to 
interpret in a sense blasphemous to the Father the words of the Apostle: 
"In Whom ye did also rise again, by faith in the working of God, Who raised 
Him from the dead."(3) Let them also take warning from what follows of what 
they are running upon--for this is what comes after: "And though ye were 
dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He quickened us 
with Him, pardoning us all our offences, blotting out the handwriting of 
the Ordinance, which was opposed to us, and removed it from our midst, 
nailing it to His Cross, divesting Himself of the flesh."(4)

    13. We are not, then, to suppose that the Father Who raised the flesh 
is alone [God]; nor, again, are we to suppose the like of the Son, Whose 
Body s was raised again. He Who raised, did surely also quicken; and He who 
quickened, also pardoned sins; He who pardoned sins, also blotted out the 
handwriting; He Who blotted out the handwriting, also nailed it to the 
Cross: He who nailed it to the Cross, divested Himself of the flesh. But it 
was not the Father Who divested Himself of the flesh; for not the Father, 
but, as we read, the Word was made flesh.(6) You see, then, that the 
Arians, in dividing the Father from the Son, run into danger of saying that 
the Father endured the Passion.

    14. We, however, can easily show that the words treat of the Son's 
action, for the Son Himself indeed raised His own Body again, as He Himself 
said: "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it again."(1) 
And He Himself quickens us together with His Body: "For as the Father 
raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth Whom He 
will."(2) And He Himself hath granted forgiveness for sins, saying, "Thy 
sins be forgiven thee."(3) He too hath nailed the handwriting of the record 
to His Cross, in that He was crucified, and suffered in the body. Nor did 
any divest Himself of the flesh, save the Son of God, Who invested Himself 
therewith. He, therefore, Who hath achieved the work of our resurrection is 
plainly pointed out to be very God.

CHAPTER III.

That the Father and the Son must not be divided(4) is proved by the words 
of the Apostle, seeing that it is befitting to the Son that He should be 
blessed, only Potentate, and immortal, by nature, that is, and not by 
grace, as even the angels themselves are immortal, and that He should dwell 
in the unapproachable light. How it is that the Father and the Son are 
alike and equally said to be "alone."

    15. When, therefore, you read the Name "God," separate neither Father 
nor Son, for the Godhead of the Father and the Son is one and the same, and 
therefore separate them not, when you read the words "blessed and only 
Potentate,"(5) for the words are spoken of God, even as you may read: "I 
charge thee before God, Who quickeneth all things."(6) Christ also indeed 
doth quicken, and therefore the Name of God is meetly given both to the 
Father and to the Son, inasmuch as the effect of their activity is in 
agreement. Let us go on to the words following: "I Charge thee," he says, 
"before God, Who quickeneth all things, and Jesus Christ."(7)

    16. The Word is in God, even as it is written: "In God will I praise 
His Word."(8) In God is His Eternal Power, even Jesus; in [speaking of] 
God, therefore, the Apostle hath witnessed to the unity of the Godhead, 
whilst by the Name of Christ he hath witnessed to the sacrament of the 
Incarnation.

    17. Furthermore, to show that he hath spoken of the Incarnation of 
Christ, he added: "Who bore witness under Pontius Pilate with the good 
confession," [I charge thee] "keep undefiled the commandment, until the 
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which in His own good time the blessed and 
only Potentate shall manifest, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Who 
alone hath immortality, and dwelleth in light unapproachable, Whom no man 
hath seen, nor can see."(1) Those words, then, are written with regard to 
God, of which Name the dignity and truth are common to [both the Father 
and] the Son.

    18. Why, then, should there be no thought of the Son in this place, 
seeing that all these things hold good of the Son also? If they do not so, 
then deny His Godhead, and so mayest thou deny what is proper to be said of 
God. His Blessedness cannot be denied, Who bestows blessings, for "Blessed 
are they whose iniquities are forgiven."(2) He cannot but be called 
"Blessed," Who hath given us wholesome teaching, even as it is written: 
"Which is according to the Gospel of the beauty of the Blessed God."(3) His 
Power cannot be denied, of Whom the Father saith: "I have laid help upon 
One that is mighty."(4) And who dare refuse to acknowledge Him to be 
immortal, when He Himself bath made others also immortal, as it is written 
of the Wisdom of God: "By her shall I possess immortality."(5)

    19. But the immortality of His Nature is one thing, that of ours is 
another. Things perishable are not to be compared to things divine. The 
Godhead is the one only Substance that death cannot touch, and therefore it 
is that the Apostle, though knowing both the [human] soul and angels to be 
immortal, declared that God only had immortality. In truth, even the soul 
may die: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die,"(6) and an angel is not 
absolutely immortal, his immortality depending on the will of the 
Creator.(7)

    20. Do not hastily reject this, because Gabriel dies not, nor Raphael, 
nor Uriel.(8) Even in their nature there is a capacity of sin, though not 
one of improvement by discipline,(1) for every reasonable creature is 
exposed to influences from without itself, and liable to judgment. It is on 
the influences which work upon us that the award of judgment, and 
corruption, or advance to perfection, do depend, and therefore Ecclesiastes 
saith: "For God shall bring all His work to judgment."(2) Every creature, 
then, has within it the possibility of corruption and death, even though it 
do not [at present] die or commit sin; nor, if in anything it deliver not 
itself over to sin, hath it this boon of its immortal nature, but of 
discipline or of grace. Immortality, then, that is of a gift is one thing: 
immortality without the possibility of change is another.(3)

    21. Do we deny the immortality of Christ's Godhead,(4) because He 
tasted death for all in the flesh? Then is Gabriel better than Christ, for 
Gabriel never died, but Christ gave up the ghost. But the servant is not 
above his lord,(5) and we must discern the weakness of flesh from the 
eternity of Godhead. Christ's Death had its source in the flesh, 
immortality is of the nature of Christ's sovereignty. But if the Godhead 
brought it to pass that the flesh saw not corruption, the flesh being 
surely by nature liable to corruption, how could the Godhead itself have 
died?

    22. And how is it that the Son dwelleth not in light unapproachable, if 
He is in the bosom of the Father, if the Father is Light, and the Son also 
is Light, because God is Light?(6) Or, if we suppose some other light, 
beside the Light of the Godhead, to be the unapproachable Light, is, then, 
this Light better than the Father, so that He is not in that Light, Who, as 
it is written, is both with the Father and in the Father?(7) Let men, 
therefore, not exclude the thought of the Son, when they read only of 
"God"--and let them not exclude that of the Father, when they read of "the 
Son" only.(1)

    23. On earth, the Son is not without(2) the Father, and thou thinkest 
that the Father is without the Son in heaven? The Son is in the flesh--
(when I say "He is in the flesh" or "He is on earth," I speak as though we 
lived in the days whose story is in the Gospel, for now we no longer know 
Christ "after the flesh"(3))--He is in the flesh, and He is not alone, as 
it is written: "And I am not alone, because the Father is with Me,"(4) and 
think you that the Father dwells alone in the Light?

    24. Lest you should regard this argument as mere speculation take this 
sentence of authority. "No man," saith the Scripture,(5) "hath seen God at 
any time, save the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father; He 
hath revealed Him."(6) How can the Father be in solitude, if the Son be in 
the bosom of the Father? How doth the Son reveal Him, Whom He seeth not? 
The Father, then, exists not alone.

    25. Observe now what the "solitude" of the Father and of the Son is. 
The Father is alone, because there is no other Father; the Son is alone, 
because there is no other Son; God is alone, because the Godhead of the 
Trinity is One.

CHAPTER IV.

We are told that Christ was only "made" so far as regards the flesh. For 
the redemption of mankind He needed no means of aid, even as He needed none 
in order to His Resurrection, whereas others, in order to raise the dead, 
had need of recourse to prayer. Even when Christ prayed, the prayer was 
offered by Him in His capacity as human; whilst He must be accounted divine 
from the fact that He commanded (that such and such things should be done). 
On this point the devil's testimony is truer than the Arians' arguments. 
The discussion concludes with an explanation of the reason why the title of 
"mighty" is given to the Son of Man.

    26. It is now sufficiently made plain that the Father is not God in 
solitude, without the Son, and that the Son cannot be thought of as God 
alone, without the Father, for it is in respect of His flesh(7) that we 
read that the Son of God was "made," not in respect of His generation from 
God the Father.

    27. Indeed, in what sense He was "made" He has declared by the mouth of 
the holy patriarch, saying: "For My soul is filled with sorrow to 
overflowing, and My life hath drawn near unto hell. I have been counted 
with them that go down into the pit; I have been made as a man free, 
without help, amongst the dead."(1) Here, then, we read: "I have been made 
as a man," not "I have been made as God;" and again: "My soul overfloweth 
with sorrows." "My soul," mark you, not "My Godhead." He was "made" in so 
far as that was concerned wherein He was due to hell,(2) wherein He was 
reckoned with others, for the Godhead admits of no likeness which may be 
ground for classing it with others. Yet mark how the majesty of Godhead 
shows itself in Christ, even in that flesh which was appointed to death. 
Although He was "made" as a man, and "made" as flesh, yet He was made free 
amongst the dead, "free, without help."

    28. But how can the Son say here that He was without help, when it has 
already been said: "I have laid help upon One that is mighty"?(3) 
Distinguish here also the two natures present. The flesh hath need of help, 
the Godhead hath no need. He is free, then, because the chains of death had 
no hold upon Him. He was not made prisoner by the powers of darkness, it is 
He Who exerted power amongst them.(4) He is "without help," because He 
Himself, the Lord, hath by no office of messenger or ambassador, but by His 
own might, saved His people. How could He, Who raised others to life, 
require any help in order to raise His own body?

    29. And though men also have raised the dead, still they did this not 
of their own power, but in the Name of Christ. To ask is one thing, to 
command is another; to obtain is different from bestowing.

    30. Elijah, then, raised the dead, but he prayed--he did not 
command.(5) Elisha raised one to life after laying himself upon the dead 
body, in accordance with its posture;(6) and, again, the very contact of 
Elisha's corpse gave life to the dead, that the prophet might foreshow the 
coming of Him, Who, being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,(7) should, 
even after His burial, raise the dead to life.

 31. Peter, again, when he healed Aeneas, said: "In the Name of Jesus of 
Nazareth, rise and walk."(1) Not in his own name, but in the Name of 
Christ. But "rise" is a command; on the other hand, it is an instance of 
confidence in one's right,(2) not an arrogant claim to power, and the 
authority of the command stood in the effective influence of the Name, not 
in its own might. What answer, then, make the Arians? Peter commands in the 
Name of Christ,--this on the one hand: on the other, they will have it that 
the Son of God did not command, but requested.

    32. We read, they objected, of His uttering a prayer.(3) But take note 
of the difference. He prays as Son of Man, He commands as Son of God. Will 
you not ascribe unto the Son of God what even the devil has ascribed? Will 
you accuse yourselves of greater wickedness than Satan's? The devil saith: 
"If Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread."(4) 
Satan saith "command," you say "entreat." The devil believes that, at the 
word of God's Son, the nature of an elementary substance may be exchanged 
for that of a composite one; you think that, unless the Son of God prefers 
a request, even His Will cannot be done. Again, the devil thinks that the 
Son of God is to be esteemed from His power,(5) you that He is to be 
esteemed from His infirmity. The devil's temptations are more tolerable 
than the Arians' disputings.

    33. Let us not, then, be troubled if we find the Son of Man entitled 
"mighty" in one place, and yet in another, that the Lord of glory was 
crucified.(6) What might is greater than sovereignty over the powers of 
heaven? But this was in the hands of Him Who ruled over thrones, 
principalities, angels; for, although He was amongst the wild beasts, as it 
is written, yet angels ministered to Him, that you may perceive the 
difference between what is proper to the Incarnation, and what is proper to 
Sovereignty. So far as His flesh is concerned, then, He endures the assault 
of wild beasts; in regard of His Godhead,(7) He is adored by angels.

    34. We have learnt, then, that He was made man, and that His being made 
must be referred to His manhood. Furthermore, in another passage of 
Scripture, you may read: "Who was made for Him of the seed of David,"(1) 
that is to say, in respect of the flesh He was "made" of the seed of David, 
but He was God begotten of God before the worlds.

CHAPTER V.

Passages brought forward from Scripture to show that "made" does not always 
mean the same as "created;" whence it is concluded that the letter of Holy 
Writ should not be made the ground of captious arguments, after the manner 
of the Jews, who, however, are shown to be not so bad as the heretics, and 
thus the principle already set forth is confirmed anew.

    35. At the same time, becoming(3) does not always imply creation; for 
we read: "Lord, Thou art become our refuge,"(3) and "Thou hast become my 
salvation."(4) Plainly, here is no statement of the fact or purpose of a 
creation, but God is said to have become my "refuge" and have turned to my 
"salvation,"(5) even as the Apostle hath said: "Who became for us(6) Wisdom 
from God, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption,"(7) that 
is, that Christ was "made" for us, of the Father, not created. Again, the 
writer has explained in the sequel in what sense he says that Christ was 
made Wisdom for us: "But we preach the Wisdom of God in doctrine of 
mystery, which Wisdom is hidden, foreordained by God before the existence 
of the world s for our glory, and which none of the princes of this world 
knew, for had they known they would never have crucified the Lord of 
glory."(9) When the mystery of the Passion is set forth, surely there is no 
speaking of an eternal process of generation.

    36. The Lord's Cross, then, is my wisdom; the Lord's Death my 
redemption; for we are redeemed with His precious blood, as the Apostle 
Peter bath said.(10) With His blood, then, as man, the Lord redeemed us, 
Who also, as God, hath forgiven sins.(11)

 37. Let us not, therefore, lay snares as it were in words, and eagerly 
seek out entanglements therein; let us not, because misbelievers make out 
the written word to mean that it means not, set forth only what this letter 
bears on the face of it, instead of the underlying sense. This way went the 
Jews to destruction, despising the deep-hidden meaning, and following only 
after the bare form of the word, for "the letter killeth, but the Spirit 
maketh alive."(1)

    38. And yet, of these two grievous impieties, to ascribe to the Godhead 
what is true only of manhood is perchance more detestable than to attribute 
to spirit what belongs only to letter. The Jews feared to believe in 
manhood taken up into God, and therefore have lost the grace of redemption, 
because they reject that on which salvation depends; the Arians degrade the 
majesty of Godhead to the weakness of humanity. Detestable as are the Jews, 
who crucified the Lord's flesh, more detestable still do I hold them who 
have believed that the Godhead of Christ was nailed to the Cross. So one 
who ofttimes had dealings with Jews said: "An heretic avoid, after once 
reproving him"(3)

    39. Nor, again, are these men careful to avoid doing dishonour to the 
Father, in their impious application of the fact, that Christ was "made" 
Wisdom for us, to His incomprehensible generation, that transcends all 
limits and divisions of time; for, leaving it out of account that dishonour 
done to the Son is an insult to the Father, they do even carry their 
blasphemy in assault upon the Father, of Whom it is written: "Let God be 
made truthful, but every man a liar."(3) If indeed they think that the Son 
is spoken of, they do not foreclose against His generation,(4) but in that 
they rest on the authority of this text they do confess that which they 
reject, namely, that Christ is God, and true God.

    40. It would be a lengthy matter were I to pass in review each several 
place where we read of His being "made," not indeed by nature, but by way 
of gracious dispensation. Moses, for example, saith: "Thou art made my 
Helper and Protector, to save me;"(5) and David: "Be unto me for a God of 
salvation, and an house of refuge, that Thou mayest save me;"(6) and 
Isaiah: "He is become an Helper for every city that is lowly."(7) Of a 
surety the holy men say not to God: "Thou hast been created," but "By Thy 
grace Thou art made a Protector and Helper unto us."

CHAPTER VI.

In order to dispose of an objection grounded on a text in St. John, St. 
Ambrose first shows that the Arian interpretation lends countenance to the 
Manichaeans; then, after setting forth the different ways of dividing the 
words in this same passage, he shows plainly that it cannot, without 
dishonour to the Father, be understood with such reference to the Godhead 
as the Arians give it, and expounds the true meaning thereon.

    41. We have no reason, therefore, to fear the argument which the 
Arians, in their reckless manner of expounding, use to construct, showing 
that the Word of God was "made," for, say they, it is written: "That which 
has been made in Him is life."(1)

    42. First of all, let them understand that if they make the words "That 
which has been made" to refer to the Godhead, they entangle themselves in 
the difficulties raised by the Manichaeans, for these people argue: "If 
that which has been made in Him is life, then there is something which has 
not been made in Him, and is death," so that they may impiously bring in 
two principles. But this teaching the Church condemns.

    43. Again, how can the Arians prove that the Evangelist actually said 
this? The most part of those who are learned in the Faith read the passage 
as follows: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything 
made that has been made." Others read thus: "All things were made by Him, 
and without Him was nothing made." Then they proceed: "What has been made," 
and to this they join the words "in Him;" that is to say, "But whatsover is 
has been made in Him." But what mean the words "in Him"? The Apostle tells 
us, when he says: "In Him we have our being, and live, and move."(2)

    44. Howbeit, let them read the passage as they will, they cannot 
diminish the majesty of God the Word, in referring to His Person,(3) as 
subject, the words "That which was made,"(4) without also doing dishonour 
to God the Father, of Whom it is written: "But he who doeth the truth 
cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest that they are 
wrought in God."(1) See then--here we read of man's works being wrought in 
God, and yet for all that we cannot understand the Godhead as the subject 
of them. We must either recognize the works as wrought through Him, as the 
Apostle's affirmation showeth that "all things are through Him, and were 
created in Him, and He is before all, and all things exist together in 
Him,"(2) or, as the witness of the text here cited teaches us, we ought to 
regard the virtues whereby the fruit of life eternal is gained, as wrought 
in God--chastity, piety, devoutness, faith, and others of this kind, 
whereby the will of God is expressed.(3)

    45. Just as the works, then, are the expression of the will and power 
of God the Father, so are they of Christ's, even as we read: "Created in 
Christ in good works;"(4) and in the psalm: "Peace be made in Thy 
power;"(5) and again: "In wisdom hast Thou made them all."(6) "In wisdom 
hast Thou made," mark you--not "Thou hast made wisdom;" for since all 
things have been made in wisdom, and Christ is the Wisdom of God, then this 
Wisdom is plainly not an accident, but a substance, and an everlasting one, 
but if the Wisdom hath been made, then is it made in a worse condition than 
all things, forasmuch as it could not, by itself, be made Wisdom. If, then, 
being made is oftentimes referred to something accidental, not to the 
essence of a thing, so may creation also be referred to some end had in 
view.(7)

CHAPTER VII.

Solomon's words, "The Lord created Me," etc., mean that Christ's 
Incarnation was done for the redemption of the Father's creation, as is 
shown by the Son's own words. That He is the "beginning" may be understood 
from the visible proofs of His virtuousness, and it is shown how the Lord 
opened the ways of all virtues, and was their true beginning.

    46. Hereby we are brought to understand that the prophecy of the 
Incarnation, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His 
works,"(8) means that the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the 
redeeming of the Father's works. Truly, we cannot doubt that this is spoken 
of the mystery of the Incarnation, forasmuch as the Lord took upon Him our 
flesh, in order to save the works of His hands from the slavery of 
corruption, so that He might, by the sufferings of His own body, overthrow 
him who had the power of death. For Christ's flesh is for the sake of 
things created, but His Godhead existed before them, seeing that He is 
before all things, whilst all things exist together in Him.(1)

    47. His Godhead, then, is not by reason of creation, but creation 
exists because of the Godhead; even as the Apostle showed, saying that all 
things exist because of the Son of God, for we read as follows: "But it was 
fitting that He, through Whom and because of Whom are all things, after 
bringing many sons to glory, should, as Captain of their salvation, be made 
perfect through suffering."(2) Has he not plainly declared that the Son of 
God, Who, by reason of His Godhead, was the Creator of all, did in after 
time, for the salvation of His people, submit to the taking on of the flesh 
and the suffering of death?

    48. Now for the sake of what works the Lord was "created" of a virgin, 
He Himself, whilst healing the blind man, has shown, saying: "In Him must I 
work the works of Him that sent Me."(3) Furthermore He said in the same 
Scripture, that we might believe Him to speak of the Incarnation: "As long 
as I am in this world, I am the Light of this world,"(4) for, so far as He 
is man, He is in this world for a season, but as God He exists at all 
times. In another place, too, He says: "Lo, I am with you even unto the end 
of the world."(5)

    49. Nor is there any room for questioning with respect to "the 
beginning," seeing that when, during His earthly life, He was asked, "Who 
art Thou?" He answered: "The beginning, even as I tell you."(6) This refers 
not only to the essential nature of the eternal Godhead, but also to the 
visible proofs of virtues, for hereby hath He proved Himself the eternal 
God, in that He is the beginning of all things, and the Author of each 
several virtue, in that He is the Head of the Church, as it is written: 
"Because He is the Head of the Body, of the Church;(7) Who is the 
beginning, first-begotten from the dead."(8)

    50. It is clear, then, that the words "beginning of His ways," which, 
as it seems, we must refer to the mystery of the putting on of His body, 
are a prophecy of the Incarnation. For Christ's purpose in the Incarnation 
was to pave for us the road to heaven. Mark how He says: "I go up to My 
Father and your Father, to My God and your God."(1) Then, to give you to 
know that the Almighty Father appointed His ways to the Son, after the 
Incarnation,(2) you have in Zechariah the words of the angel speaking to 
Joshua clothed in filthy garments: "Thus saith the Lord Almighty: If thou 
wilt walk in My ways and observe My precepts."(3) What is the meaning of 
that filthy garb save the putting on of the flesh?

    51. Now the ways of the Lord are, we may say, certain courses taken in 
a good life, guided by Christ, Who says, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and 
the Life."(4) The way, then, is the surpassing power of God, for Christ, is 
our way, and a good way, too, is He, a way which hath opened the kingdom of 
heaven to believers.(5) Moreover, the ways of the Lord are straight, as it 
is written: "Make Thy ways known unto me, O Lord."(6) Chastity is a way, 
faith is a way, abstinence is a way. There is, indeed, a way of virtue, and 
there is a way of wickedness; for it is written: "And see if there be any 
way of wickedness in me."(7)

    52. Christ, then, is the beginning of our virtue. He is the beginning 
of purity, Who taught maidens not to look for the embraces of men,(8) but 
to yield the purity of their bodies and minds to the service of the Holy 
Spirit rather than to a husband. Christ is the beginning of frugality, for 
He became poor, though He was rich.(9) Christ is the beginning of patience, 
for when He was reviled, He reviled not again, when He was struck, He did 
not strike back. Christ is the beginning of humility, for He took the form 
of a servant, though in the majesty of His power He was equal with God the 
Father.(10) From Him each several virtue has taken its origin.

    53. For this cause, then, that we might learn these divers virtues, "a 
Son was given us, Whose beginning was upon His shoulder."(11) That 
"beginning" is the Lord's Cross--the beginning of strong courage, wherewith 
a way has been opened for the holy martyrs to enter the sufferings of the 
Holy War.

CHAPTER VIII.

The prophecy of Christ's Godhead and Manhood, contained in the verse of 
Isaiah just now cited, is unfolded, and its force in refuting various 
heresies demonstrated.

    54. This beginning did Isaiah see, and therefore he says: "A Child is 
born, a Son is given to us," as also did the Magi, and therefore worshipped 
they, when they saw the little One in the stable, and said: "A Child is 
born," and, when they saw the star, declared, "A Son is given to us." On 
the one hand, a gift from earth--on the other, a gift from heaven--and both 
are One Person, perfect in respect of each, without any changeableness in 
the Godhead, as without any taking away from the fulness of the Manhood. 
One Person did the Magi adore, to one and the same they offered their 
gifts, to show that He Who was seen in the stall was the very Lord of 
heaven.

    55. Mark how the two verbs differ in their import: "A Child is born, a 
Son is given." Though born of the Father, yet is He not born, but given to 
us, forasmuch as the Son is not for our sakes, but we for the Son's. For 
indeed He was not born to us, being born before us, and the maker of all 
things created: nor is He now brought to life for the first time, Who was 
always, and was in the beginning;(1) on the other hand, that which before-
time was not is born to us. Again we find it thus recorded, how that the 
angel, when he spoke to the shepherds, said that He had been born: "Who is 
this day born to us a Saviour, Who is Christ the Lord, in the city of 
David."(2) To us, then, was born that which was not before--that is, a 
child of the Virgin, a body from Mary--for this was made after man had been 
created, whereas [the Godhead] was before us.

    56. Some manuscripts read as follows: "A Child is born to us a Son is 
given to us;"(3) that is to say, He, Who is Son of God, is born as Mary's 
child for us, and given to us. As for the fact that He is "given," listen 
to the prophet's words: "And grant us Thy salvation."(4) But that which is 
above us is given: what is from heaven is given: even as indeed we read 
concerning the Spirit, that "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Spirit, Who is given unto us."(1)

    57. But note how this passage is as water upon fire to a crowd of 
heresies. "A Child is born to us," not to the Jews; "to us," not to the 
Manichaeans; "to us," not to the Marcionites. The prophet says "to us," 
that is, to those who believe, not to unbelievers. And He indeed, in His 
pitifulness, was born for all, but it is the disloyalty of heretics that 
hath brought it to pass that the birth of Him Who was born for all should 
not profit all. For the sun is bidden to rise upon the good and the bad, 
but to them that see not there is no appearance of sunrise.

    58. Even as the Child, then, is born not unto all, but unto the 
faithful: so the Son is given to the faithful and not to the unbelieving. 
He is given to us, not to the Photinians; for they affirm that the Son of 
God was not given unto us, but was born and first began to exist amongst 
us. To us is He given, not to the Sabellians, who will not hear of a Son 
being given, maintaining that Father and Son are one and the same. Unto us 
is He given, not unto the Arians, in whose judgment the Son was not given 
for salvation, but sent over subject and inferior, to whom, moreover, He is 
no "Counsellor," inasmuch as they hold that He knows nought of the future, 
no Son, since they believe not in His eternity, though of the Word of God 
it is written: "That which was in the beginning;" and again: "In the 
beginning was the Word."(2) To return to the passage we set before us to 
discuss. "In the beginning," saith the Scripture, "before He made the 
earth, before He made the deeps, before He brought forth the springs of 
water, before all the hills He begat Me."(3)

CHAPTER IX.

The preceding quotation from Solomon's Proverbs receives further 
explanation.

    59. Perchance you will ask how I came to cite, as referring to the 
Incarnation of Christ, the place, "The Lord created Me," seeing that the 
creation of the universe took place before the Incarnation of Christ? But 
consider that the use of holy Scripture is to speak of things to come as 
though already past, and to make intimation of the union of two natures, 
Godhead and Manhood, in Christ, lest any should deny either His Godhead or 
His Manhood.

    60. In Isaiah, for example, you may read: "A Child is born unto us, and 
a Son is given unto us;" so here also [in the Proverbs] the prophet sets 
forth first the creation of the flesh, and joined thereto the declaration 
of the Godhead, that you might know that Christ is not two, but One, being 
both begotten of the Father before the worlds, and in the last times(1) 
created of the Virgin. And thus the meaning is: I, Who am begotten before 
the worlds, am He Who was created of mortal woman, created for a set 
purpose.

    61. Again, immediately before the declaration, "The Lord created Me," 
He says, "I will tell of the things which are from eternity," and before 
saying, "He begat," He premised, "In the beginning, before He made the 
earth, before all hills." In its extent, the preposition "before" reaches 
back into the past without end or limit, and so "Before Abraham was, I 
am,"(2) clearly need not mean "after Adam," just as "before the Morning 
Star"(3) need not mean "after the angels." But when He said "before," He 
intended, not that He was included in any one's existence, but that all 
things are included in His, for thus it is the custom of Holy Writ to show 
the eternity of God. Finally, in another passage you may read: "Before the 
mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, 
Thou art from everlasting to everlasting."(4)

    62. Before all created things, then, is the Son begotten; within all 
and for the good of all is He made; begotten of the Father, above the 
Law,(5) brought forth of Mary, under the Law.(6)

CHAPTER X.

Observations on the words of John the Baptist (John i. 30), which may be 
referred to divine fore-ordinance, but at any rate, as explained by the 
foregoing considerations, must be understood of the Incarnation. The 
precedence of Christ is mystically expounded, with reference to the history 
of Ruth.

    63. But [say they] it is written: "After me cometh a Man, Who is made 
before me, because He was before me;"(7) and so they argue: "See, He Who 
was aforetime is 'made.'" Let us take the words by themselves. "After me 
cometh a Man." He, then, Who came is a Man, and this is the Man Who "was 
made." But the word "man" connotes sex, and sex is attributed to human 
nature, but never to the Godhead.

    64. I might argue: The Man [Christ Jesus] was in pre-existence so far 
as His body was foreknown, though His power is from everlasting--for both 
the Church and the Saints were foreordained before the worlds began. But 
here I lay aside this argument, and urge that the being made concerns not 
the Godhead, but the nature of the Incarnation, even as John himself said: 
"This is He of Whom I said: After me cometh a Man, Who was made before me."

    65. The Scripture, then, having, as I showed above, discovered the 
twofold nature in Christ, that you might understand the presence of both 
Godhead and Manhood, here begins with the flesh; for it is the cutsom of 
Holy Writ to begin without fixed rule sometimes with the Godhead of Christ, 
and descend to the visible tokens of Incarnation; sometimes, on the other 
hand, to start from its humility, and rise to the glory of the Godhead, as 
oftentimes in the Prophets and Evangelists, and in St. Paul. Here, then, 
after this use, the writer begins with the Incarnation of our Lord, and 
then proclaims His Divinity, not to confound, but to distinguish, the human 
and the divine. But Arians, like Jew vintners,(1) mix water with the wine, 
confounding the divine generation with the human, and ascribing to the 
majesty of God what is properly said only of the lowliness of the flesh.

    66. I have no fears of a certain objection they are likely to put 
forward, namely, that in the words cited we have "a man"--for some have, 
"Who cometh after me." But here, too, let them observe what precedes. "The 
Word," it is said, "was made flesh."(2) Having said that the Word was made 
flesh, the Evangelist added no mention of man. We understand "man" there in 
the mention of "flesh," and "flesh" by the mention of "man." After the 
statement made, then, that "the Word was made flesh," there was no need 
here to particularly mention "man," whom he already intended by using the 
name "flesh."

    67. Later on, St. John uses the lamb, that "taketh away the sins of the 
world," as an example; and to teach you plainly the Incarnation of Him, of 
Whom he had spoken before, he says: "This is He of Whom I said before: 
After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me," to wit, of Whom I said that 
He was "made" as being man, not as being God. However, to show that it was 
He Who was before the worlds, and none other, that became flesh, lest we 
should suppose two Sons of God, he adds: "because He was before me." If the 
words "was made" had referred to the divine generation, what need was there 
that the writer should add this, and repeat himself? But, having first 
said, with regard to the Incarnation only, "After me cometh a Man, Who is 
made before me," he added: "because He was before me," because it was 
needful to teach the eternity of [Christ's] Godhead; and this is the reason 
why St. John acknowledged Christ's priority, that He, Who is His own 
Father's eternal Power, may be presented as on that account duly 
preferred.(1)

    68. But the abounding activity of the spiritual understanding makes it 
a pleasing exercise to sally forth and drive into a corner the Arians, who 
will understand the term "made" in this passage, not of the manhood, but of 
the Godhead [of Christ]. What ground, indeed, is left for them to take 
their stand upon, when the Baptist has declared that "after me cometh One 
Who is made before me," that is, Who, though in the course of earthly life 
He comes after me, yet is placed above the degree of my worth and grace, 
and Who has title to be worshipped as God. For the words "cometh after me" 
belong to an event in time, but "was before me" signify Christ's eternity; 
and "is made before me" refer to His pre-eminence, forasmuch as, indeed, 
the mystery of the Incarnation is above human deserving.(2)

    69. Again, St. John Baptist also taught in less weighty language what 
ideas they were he had combined, saying: "After me cometh a Man, Whose 
shoes I am not worthy to bear," setting forth at least the more excellent 
dignity [of Christ], though not the eternity of His Divine Generation. Now 
these words are so fully intended of the Incarnation, that Scripture hath 
given us, in an earlier book, a human counterpart of the mystic sandal. 
For, by the Law, when a man died, the marriage bond with his wife was 
passed on to his brother, or other man next of kin, in order that the seed 
of the brother or next of kin might renew the life of the house, and thus 
it was that Ruth, though she was foreign-born, but yet had possessed a 
husband of the Jewish people, who had left a kinsman of near relation, 
being seen and loved of Boaz whilst gleaning and maintaining herself and 
her mother-in-law with that she gleaned, was yet not taken of Boaz to wife, 
until she had first loosed the shoe from [the foot of] him whose wife she 
ought, by the Law, to have become.(1)

    70. The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for 
that which was done was the outward betokening of somewhat further. If 
indeed we should rack the sense so as to fit the letter exactly, we should 
almost find the words an occasion of a certain shame and horror, that we 
should regard them as intending and conveying the thought of common bodily 
intercourse; but it was the foreshadowing of One Who was to arise from 
Jewry--whence Christ was, after the flesh--Who should, with the seed of 
heavenly teaching, revive the seed of his dead kinsman, that is to say, the 
people, and to Whom the precepts of the Law, in their spiritual 
significance, assigned the sandal of marriage, for the espousals of the 
Church.

    71. Moses was not the Bridegroom, for to him cometh the word, "Loose 
thy shoe from off thy foot,"(2) that he might give place to his Lord. Nor 
was Joshua, the son of Nun, the Bridegroom, for to him also it was told, 
saying, "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot,"(3) test, by reason of the 
likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the Church. None 
other is the Bridegroom but Christ alone, of Whom St. John said: "He Who 
hath the bride is the Bridegroom."(1) They, therefore, loose their shoes, 
but His shoe cannot be loosed, even as St. John said: "I am not worthy to 
loose the latchet of His shoe."(2)

    72. Christ alone, then, is the Bridegroom to Whom the Church, His 
bride, comes from the nations, and gives herself in wedlock; aforetime poor 
and starving, but now rich with Christ's harvest; gathering in the hidden 
bosom of her mind handfuls of the rich crop and gleanings of the Word, that 
so she may nourish with fresh food her who is worn out, bereaved by the 
death of her son, and starving, even the mother of the dead people,--
leaving not the widow and destitute, whilst she seeks new children.

    73. Christ, then, alone is the Bridegroom, grudging not even to the 
synagogue the sheaves of His harvest. Would that the synagogue had not of 
her own will shut herself out! She had sheaves that she might herself have 
gathered, but, her people being dead, she, like one bereaved by the death 
of her son, began to gather sheaves, whereby she might live, by the hand of 
the Church--the which sheaves they who come in joyfulness shall carry, even 
as it is written: "Yet surely shall they come with joy, bringing their 
sheaves with them."(3)

    74. Who, indeed, but Christ could dare to claim the Church as His 
bride, whom He alone, and none other, hath called from Libanus, saying: 
"Come hither from Libanus, my bride; come hither from Libanus"?(4) Or of 
Whom else could the Church have said: "His throat is sweetness, and He is 
altogether desirable"?(5) And seeing that we entered upon this discussion 
from speaking of the shoes of His feet,--to Whom else but the Word of God 
incarnate can those words apply? "His legs are pillars of marble, set upon 
bases of gold."(6) For Christ alone walks in the souls and makes His path 
in the minds of His saints, in which, as upon bases of gold and foundations 
of precious stone the heavenly Word has left His footprints ineffaceably 
impressed.

    75. Clearly we see, then, that both the man and the type point to the 
mystery of the Incarnation.

CHAPTER XI.

St. Ambrose returns to the main question, and shows that whenever Christ is 
said to have "been made" (or "become"), this must be understood with 
reference to His Incarnation, or to certain limitations. In this sense 
several passages of Scripture--especially of St. Paul--are expounded. The 
eternal Priesthood of Christ, prefigured in Melchizedek. Christ possesses 
not only likeness, but oneness with the Father.

    76. When, therefore, Christ is said to have been "made," to have 
"become," the phrase relates, not to the substance of the Godhead, but 
often to the Incarnation--sometimes indeed to a particular office; for if 
you understand it of His Godhead, then God was made into an object of 
insult and derision inasmuch as it is written: "But thou hast rejected thy 
Christ,(1) and brought Him to nought; thou hast driven Him to wander;" and 
again: "And He was made the derision of His neighbours."(2) Of His 
neighbours, mark you--not of them of His household, not of them who clave 
to Him, for "he who cleaveth to the Lord is one Spirit;"(3) he who is 
neighbour doth not cleave to Him. Again, "He was made a derision," because 
the Lord's Cross is to Jews a stumbling-block, and to Greeks is 
foolishness:(4) for to them that are wise He is, by that same Cross, made 
higher than the heavens, higher than angels, and is made the Mediator of 
the better covenant, even as He was Mediator of the former.

    77. Mark how I repeat the phrase; so far am I from seeking to avoid it. 
Yet take notice in what sense He is "made."

    78. In the first place, "having made purification, He sitteth on the 
right hand of Majesty on high, being made so much better than the 
angels."(5) Now where purification is, there is a victim; where there is a 
victim, there is also a body; where a body is, there is oblation; where 
there is the office of oblation, there also is sacrifice made with 
suffering.

    79. In the next place, He is the Mediator of a better covenant. But 
where there is testamentary disposition, the death of the testator must 
first come to pass,(6) as it is written a little further on. Howbeit, the 
death is not the death of His eternal Godhead, but of His weak human frame.

    80. Furthermore, we are taught how He is made "higher than the 
heavens." "Unspotted," saith the Scripture,(1) "separate from sinners, and 
made higher than the heavens; not having daily need, as the priests have 
need, to offer a victim first for his own sins, and then for those of the 
people. For this He did by sacrificing Himself once and for all." None is 
said to be made higher, save he who has in some respect been lower; Christ, 
then, is, by His sitting at the right hand of the Father, made higher in 
regard of that wherein, being made lower than the angels, He offered 
Himself to suffer.

    81. Finally, the Apostle himself saith to the Philippians, that "being 
made in the likeness of man, and found in outward appearance as a man, He 
humbled Himself, being made obedient even unto death."(2) Mark that, in 
regard whereof He is "made," He is made, the Apostle saith, in the likeness 
of man, not in respect of Divine Sovereignty, and He was made obedient unto 
death, so that He displayed the obedience proper to man, and obtained the 
kingdom appertaining of right to Godhead.

    82. How many passages need we cite further in evidence that His "being 
made" must be understood with reference to His Incarnation, or to some 
particular dispensation? Now whatsoever is made, the same is also created, 
for "He spake and they were made; He gave also the word, and they were 
created."(3) "The Lord created me." These words are spoken with regard to 
His Manhood; and we have also shown, in our First Book, that the word 
"created" appears to have reference to the Incarnation.

    83. Again, the Apostle himself, by declaring that no worship is to be 
rendered to a created existence, has shown that the Son has not been 
created, but begotten, of God.(4) At the same time he shows in other places 
what there was in Christ that was created, in order to make plain in what 
sense he has read in Solomon's book: "The Lord created Me."

    84. Let us now review a whole passages in order. "Seeing, then, that 
the sons have parts of flesh and blood, He too likewise was made to have 
part in the same, to the end that by death He might overthrow him who had 
the power of death."(6) Who, then, is He Who would have us to be partakers 
in His own flesh and blood? Surely the Son of God. How, save by means of 
the flesh, was He made partaker with us,(7) or by what, save by bodily 
death, brake He the chains of death? For Christ's endurance of death was 
made the death of Death.(1)This text, then, speaks of the Incarnation.

    85. Let us see what follows: "For He did not indeed [straightway] put 
on Him the nature of angels, but that of Abraham's seed. And thus was He 
able to be made like to His brethren in all things throughout, that He 
might become a compassionate and faithful Prince, a Priest unto God, to 
make propitiation for the sins of the people; for in that He Himself 
suffered He is able also to help them that are tempted. Wherefore, brethren 
most holy, ye who have each his share in a heavenly calling, look upon the 
Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, regard His faithfulness 
to His Creator, even as Moses was in his house."(2) These, then, are the 
Apostle's words.

    86. You see what it is in respect whereof the writer calls Him 
created.: "In so far as He took upon Him the seed of Abraham;" plainly 
asserting the begetting of a body. How, indeed, but in His body did He 
expiate the sins of the people? In what did He suffer, save in His body--
even as we said above: "Christ having suffered in the flesh"? In what is He 
a priest, save in that which He took to Himself from the priestly 
nation?(3)

    67. It is a priest's duty to offer something, and, according to the 
Law, to enter into the holy places by means of blood; seeing, then, that 
God had rejected the blood of bulls and goats, this High Priest was indeed 
bound to make passage and entry into the holy of holies in heaven through 
His own blood, in order that He might be the everlasting propitiation for 
our sins. Priest and victim, then, are one; the priesthood and sacrifice 
are, however, exercised under the conditions of humanity, for He was led as 
a lamb to the slaughter, and He is a priest after the order of 
Melchizedek.(4)

    88. Let no man, therefore, when he beholds an order of human 
establishment, contend that in it resides the claim of Divinity;(5) for 
even that Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, the 
Church doth certainly not hold to be an angel (as some Jewish triflers do), 
but a holy man and priest of God, who, prefiguring our Lord,(6) is 
described as "without father or mother, without history of his descent, 
without beginning and without end,"(1) in order to show beforehand the 
coming into this world of the eternal Son of God, Who likewise was 
incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God 
without mother, and was without history of descent, for it is written: "His 
generation who shall declare?"(2)

    89. This Melchizedek, then, have we received as a priest of God made 
upon the model of Christ, but the one we regard as the type, the other as 
the original. Now a type is a shadow of the truth, and we have accepted the 
royalty of the one in the name of a single city, but that of the other as 
shown in the reconciliation of the whole world; for it is written: "God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself;"(3) that is to say, [in Christ 
was] eternal Godhead: or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is 
in the Father, then Their unity in both nature(4) and operation is plainly 
not denied.

    90. But how, indeed, could our adversaries justly deny this, even if 
they would, when the Scripture saith: "But the Father, Who abideth in Me, 
even He doeth the works;" and "The works that I do, He Himself worketh"?(5) 
Not "He also doeth the works," but one should regard it as similarity 
rather than unity of work; in saying, "The things that I do, He Himself 
doeth," the Apostle has left it clear that we ought to believe that the 
work of the Father and the work of the Son is one.

    91. On the other hand, when He would have similarity, not unity, of 
works, to be understood, He said: "He that believeth in Me, the works which 
I do, shall he do also."(6) Skilfully inserting here the word "also," He 
hath allowed us similarity, and yet hath not ascribed natural unity. One, 
therefore, is the work of the Father and the work of the Son, whether the 
Arians please so to think or not.

CHAPTER XII.

The kingdom of the Father and of the Son is one and undivided, so likewise 
is the Godhead of each.

    92. I would now ask how they suppose the kingdom of the Father and the 
Son to be divided, when the Lord hath said, as we showed above: "Every 
kingdom divided against itself shall be speedily overthrown."(7)

    93. Indeed, it was to debar the impious teaching of Arian enmity that 
Saint Peter himself asserted the dominion of the Father and the Son to be 
one, saying: "Wherefore, my brethren, labour to make your calling and 
election sure, for so doing you shall not go astray, for thus your entrance 
into the eternal realm of God and our Lord and Saviour(1) Jesus Christ 
shall be granted with the greater abundance of grace.(2)

    94. Now, if it be thought that Christ's dominion alone is spoken of, 
and the place be therefore understood in such sense that the Father and the 
Son are regarded as divided in authority--yet it will be still acknowledged 
that it is the dominion of the Son, and that an eternal one, and thus not 
only will two kingdoms, separate, and so liable to fail, be brought in, 
but, furthermore, inasmuch as no kingdom is to be compared with God's 
kingdom, which they cannot, however greatly they may desire to, deny to be 
the kingdom of the Son, they must either turn back upon their opinion, and 
acknowledge the kingdom of the Father and the Son to be one and the same; 
or they must ascribe to the Father the government of a lesser kingdom--
which is blasphemy; or they must acknowledge Him, Whom they wickedly 
declare to be inferior in respect of Godhead, to possess an equal kingdom, 
which is inconsistent.

    95. But this [their teaching] squares not agrees not, holds not [with 
its premisses]. Let them confess, then, that the kingdom is one, even as we 
confess and prove, not indeed on our own evidence, but upon testimony 
vouchsafed from heaven.

    96. To begin with, learn, from further testimonies [of Scripture], how 
that the kingdom of heaven is also the kingdom of the Son: "Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, that there are some amongst those which stand here with us, 
who shall not taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming into His 
kingdom."(3) There is therefore no room for doubt that the kingdom 
appertaineth to the Son of God.

    97. Now learn that the kingdom of the Son is the very same as the 
kingdom of the Father: "Verily, I say unto you that there be some of those 
which stand around us, who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom 
of God coming in power."(4) So far, indeed, is it one kingdom, that the 
reward is one, the inheritor is one and the same, and so also the merit, 
and He Who promises [the reward].

    98. How can it but be one kingdom, above all when the Son Himself hath 
said of Himself: "Then shall the righteous shine like the sun in the 
kingdom of My Father"?(1) For that which is the Father's, by fitness to His 
majesty, is also the Son's, by unity in the same glory."(2) The Scripture, 
therefore, hath declared the kingdom to be the kingdom both of the Father 
and of the Son.

    99. Now learn that where the kingdom of God is named, there is no 
putting aside of the authority either of the Father or of the Son, because 
both the kingdom of the Father and the kingdom of the Son is included under 
the single name of God, saying: "When ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God."(3) Do we deny that the 
prophets are in the kingdom of the Son, when even to a dying robber who 
said, "Remember me, when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," the Lord made 
answer: '(6)Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with Me in 
paradise."(4) What, indeed, do we understand by being in the kingdom of 
God, if not the having escaped eternal death? But they who have escaped 
eternal death see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

    100. How, then, can He not have in His power that which He gives, 
saying: "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven"?(5) See the 
gulf between [the one and the other]. The servant opens, the Lord bestows; 
the One through Himself, the other through Christ; the minister receives 
the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the 
other the duty of a steward.

    101. See now yet another proof that the kingdom, the government, of the 
Father and the Son is one. It is written in the Epistle to Timothy: "Paul, 
an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the government of God, our 
Saviour, and Christ Jesus, our Hope."(6) One, therefore, the kingdom of the 
Father and the Son is plainly declared to be, even as Paul the Apostle also 
asserted, saying: "For know this, that no shameless person, none that is 
impure, or covetous (which meaneth idolatry), hath inheritance in the 
kingdom of Christ and of God."(7) It is, therefore, one kingdom, one 
Godhead.

 102. Oneness in Godhead the Law hath proved, which speaks of one God,(1) 
as also the Apostle, by saying of Christ; "In Whom dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily."(2) For if, as the Apostle saith, all the fulness of 
the Godhead, bodily, is in Christ, then must the Father and the Son be 
confessed to be of one Godhead; or if it is desired to sunder the Godhead 
of the Son from the Godhead of the Father, whilst the Son possesses all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily, what is supposed to be further reserved, 
seeing that nothing remains over and above the fulness of perfection? 
Therefore the Godhead is one.

CHAPTER XIII.

The majesty of the Son is His own, and equal to that of the Father, and the 
angels are not partaken, but beholders thereof.

    103. Now, we having already laid down that the Father and the Son are 
of one image and likeness,(3) it remains for us to show that They are also 
of one majesty. And we need not go far afield for proof, inasmuch as the 
Son Himself has said of Himself: "When the Son of Man shall come in His 
majesty, and all the angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of 
His majesty."(4) Behold, then, the majesty of the Son declared! What 
lacketh He yet, Whose uncreated majesty cannot be denied?(5) Majesty, then, 
belongeth to the Son.

    104. Let our adversaries now hold it proved beyond doubt that the 
majesty of the Father and of the Son is one, forasmuch as the Lord Himself 
hath said: "For he who shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of Him shall 
the Son of Man be ashamed, when He cometh in His majesty and His Father's, 
and the majesty of the holy angels."(6) What is the force of the words "and 
the majesty of the holy angels," but that the servants derive honour from 
the worship of their Lord?

    105. The Son, therefore, ascribed His majesty to His Father as well as 
to Himself, not, indeed, in such sort that the angels should share in that 
majesty on equal terms with the Father and the Son, but that they should 
behold the surpassing glory of God; for truly not even angels possess a 
majesty of their own, after the manner in which Scripture speaks of the 
Son: "When He shall sit upon the throne of His majesty," but they stand in 
the presence, that they may see the glory of the Father and the Son, in 
such degrees of vision as they are either worthy of or able to bear.

    106. Furthermore, the God-given words themselves declare their own 
meaning, that you may understand that glory of the Father and the Son not 
to be held in common with them by angels, for thus they run: "But when the 
Son of Man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him." Again, 
to show that His Father's majesty and glory and His own majesty and glory 
are one and the same, our Lord Himself saith in another book: "And the Son 
of Man shall confound him, when He shall come in the glory of His Father, 
with the holy angels."(1) The angels come in obedience, He comes in glory: 
they are His retainers, He sits upon His throne: they stand, He is seated--
to borrow terms of the daily dealings of human life, He is the Judge: they 
are the officers of the court. Note that He did not place first His 
Father's divine majesty, and then, in the second place, His own and the 
angels', lest He should seem to have made out a sort of descending order, 
from the highest to lower natures. He placed His own majesty first, and 
then spoke of His Father's, and the majesty of the angels (because the 
Father could not appear lower than they), in order that He might not, by 
placing mention of Himself between that of His Father and that of the 
angels, seem to have made out some ascending scale, leading from angels to 
the Father through increase of His own dignity; nor, again, be believed to 
have, contrariwise, shown a descent from the Father to angels, entailing 
diminution of that dignity. Now we who confess one Godhead of the Father 
and the Son suppose no such order of distinction as the Arians do.(2)

CHAPTER XIV.

The Son is of one substance with the Father.

    108. And now, your Majesty, with regard to the question of the 
substance, why need I tell you that the Son is of one substance with the 
Father, when we have read that the Son is the image of the Father's 
substance, that you may understand that there is nothing wherein, so far as 
Godhead is regarded, the Son differs from the Father.

    109. In virtue of this likeness Christ said: "All things that the 
Father hath are Mine."(1) We cannot, then, deny substance to God, for 
indeed He is not unsubstantial, Who hath given to others the ground of 
their being, though this be different in God from what it is in the 
creature. The Son of God, by Whose agency all things endure,(2) could not 
be unsubstantial.

    110. And therefore, the Psalmist saith: "My bones are not hidden, which 
Thou didst make in secret, and my substance in the underworld."(3) For to 
His power and Godhead, the things that before the foundation of the world 
were done, though their magnificence was [as yet] invisible, could not be 
hidden. Here, then, we find mention of "substance."

    111. But it may be objected that the mention of His substance is the 
consequence of His Incarnation. I have shown that the word "substance" is 
used more than once, and that not in the sense of inherited possessions, as 
you would construe it. Now, if it please you, let us grant that, in 
accordance with the mystic prophecy, the substance of Christ was present in 
the underworld--for truly He did exert His power in the lower world to set 
free, in the soul which animated His own body, the souls of the dead, to 
loose the bands of death, to remit sins.(4)

    112. And, indeed, what hinders you from understanding, by that 
substance, His divine substance, seeing that God is everywhere, so that it 
hath been said to Him: "If I go up into heaven, Thou art there; if I go 
down into hell, Thou art present."(5)

    113. Furthermore, the Psalmist hath in the words following made it 
plain that we must understand the divine substance to be mentioned when he 
saith: "Thine eyes did see My being, [as] not the effect of working;"(1) 
inasmuch as the Son is not made, nor one of God's works, but the begotten 
Word of eternal power. He called Him "akate'rgaston," meaning that the Word 
neither made nor created, is begotten of the Father without the witnessing 
presence of any created being. Howbeit, we have abundance of testimony 
besides this. Let us grant that the substance here spoken of is the bodily 
substance, provided you also yourself say not that the Son of God is 
something effected by working, but confess His uncreated Godhead.

    114. Now I know that some assert that the mystic incarnate form was 
uncreated, forasmuch as nothing was done therein through intercourse with a 
man, because our Lord was the offspring of a virgin. If, then, many have, 
on the strength of this passage, asserted that neither that which was 
brought forth of Mary was produced by creative operation, dare you, 
disciple of Arius, think that the Word of God is something so produced?

    115. But is this the only place where we read of "substance"? Hath it 
not also been said in another passage: "The gates of the cities are broken 
down, the mountains are fallen, and His substance is revealed"?(2) What, 
does the word mean something created here also? Some, I know, are 
accustomed to say that the substance is substance in money. Then, if you 
give this meaning to the word, the mountains fell, in order that some one's 
possessions of money might be seen.

    116. But let us remember what mountains fell, those, namely, of which 
it hath been said: "If ye shall have faith as a grain of mustard seed ye 
shall say to this mountain: Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the 
sea!"(3) By mountains, then, are meant high things that exalt 
themselves.(4)

    117. Moreover, in the Greek, the rendering is this: "The palaces are 
fallen." What palaces, save the palace of Satan, of whom the Lord said: 
"How shall His kingdom stand?"(5) We are reading, therefore, of the things 
which are the devil's palaces as being very mountains, and therefore in the 
fall of those palaces from the hearts of the faithful, the truth stands 
revealed, that Christ, Son of God, is of the Father's eternal substance. 
What, again, are those mountains of bronze, from the midst of which four 
chariots come forth?(1)

    118. We behold that height, lifting up itself against the knowledge of 
God, cast down by the word of the Lord, when the Son of God said: "Hold thy 
peace, and come forth, thou foul spirit."(2) Concerning whom the prophet 
also said: "Behold, I am come to thee, thou mount of corruption!"(3)

    119. Those mountains, then, are fallen,(4) and it is revealed that in 
Christ was the substance of God, in the words of those who had seen Him: 
"Truly Thou art the Son of God,"(5) for it was in virtue of divine, not 
human power, that He commanded devils. Jeremiah also saith: "Make mourning 
upon the mountains, and beat your breasts upon the desert tracks, for they 
have failed; forasmuch as there are no men, they have not heard the word of 
substance: from flying fowl to beasts of burden, they trembled, they have 
failed."(6)

    120. Nor has it escaped us, that in another place also, setting forth 
the frailties of man's estate, in order to show that He had taken upon 
Himself the infirmity of the flesh, and the affections of our minds, the 
Lord said, by the mouth of His prophet: "Remember, O Lord, what My 
substance is,"(7) because it was the Son of God speaking in the nature of 
human frailty.(8)

    121. Of Him the Scripture saith, in the passage cited,(9) in order to 
discover the mysteries of the Incarnation: "But Thou hast rejected, O Lord, 
and counted for nought--Thou hast cast out Thy Christ.(10) Thou hast 
overthrown the covenant made with Thy Servant, and trampled His holiness in 
the earth."(11) What was it, in regard whereof the Scripture called Him 
"Servant," but His flesh?--seeing that "He did not hold equality with God 
as a prey, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made 
into the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man."(1) So, then, in 
that He took upon Himself My nature, He was a servant, but by virtue of His 
own power He is the Lord.

    122. Furthermore, what meaneth it that thou readest: "Who hath stood in 
the truth (substantia) of the Lord?" and again: "Now if they had stood in 
My truth, and had given ear to My words, and had taught My people, I would 
have turned them from their follies and transgressions"?(2)

CHAPTER XV.

The Arians, inasmuch as they assert the Son to be "of another substance," 
plainly acknowledge substance in God. The only reason why they avoid the 
use of this term is that they will not, as Eusebius of Nicomedia has made 
it evident, confess Christ to be the true Son of God.

    123. How can the Arians deny the substance of God?(3) How can they 
suppose that the word "substance" which is found in many places of 
Scripture ought to be debarred from use, when they themselves do yet, by 
saying that the Son is "heteroou'sios," that is, of another substance, 
admit substance in God?

    124. It is not the term itself, then, but its force and consequences, 
that they shun, because they will not confess the Son of God to be true 
[God].(4) For though the process of the divine generation cannot be 
comprehended in human language, still the Fathers judged that their faith 
might be fitly distinguished by the use of such a term, as against that of 
"heteroou'sios," following the authority of the prophet, who saith: "Who 
hath stood in the truth (substantia) of the Lord, and seen His Word?"(5) 
Arians, therefore, admit the term "substance" when it is used so as to 
square with their blasphemy; contrariwise, when it is adopted in accordance 
with the pious devotion of the faithful, they reject and dispute against 
it.

    125. What other reason can there be for their unwillingness to have the 
Son spoken of as "homoou'sios," of the same substance, with the Father, but 
that they are unwilling to confess Him the true Son of God? This is 
betrayed in the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia. "If," writes he, "we say 
that the Son is true God and uncreate, then we are in the way to confess 
Him to be of one substance (homoou'sios) with the Father." When this letter 
had been read before the Council assembled at Nicaea, the Fathers put this 
word in their exposition of the Faith. because they saw that it daunted 
their adversaries; in order that they might take the sword, which their 
opponents had drawn, to smite off the head of those opponents' own 
blasphemous heresy.(1)

    126. Vain, however, is their plea, that they avoid the use of the term, 
because of the Sabellians;(2) whereby they betray their own ignorance, for 
a being is of the same substance (homoou'sion) with another, not with 
itself. Rightly, then, do we call the Son "homoou'sios" (of the same 
substance), with the Father, forasmuch as that term expresses both the 
distinction of Persons and the unity of nature.

    127. Can they deny that the term "ousi'a" is met with in Scripture, 
when the Lord has spoken of bread, that is, "epiou'sios,"(3) and Moses has 
written "humei^s e'sesthe' moi lao`s periou'sios"?(4) What does "ousi'a" 
mean, whence comes the name, but from "ou^sa aei'," (5) "that which endures 
for ever? For He Who is, and is for ever, is God; and therefore the Divine 
Substance, abiding everlastingly, is called ousi'a. Bread is epiou'sios, 
because, taking the substance of abiding power from the substance of the 
Word, it supplies this to heart and soul, for it is written: "And bread 
strengtheneth man's heart."(1)

    128. Let us, then, keep the precepts of our forefathers, nor with rude 
and reckless daring profane the symbols bequeathed to us. That sealed book 
of prophecy, whereof we have heard, neither elders, nor powers, nor angels, 
nor archangels, ventured to open; for Christ alone is reserved the peculiar 
right of opening it.(2) Who amongst us dare unseal the book of the 
priesthood, sealed by confessors, and long hallowed by the testimony of 
many?(3) They who have been constrained to unseal, nevertheless have since, 
respecting the deceit put upon them, sealed again; they who dared not lay 
sacrilegious hands upon it, have stood forth as martyrs and confessors. How 
can we deny the Faith held by those whose victory we proclaim?

CHAPTER XVI.

In order to forearm the orthodox against the stratagems of the Arians, St. 
Ambrose discloses some of the deceitful confessions used by the latter, and 
shows by various arguments, that though they sometimes call the Son "God," 
it is not enough, unless they also admit His equality with the Father.

    129. Let none fear, let none tremble; he who threatens gives the 
advantage to the faithful. The soothing balms of deceitful men are 
poisoned--then must we be on our guard against them, when they pretend to 
preach that they do deny. Thus were those aforetime, who lightly trusted to 
them, deceived, so that they fell into the snares of treachery, when they 
thought all was good faith.

    130. "Let him be accursed," say they, "who says that Christ is a 
creature, after the manner of the rest of created beings." Plain folks have 
heard this, and put faith in it, for, as it is written, "the simple man 
believes every word."(4) Thus have they heard and believed, being taken in 
by the first sound thereof, and, like birds, eager for the bait of faith, 
have not noted the net spread for them, and so, pursuing after faith, have 
caught the hook of ungodly deceit. Wherefore "be ye wise as serpents," 
saith the Lord, "and harmless as doves."(1) Wisdom is put foremost, in 
order that harmlessness may be unharmed.

    131. For those are serpents, such as the Gospel intends, who put off 
old habits, in order to put on new manners: "Putting off the old man, 
together with his acts, and putting on the new man, made in the image of 
Him Who created him."(2) Let us learn then, the ways of those whom the 
Gospel calls the serpents, throwing off the slough of the old man, that so, 
like serpents, we may know how to preserve our life and beware of fraud.

    132. It would have been sufficient to say, "Accursed be he who saith 
that Christ is a created being." Why, then, Arian, dost thou mingle poison 
with the good that is in thy confession, and so defile the whole body of 
it? For by addition of "after the manner of the rest of created beings," 
you deny not that Christ is a being created, but that He is a created being 
like [all] others--for created being you do entitle Him, albeit you assign 
to Him dignity transcending the rest of creation. Furthermore, Arius, the 
first teacher of this ungodly doctrine, said that the Son of God was a 
perfect created being, and not as the rest of created beings. See you, 
then, how that you have adopted language bequeathed you from your father. 
To deny that Christ is a being created is enough: why add "but not as the 
rest of beings created"? Cut away the gangrened part, lest the contagion 
spread--it is poisonous, deadly.

    133. Again, you say sometimes that Christ is God. Nay, but so call Him 
true God, as meaning, that you acknowledge Him to possess the fulness of 
the Father's Godhead--for there are gods, so called, alike in heaven or 
upon earth. The name "God," then, is not to be used as a mere manner of 
address and mention, but with the understanding that you affirm, of the 
Son, that same Godhead which the Father hath, as it is written: "For as the 
Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have life 
in Himself;"(3) that is to say, He hath given it to Him, as to His Son, 
through begetting Him--not by grace, as to one indigent.

    134. "And He hath given Him power to execute judgment, because He is 
the Son of Man."(1) Note well this addition, that you may not take 
occasion, upon a word, to preach falsehood. You read that He is the Son of 
Man; do you therefore deny that He accepts [the power given]? Deny God, 
then, if all things proper to God are not given to the Son, for whereas He 
has said, "All things that the Father hath are Mine,"(2) why not 
acknowledge that all the properties and attributes of Divinity are in the 
Son [as they are in the Father]? For He who saith, "All things that the 
Father hath are Mine," what does He except as having not?

    135. Why is it that you recount "with insistence" and in such sincere 
language, Christ's raising the dead to life, walking upon the waters, 
healing the sicknesses of men? These powers, indeed, He has given to His 
bondmen to display as well as Himself. They do the more arouse my wonder 
when seen present in men, forasmuch as God hath given them power so great. 
I would hear somewhat concerning Christ that is His distinctly and 
peculiarly, and cannot be held in common with Him by created beings, now 
that He is begotten, the only Son of God, very God of very God, sitting at 
the Father's right hand.

    136. Wheresoever I read of the Father and Son sitting side by side, I 
find the Son always upon the right hand. Is that because the Son is above 
the Father? Nay, we say not so; but He Whom God's love honours is 
dishonoured by man's ungodliness. The Father knew that doubts as concerning 
the Son must needs be sown, and He hath given us an example of reverence 
for us to follow after, lest we dis-honour the Son.

CHAPTER XVII.

An objection based on St. Stephen's vision of the Lord standing is disposed 
of, and from the prayers of the same saint, addressed to the Son of God, 
the equality of the Son with the Father is shown.

    137. There is just one place, in which Stephen hath said that he saw 
the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God.(3) Learn now the import 
of these words, that you may not use them to raise a question upon. Why 
(you would ask) do we read every where else of the Son as sitting at the 
right hand of God, but in one place of His standing? He sits as Judge of 
quick and dead; He stands as His people's Advocate. He stood, then, as a 
Priest, whilst He was offering to His Father the sacrifice of a good 
martyr; He stood, as the Umpire, to bestow, as it were, upon a good 
wrestler the prize of so mighty a contest.

    138. Receive thou also the Spirit of God, that thou mayest discern 
those things, even as Stephen received the Spirit; and thou mayest say, as 
the martyr said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man 
standing at the right hand of God."(1) He who hath the heavens opened to 
him, seeth Jesus at the right hand of God: he whose soul's eye is closed, 
seeth not Jesus at the right hand of God. Let us, then, confess Jesus at 
God's right hand, that to us also the heavens may be opened. They who 
confess otherwise close the gates of heaven against themselves.

    139. But if any urge in objection that the Son was standing, let them 
show upon this passage that the Father was seated, for though Stephen said 
that the Son of Man was standing, still he did not further say here that 
the Father was sitting.

    140. Howbeit, to make it more abundantly clear and known that the 
standing implied no dishonour, but rather sovereignty, Stephen prayed to 
the Son, being desirous to commend himself the more to the Father, saying: 
"Lord Jesu, receive my spirit."(2) Again, to show that the sovereignty of 
the Father and of the Son is one and the same, he prayed again, saying, 
"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."(1) These are the words that the 
Lord, in His own Passion, speaks to the Father, as the Son of Man--these 
the words of Stephen's prayer, in his own martyrdom to the Son of God. When 
the same grace is sought of both the Father and the Son, the same power is 
affirmed of each.

    141. Otherwise, if our opponents will have it that Stephen addressed 
himself to the Father, let them consider what, on their own showing, they 
affirm. We indeed are unmoved by their arguments; howbeit, let them, to 
whom the letter and sequence is all important, take notice that the first 
petition is addressed to the Son. Now we, even on their understanding of 
the passage, prove from it the unity of the Father's and the Son's majesty; 
for when the Son is addressed in prayer as well as the Father, the equality 
which the prayer assigns points to unity in action. But if they will not 
allow that the Son was addressed with the title "Lord," we see that they do 
indeed seek to deny that He is Lord.

    142. Seeing, however, that so great a martyr's crown has been brought 
forth, let us abate the eagerness of disputation, and bring to-day's 
discourse to a close. Let us sing the praises of the holy martyr, as is 
fitting always after a mighty conflict--the martyr bleeding indeed from the 
enemy's blows, but rewarded with the crown bestowed by Christ.