BOOK IV.

CHAPTER I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER V.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VIII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER IX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER XI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER XII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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