Author: Mourad Takla

The blessed apostle Paul, when he laid down the pattern for appointing a bishop and created through his teaching an entirely new kind of member of the Church, taught us the sum of all the virtues perfected in him with these words: "Holding fast the word according to the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine and to convict gainsayers. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers." For in this way he shows that proper conduct and morals are only useful for good service in the priesthood if the qualities needed for knowing how to teach and preserve the faith are also present. A man does not become a good and useful priest simply by living a blameless life or by merely knowing how to preach. A blameless minister benefits only himself unless he is also instructed, while an instructed minister has nothing to support his teaching unless he is blameless. For the apostle's words are not merely fitting a man for life in this world through rules of honesty and uprightness, nor are they simply training a mere scribe of the synagogue in skill at expounding the law. Rather, the apostle is training a leader of the Church, perfected through the perfect accomplishment of the greatest virtues, so that his life may adorn his teaching and his teaching adorn his life. Accordingly, he gave Titus, the person he was addressing, an instruction about the perfect practice of religion in these words: "In all things showing yourself an example of good works, teaching with gravity sound words that cannot be condemned, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing disgraceful or evil to say of us." This teacher of the Gentiles and chosen doctor of the Church, aware from his consciousness of Christ who spoke and dwelt within him, knew well that the infection of corrupted speech would spread abroad, and that the corruption of destructive doctrine would furiously rage against the sound form of faithful words. By infusing the poison of its own evil teachings into the innermost soul, it would creep on with deep-seated harm. For it is of these that he says, "Whose word spreads like a cancer," tainting the health of the mind that is invaded by it with a secret and stealthy contagion. For this reason, he wanted the bishop to have the teaching of sound words, a good conscience in the faith, and skill in exhortation to withstand wicked and false and reckless gainsayers. For there are many who claim to have the faith but are not subject to the faith, and who set up a faith for themselves rather than receive what is given, being puffed up with the thoughts of human vanity, knowing the things they wish to know and unwilling to know the things that are true. Since it is a mark of true wisdom sometimes to know what we do not like, this self-made wisdom is followed by foolish preaching, for what is foolishly learned must necessarily be foolishly preached. Yet how great an evil foolish preaching is to those who hear, when they are misled into foolish opinions by the pretense of wisdom! And for this reason the apostle described them thus: "There are many unruly, vain talkers and deceivers." Therefore we must raise our voice against arrogant wickedness and boastful arrogance and seductive boastfulness—yes, we must speak against such things through the soundness of our doctrine, the truth of our faith, the sincerity of our preaching, so that we may have the purity of truth and the truth of sound doctrine.

1. The Blessed Apostle Paul in laying down the form for appointing a bishop and creating by his instructions an entirely new type of member of the Church, has taught us in the following words the sum total of all the virtues perfected in him:– Holding fast the word according to the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine and to convict gainsayers. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers. Titus 1:9-10 For in this way he points out that the essentials of orderliness and morals are only profitable for good service in the priesthood if at the same time the qualities needful for knowing how to teach and preserve the faith are not lacking, for a man is not straightway made a good and useful priest by a merely innocent life or by a mere knowledge of preaching. For an innocent minister is profitable to himself alone unless he be instructed also; while he that is instructed has nothing to support his teaching unless he be innocent. For the words of the Apostle do not merely fit a man for his life in this world by precepts of honesty and uprightness, nor on the other hand do they educate in expertness of teaching a mere Scribe of the Synagogue for the expounding of the Law: but the Apostle is training a leader of the Church, perfected by the perfect accomplishment of the greatest virtues, so that his life may be adorned by his teaching, and his teaching by his life. Accordingly he has provided Titus, the person to whom his words were addressed, with an injunction as to the perfect practice of religion to this effect:– In all things showing yourself an ensample of good works, teaching with gravity sound words that cannot be condemned, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing disgraceful or evil to say of us. Titus 2:7-8 This teacher of the Gentiles and elect doctor of the Church, from his consciousness of Christ who spoke and dwelt within him, knew well that the infection of tainted speech would spread abroad, and that the corruption of pestilent doctrine would furiously rage against the sound form of faithful words, and infusing the poison of its own evil tenets into the inmost soul, would creep on with deep-seated mischief. For it is of these that he says, Whose word spreads like a cancer 2 Timothy 2:17, tainting the health of the mind, invaded by it with a secret and stealthy contagion. For this reason, he wished that there should be in the bishop the teaching of sound words, a good conscience in the faith and expertness in exhortation to withstand wicked and false and wild gainsayings. For there are many who pretend to the faith, but are not subject to the faith, and rather set up a faith for themselves than receive that which is given, being puffed up with the thoughts of human vanity, knowing the things they wish to know and unwilling to know the things that are true; since it is a mark of true wisdom sometimes to know what we do not like. However, this will-wisdom is followed by foolish preaching, for what is foolishly learned must needs be foolishly preached. Yet how great an evil to those who hear is foolish preaching, when they are misled into foolish opinions by conceit of wisdom! And for this cause the Apostle described them thus: There are many unruly, vain talkers and deceivers. Titus 1:9 Hence we must utter our voice against arrogant wickedness and boastful arrogance and seductive boastfulness — yes, we must speak against such things through the soundness of our doctrine, the truth of our faith, the sincerity of our preaching, so that we may have the purity of truth and the truth of sound doctrine.

I have mentioned this statement from the Apostle for the following reason: men with twisted minds and false claims, who lack hope and speak with poisonous words, force me to speak out against them. Under the pretense of religion, they pour deadly teachings, infectious ideas, and corrupt desires into the simple minds of those who listen to them. They do this with complete disregard for the true meaning of apostolic teaching, to the point that the Father is not the Father, the Son is not the Son, and the Faith is not the Faith. In responding to their wild falsehoods, we have extended our reply to such a length that, after proving from the Law that God and God were distinct and that very God was in very God, we then demonstrated from the teaching of the evangelists and apostles the perfect and true birth of the Only-begotten God. Finally, we showed in the proper sequence of our argument that the Son of God is very God and of a nature identical with the Father's, so that the faith of the Church should neither confess that God is single nor that there are two Gods. For the birth of God does not allow God to be solitary, nor does a perfect birth allow different natures to be assigned to two Gods. In refuting their empty talk, we have two purposes: first, that we may teach what is holy, perfect, and sound, and that our discussion should not, by wandering through side paths and crooked ways and struggling out of devious and winding tunnels, seem to be searching for the truth rather than declaring it. Our second purpose is that we should reveal to everyone's conviction the foolishness and absurdity of those crafty arguments contained in their vain and deceptive opinions, which are designed to create a convincing appearance of seductive truth. For it is not enough for us simply to have pointed out what things are good unless they are understood to be absolutely good through our refutation of their opposites.

2. The reason why I have just mentioned this utterance of the Apostle is this; men of crooked minds and false professions, void of hope and venomous of speech, lay upon me the necessity of inveighing against them, because under the guise of religion they instil deadly doctrines, infectious thoughts and corrupt desires into the simple minds of their hearers. And this they do with an utter disregard of the true sense of the apostolic teaching, so that the Father is not a Father, nor the Son, Son, nor the Faith, the Faith. In resisting their wild falsehoods, we have extended the course of our reply so far, that after proving from the Law that God and God were distinct and that very God was in very God, we then showed from the teaching of evangelists and apostles the perfect and true birth of the Only-begotten God; and lastly, we pointed out in the due course of our argument that the Son of God is very God, and of a nature identical with the Father's, so that the faith of the Church should neither confess that God is single nor that there are two Gods. For neither would the birth of God allow God to be solitary, nor would a perfect birth allow different natures to be ascribed to two Gods. Now in refuting their vain speaking we have a twofold object, first that we may teach what is holy and perfect and sound, and, that our discourse should not by straying through any by-paths and crooked ways, and struggling out of devious and winding tunnels, seem rather to search for the truth than declare it. Our second object is that we should reveal to the conviction of all men the folly and absurdity of those crafty arguments of their vain and deceitful opinions which are adapted to a plausible show of seductive truth. For it is not enough for us to have pointed out what things are good, unless they are understood to be absolutely good by our refutation of their opposites.

Just as good and wise people prepare themselves completely to secure either the reality or the opportunity of some precious hope—so that their readiness does not fall short in any way of what they are hoping for—in the same way those who are filled with the madness of heretical frenzy make it their chief concern to work with all the ingenuity of their impiety against the truth of pious faith. They do this so that they may establish their own irreligion against those who are religious, so that they may surpass the hope of our life with the hopelessness of their own, and so that they may spend more thought on false teaching than we spend on true teaching. They have carefully devised objections from their impious unbelief to counter the pious assertions of our faith. First they ask whether we believe in one God, next whether Christ is also God, and finally whether the Father is greater than the Son. When they hear us confess that God is one, they use our reply to show that Christ cannot be God. They do not ask about the Son to find out whether He is God; all they want when asking questions about Christ is to prove that He is not a Son. By trapping people of simple faith, they use the belief in one God to turn them away from belief in Christ as God, on the grounds that God is no longer one if Christ must also be acknowledged as God. Again, with what cleverness of worldly wisdom do they argue when they say: If God is one, then whoever that other person is shown to be, he will not be God. For if there is another God, He can no longer be one, since nature does not allow that where there is another there should be only one, or that where there is only one there should be another. Afterward, when they have misled those who are ready to believe and listen through the crafty cunning of this deceptive argument, they then put forward this claim (as if they could now establish it by an easier method): that Christ is God in name rather than in physis, because this generic name in Him does not destroy the one true belief in one God. They argue that through this the Father is greater than the Son, because—since the natures are different and there is only one God—the Father is greater from the essential character of His physis. The Other, they say, is only called Son while He is really a creature existing by the will of the Father, because He is less than the Father. They also claim He is not God, because God being one does not admit of another God, since the one who is less must necessarily be of a physis alien to that of the person who is greater. Again, how foolish they are in their attempts to impose a law on God when they maintain that no birth can take place from one single being, because throughout the universe birth comes from the union of two. Moreover, they claim that the unchangeable God cannot produce from Himself birth to one who is born, because what is changeless is incapable of addition, and the physis of a solitary and single being cannot contain within itself the property of generation.

3. But as it is the nature and endeavour of the good and wise to prepare themselves wholly for securing either the reality or the opportunity of some precious hope lest their preparedness should in some respects fall short of that which they look for — so in like manner those who are filled with the madness of heretical frenzy make it their chiefest anxiety to labour with all the ingenuity of their impiety against the truth of pious faith, in order that against those who are religious they may establish their own irreligion; that they may surpass the hope of our life in the hopelessness of their own, and that they may spend more thought over false than we spend over true teaching. For against the pious assertions of our faith they have carefully devised such objections of their impious misbelief, as first to ask whether we believe in one God, next, whether Christ also be God, lastly, whether the Father is greater than the Son, in order that when they hear us confess that God is one they may use our reply to show that Christ cannot be God. For they do not enquire concerning the Son whether He be God; all they wish for in asking questions about Christ is to prove that He is not a Son, that by entrapping men of simple faith they may through the belief in one God divert them from the belief in Christ as God, on the ground that God is no longer one if Christ also must be acknowledged as God. Again with what subtlety of worldly wisdom do they contend when they say, If God is one, whosoever that other shall be shown to be, he will not be God. For if there be another God He can no longer be one, since nature does not permit that where there is another there should be one only, or that where there is only one there should be another. Afterwards, when by the crafty cunning of this insidious argument they have misled those who are ready to believe and listen, they then apply this proposition (as if they could now establish it by an easier method), that Christ is God rather in name than in nature, because this generic name in Him can destroy in none that only true belief in one God: and they contend that through this the Father is greater than the Son, because, the natures being different, as there is but one God, the Father is greater from the essential character of His nature; and that the Other is only called Son while He is really a creature subsisting by the will of the Father, because He is less than the Father; and also that He is not God, because God being one does not admit of another God, since he who is less must necessarily be of a nature alien from that of the person who is greater. Again, how foolish they are in their attempts to lay down a law for God when they maintain that no birth can take place from one single being, because throughout the universe birth arises from the union of two; moreover, that the unchangeable God cannot accord from Himself birth to one who is born, because that which is changeless is incapable of addition, nor can the nature of a solitary and single being contain within itself the property of generation.

We, on the other hand, have reached the faith of the evangelists and apostles through spiritual teaching. By confessing the Father and the Son, we follow after the hope of eternal blessedness. We have demonstrated from the Law the mystery of God and God, without going beyond the bounds of our faith in one God or failing to proclaim that Christ is God. We have taken our method of response from the Gospels: we declare the true birth of the Only-begotten God from God the Father, because through this birth He was truly God and not separate from the nature of the one true God. In this way, neither could His Godhead be denied, nor could He be called another God, because while the birth made Him God, the nature within Him of one God from God did not set Him apart as another God. Although our human reason brought us to this conclusion—that the names of distinct natures could not come together in the same nature and be one unless the essence of each differed in kind—we nevertheless thought it good to prove this from the clear statements of our Lord. After frequently making known that the God of our faith and hope was One, in order to affirm the mystery of the One God while declaring and proving His own Godhead, He said, "I and the Father are one," and "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also," and "Believe Me, that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father: or else believe for the very works' sake." He has indicated His own birth in the name Father, and declares that in the knowledge of Himself the Father is known. He affirms the unity of nature when those who see Him see the Father. He testifies that He is inseparable from the Father when He dwells in the Father Who dwells in Him. He demonstrates the confidence of self-knowledge when He asks for belief in His words based on the evidence of His works of power. And so in this most blessed faith of the perfect birth, every error is destroyed—both that of two Gods and of a single God—since They Who are one in essence are not one person, and He Who is not one person with Him Who is, is yet so free from any difference from Him that They Two are One God.

4. We, on the contrary, having by spiritual teaching arrived at the faith of the evangelists and apostles, and following after the hope of eternal blessedness by our confession of the Father and the Son, and having proved out of the Law the mystery of God and God, without overstepping the limits of our faith in one God, or failing to proclaim that Christ is God, have adopted this method of reply from the Gospels, that we declare the true nativity of Only-begotten God from God the Father, because that through this He was both very God and not alien from the nature of the One very God, and thus neither could His Godhead be denied nor Himself be described as another God, because while the birth made Him God, the nature within him of one God of God did not separate Him off as another God. And although our human reason led us to this conclusion, that the names of distinct natures could not meet together in the same nature, and not be one, where the essence of each did not differ in kind; nevertheless, it seemed good that we should prove this from the express sayings of our Lord, Who after frequently making known that the God of our faith and hope was One, in order to affirm the mystery of the One God, while declaring and proving His own Godhead, said, I and the Father are one; and, If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also; and, Believe Me, that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father: or else believe for the very works' sake. He has signified His own birth in the name Father, and declares that in the knowledge of Himself the Father is known. He avows the unity of nature, when those who see Him see the Father. He bears witness that He is indivisible from the Father, when He dwells in the Father Who dwells in Him. He possesses the confidence of self- knowledge when He demands credit for His words from the operations of His power. And thus in this most blessed faith of the perfect birth, every error, as well that of two Gods as of a single God, is abolished, since They Who are one in essence are not one person, and He Who is not one person with Him Who is, is yet so free from difference from Him that They Two are One God.

Now, because these things are so clearly stated and understood, heretics cannot deny them. Nevertheless, they twist them through the most foolish and wicked lies so as to deny them afterward. For they try to interpret Christ's words, "I and the Father are one," as referring merely to an agreement in unanimity, so that there may be in them a unity of will, not of nature—that is, that they may be one not by essence of being, but by identity of will. And they use the passage from the Acts of the Apostles to support their position: "Now of the multitude of them that believed the heart and soul were one" (Acts 4:32), in order to prove that a diversity of souls and hearts may be united into one heart and soul through mere conformity of will. Or else they cite those words to the Corinthians, "Now he that plants and he that waters are one" (1 Corinthians 3:8), to show that because they are one in their work for our salvation and in the revelation of one mystery, their unity is a unity of wills. Or again, they quote our Lord's prayer for the salvation of the nations who should believe in him: "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe in me through their word; that they all may be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us" (John 17:20-21), to show that since human beings cannot, so to speak, be fused back into God or themselves coalesce into one undistinguished mass, this oneness must arise from unity of will, while all perform actions pleasing to God and unite one with another in the harmonious agreement of their thoughts, and that thus it is not nature which makes them one, but will.

5. Now seeing that heretics cannot deny these things because they are so clearly stated and understood, they nevertheless pervert them by the most foolish and wicked lies so as afterwards to deny them. For the words of Christ, I and the Father are one, they endeavour to refer to a mere concord of unanimity, so that there may be in them a unity of will not of nature, that is, that they may be one not by essence of being, but by identity of will. And they apply to the support of their case the passage in the Acts of the Apostles, Now of the multitude of them that believed the heart and soul were one Acts 4:32, in order to prove that a diversity of souls and hearts may be united into one heart and soul through a mere conformity of will. Or else they cite those words to the Corinthians, Now he that plants and he that waters are one 1 Corinthians 3:8, to show that, since They are one in Their work for our salvation, and in the revelation of one mystery, Their unity is an unity of wills. Or again, they quote the prayer of our Lord for the salvation of the nations who should believe in Him: Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe in Me through their Word; that they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us John 17:20-21, to show that since men cannot, so to speak, be fused back into God or themselves coalesce into one undistinguished mass, this oneness must arise from unity of will, while all perform actions pleasing to God, and unite one with another in the harmonious accord of their thoughts, and that thus it is not nature which makes them one, but will.

6. Anyone who does not know God clearly does not know wisdom. And since Christ is Wisdom, anyone who does not know Christ or hates Him must necessarily be outside wisdom. For instance, this applies to those who insist that the Lord of Glory, King of the Universe, and Only-begotten God is a creature of God and not His Son, and who, in addition to such foolish lies, display even more foolish cleverness in defending their falsehood. For even if we set aside for a moment that essential character of unity which exists in God the Father and God the Son, they can be refuted by the very passages they themselves cite.

6. He clearly knows not wisdom who knows not God. And since Christ is Wisdom he must needs be beyond the pale of wisdom who knows not Christ or hates Him. As, for instance, they do who will have it that the Lord of Glory, and King of the Universe, and Only-begotten God is a creature of God and not His Son, and in addition to such foolish lies show a still more foolish cleverness in the defense of their falsehood. For even putting aside for a little that essential character of unity which exists in God the Father and God the Son, they can be refuted out of the very passages which they adduce.

As for those whose soul and heart were one, I ask whether they were one through faith in God? Yes, certainly, through faith, because through this the soul and heart of all were one. I ask again, is the faith one or is there a second faith? Undoubtedly one, and that on the authority of the Apostle himself, who declares one faith just as there is one Lord, one baptism, one hope, and one God. If then it is through faith—that is, through the nature of one faith—that all are one, how do you not understand a natural unity in the case of those who through the nature of one faith are one? For all were born again to innocence, to immortality, to the knowledge of God, to the faith of hope. And if these things cannot differ among themselves because there is both one hope and one God, just as there is also one Lord and one baptism of regeneration—if these things are one by agreement rather than by nature, then you must also ascribe a unity of will to those who have been born again into them. But if they have been begotten again into the nature of one life and eternity, then, since their soul and heart are one, the unity of will fails to explain their case, because they are one by regeneration into the same nature.

7. For as to those whose soul and heart were one, I ask whether they were one through faith in God? Yes, assuredly, through faith, for through this the soul and heart of all were one. Again I ask, is the faith one or is there a second faith? One undoubtedly, and that on the authority of the Apostle himself, who proclaims one faith even as one Lord, and one baptism, and one hope, and one God. Ephesians 4:4-5 If then it is through faith, that is, through the nature of one faith, that all are one, how is it that you do not understand a natural unity in the case of those who through the nature of one faith are one? For all were born again to innocence, to immortality, to the knowledge of God, to the faith of hope. And if these things cannot differ within themselves because there is both one hope and one God, as also there is one Lord and one baptism of regeneration; if these things are one rather by agreement than by nature, ascribe a unity of will to those also who have been born again into them. If, however, they have been begotten again into the nature of one life and eternity, then, inasmuch as their soul and heart are one, the unity of will fails to account for their case who are one by regeneration into the same nature.

We are not offering our own speculations here, nor are we falsely constructing any of these things to deceive our listeners by twisting the meaning of words. Rather, holding fast to the pattern of sound teaching, we know and preach what is true. The Apostle demonstrates that this unity of the faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the Galatians, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That these people are one amid such great diversity of race, condition, and sex—is this from an agreement of will or from the unity of the sacrament, since they have one baptism and have all put on one Christ? What good, then, would mere harmony of minds do here when they are one because they have put on one Christ through the nature of one baptism?

8. These are not our own conjectures which we offer, nor do we falsely put together any of these things in order to deceive the ears of our hearers by perverting the meaning of words; but holding fast the form of sound teaching we know and preach the things which are true. For the Apostle shows that this unity of the faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the Galatians, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28 That these are one amid so great diversities of race, condition, sex — is it from an agreement of will or from the unity of the sacrament, since these have one baptism and have all put on one Christ? What, therefore, will a concord of minds avail here when they are one in that they have put on one Christ through the nature of one baptism?

Or again, since the one who plants and the one who waters are one, are they not one because, having themselves been born again in one baptism, they form a ministry of one regenerating baptism? Do they not do the same thing? Are they not one in One? Therefore those who are one through the same thing are also one by physis, not only by will, since they themselves have been made the same thing and are ministers of the same thing and the same power.

9. Or, again, since he who plants and he who waters are one, are they not one because, being themselves born again in one baptism they form a ministry of one regenerating baptism? Do not they do the same thing? Are they not one in One? So they who are one through the same thing are one also by nature, not only by will, inasmuch as they themselves have been made the same thing and are ministers of the same thing and the same power.

Now the contradictions of fools always serve to prove their folly, because when they devise arguments through an unwise or twisted understanding against the truth, while the truth remains unshaken and immovable, the things opposed to it must necessarily be regarded as false and foolish. For heretics attempt to deceive others regarding the words, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), so that the unity and like ousia of deity might not be acknowledged in them, but only a oneness arising from mutual love and an agreement of wills. These heretics, I say, have brought forward an example of that unity, as we have shown above, even from the words of our Lord: "That they all may be one, as You Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us." Every person is outside the promises of the Gospel who is outside the faith in them, and through the guilt of an evil understanding has lost all simple hope. For not knowing what you believe requires not so much an excuse as a reward, since the greatest service of faith is to hope for what you do not know. But it is the madness of most complete wickedness either not to believe things which are understood or to have corrupted the sense in which one believes.

10. Now the contradiction of fools always serves to prove their folly, because with regard to the faults which they contrive by the devices of an unwise or crooked understanding against the truth, while the latter remains unshaken and immovable the things which are opposed to it must needs be regarded as false and foolish. For heretics in their attempt to deceive others by the words, I and the Father are one John 10:30, that there might not be acknowledged in them the unity and like essence of deity, but only a oneness arising from mutual love and an agreement of wills — these heretics, I say, have brought forward an instance of that unity, as we have shown above, even from the words of our Lord, That they all may be one, as You Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us. Every man is outside the promises of the Gospel who is outside the faith in them, and by the guilt of an evil understanding has lost all simple hope. For to know not what you believe demands not so much excuse as a reward, for the greatest service of faith is to hope for that which you know not. But it is the madness of most consummate wickedness either not to believe things which are understood or to have corrupted the sense in which one believes.

But although human wickedness can corrupt intellectual abilities, words still keep their meaning. Our Lord prays to His Father that those who will believe in Him may be one, and just as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so all may be one in Them. Why do you introduce here an identity of mind, or a unity of soul and heart through agreement of will? For our Lord would not have lacked suitable words, if it were will that made them one, to have prayed in this way: Father, as We are one in will, so may they also be one in will, that we may all be one through agreement. Or could it be that He Who is the Word was unfamiliar with the meaning of words? That He Who is Truth did not know how to speak the truth? That He Who is Wisdom went astray in foolish speech? That He Who is Power was surrounded by such weakness that He could not say what He wanted to be understood? He has clearly spoken the true and genuine mysteries of the faith of the Gospel. And He has not only spoken so that we may understand, He has also taught so that we may believe, saying, That they all may be one, as You Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us. This prayer is first for those of whom it is said, That they all may be one. Then the advancement of unity is presented through a model of unity, when He says, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so through the model of this unity all might be one in the Father and the Son.

11. But although the wickedness of man can pervert his intellectual powers, nevertheless the words retain their meaning. Our Lord prays to His Father that those who shall believe in Him may be one, and as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so all may be one in Them. Why do you bring in here an identity of mind, why a unity of soul and heart through agreement of will? For there would have been no lack of suitable words for our Lord, if it were will that made them one, to have prayed in this fashion — Father, as We are one in will, so may they also be one in will, that we may all be one through agreement. Or could it be that He Who is the Word was unacquainted with the meaning of words? And that He Who is Truth knew not how to speak the truth? And He Who is Wisdom went astray in foolish talk? And He Who is Power was compassed about with such weakness that He could not speak what He wished to be understood? He has clearly spoken the true and sincere mysteries of the faith of the Gospel. And He has not only spoken that we may comprehend, He has also taught that we may believe, saying, That they all may be one, as You Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us. For those first of all is the prayer of whom it is said, That they all may be one. Then the promotion of unity is set forth by a pattern of unity, when He says, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so through the pattern of this unity all might be one in the Father and the Son.

But because it is proper to the Father alone and the Son that they should be one by nature—since God is from God, and the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten can subsist in no other nature than that of his origin—the one who was begotten must exist in the substance of his birth, and the birth must possess no other and different truth of deity than that from which it came. Our Lord has left us in no doubt about our belief by declaring throughout the entire discourse that follows the nature of this complete unity. For the next words are these: "That the world may believe that you sent me" (John 17:21). Thus the world is to believe that the Son has been sent by the Father because all who believe in him will be one in the Father and the Son. And how they will be so we are soon told: "And the glory which you have given me I have given to them." Now I ask whether glory is identical with will, since will is an emotion of the mind while glory is an ornament or embellishment of nature. So then it is the glory received from the Father that the Son has given to all who will believe in him, and certainly not will. If will had been given, faith would carry no reward, for a necessity of will attached to us would also impose faith upon us. However, he has shown what is accomplished by the bestowal of the received glory: "That they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22). It is with this purpose that the received glory was bestowed—that all might be one. So now all are one in glory, because the glory given is none other than that which was received, nor has it been given for any other reason than that all should be one. And since all are one through the glory given to the Son and by the Son bestowed upon believers, I ask how the Son can be of a different glory from the Father's, since the glory of the Son brings all who believe into the unity of the Father's glory. Now it may be that the expression of human hope in this case is somewhat excessive, yet it is not contrary to faith. For though to hope for this were presumptuous, not to have believed it is sinful, since we have one and the same author both of our hope and of our faith. We will treat this matter more clearly and at greater length in its proper place, as is fitting. Yet in the meantime it is easily seen from our present argument that this hope of ours is neither empty nor presumptuous. So then through the glory received and given all are one. I hold the faith and recognize the cause of the unity, but I do not yet understand how it is that the glory given makes all one.

12. But because it is proper to the Father alone and the Son that They should be one by nature because God is from God, and the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten can subsist in no other nature than that of His origin; so that He Who was begotten should exist in the substance of His birth, and the birth should possess no other and different truth of deity than that from which it issued; for our Lord has left us in no doubt as to our belief by asserting throughout the whole of the discourse which follows the nature of this complete unity. For the next words are these, That the world may believe that You sent Me. John 17:21 Thus the world is to believe that the Son has been sent by the Father because all who shall believe in Him will be one in the Father and the Son. And how they will be so we are soon told — And the glory which You have given Me I have given unto them. Now I ask whether glory is identical with will, since will is an emotion of the mind while glory is an ornament or embellishment of nature. So then it is the glory received from the Father that the Son has given to all who shall believe in Him, and certainly not will. Had this been given, faith would carry with it no reward, for a necessity of will attached to us would also impose faith upon us. However He has shown what is effected by the bestowal of the glory received, That they may be one, even as We are one. John 17:22 It is then with this object that the received glory was bestowed, that all might be one. So now all are one in glory, because the glory given is none other than that which was received: nor has it been given for any other cause than that all should be one. And since all are one through the glory given to the Son and by the Son bestowed upon believers, I ask how can the Son be of a different glory from the Father's, since the glory of the Son brings all that believe into the unity of the Father's glory. Now it may be that the utterance of human hope in this case may be somewhat immoderate, yet it will not be contrary to faith; for though to hope for this were presumptuous, yet not to have believed it is sinful, for we have one and the same Author both of our hope and of our faith. We will treat of this matter more clearly and at greater length in its own place, as is fitting. Yet in the meantime it is easily seen from our present argument that this hope of ours is neither vain nor presumptuous. So then through the glory received and given all are one. I hold the faith and recognise the cause of the unity, but I do not yet understand how it is that the glory given makes all one.

Now our Lord has not left the minds of His faithful followers in doubt, but has explained the manner in which His nature operates, saying, "That they may be one, as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one." Now I ask those who claim there is only a unity of will between Father and Son: is Christ in us today through the reality of nature or through agreement of will? For if the Word has truly been made flesh, and we truly receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, must we not believe that He remains in us by nature? He was born as a man and took on the nature of our flesh, which is now inseparably His, and He has joined the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament through which His flesh is given to us. This is how we are all one, because the Father is in Christ and Christ is in us. Anyone who denies that the Father is in Christ by nature must first deny either that he himself is in Christ by nature, or that Christ is in him by nature, because the Father in Christ and Christ in us make us one in Them. So if Christ has truly taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and the Man who was born from Mary was truly Christ, and we truly receive the flesh of His body in the mystery of the sacrament—and for this reason we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He is in us—how can anyone maintain there is only a unity of will? The distinctive reality of nature received through the sacrament is itself the sacrament of a perfect unity.

13. Now our Lord has not left the minds of His faithful followers in doubt, but has explained the manner in which His nature operates, saying, That they may be one, as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one. Now I ask those who bring forward a unity of will between Father and Son, whether Christ is in us today through verity of nature or through agreement of will. For if in truth the Word has been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that He abides in us naturally, Who, born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself, and has conjoined the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which His flesh is communicated to us? For so are we all one, because the Father is in Christ and Christ in us. Whosoever then shall deny that the Father is in Christ naturally must first deny that either he is himself in Christ naturally, or Christ in him, because the Father in Christ and Christ in us make us one in Them. Hence, if indeed Christ has taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and that Man Who was born from Mary was indeed Christ, and we indeed receive in a mystery the flesh of His body — (and for this cause we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He in us) — how can a unity of will be maintained, seeing that the special property of nature received through the sacrament is the sacrament of a perfect unity?

The words we use to speak about divine things must not be used in merely human or worldly ways, nor should the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be forced from sound heavenly words through violent and reckless preaching. Let us read what is written, understand what we read, and then fulfill the requirements of a perfect faith. Regarding what we say about the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He Himself says, "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." Concerning the truth of the flesh and blood, there is no room left for doubt. For now, both from the Lord's own declaration and from our own faith, it is truly flesh and truly blood. And when these are eaten and drunk, they bring about the result that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? But those who claim that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to consider it false. Therefore, He Himself is in us through the flesh, and we are in Him, while together with Him we ourselves are in God.

14. The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:55-56 As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, while together with Him our own selves are in God.

Now as for how we are in Him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood given to us, He Himself testifies, saying, "And the world will no longer see Me, but you shall see Me; because I live you shall live also; because I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." If He wanted to indicate merely a unity of will, why did He present a kind of progression and order in completing this unity? The reason is this: since He was in the Father through the nature of Deity, and we in contrast are in Him through His birth in the body, He wants us to believe that He is in us through the mystery of the sacraments. In this way a perfect unity is taught through a Mediator: while we remain in Him, He remains in the Father, and as He remains in the Father He also remains in us. So we reach unity with the Father, since in Him Who dwells naturally in the Father by birth, we also dwell naturally, while He Himself also remains naturally in us.

15. Now how it is that we are in Him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood bestowed upon us, He Himself testifies, saying, And the world will no longer see Me, but you shall see Me; because I live you shall live also; because I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. If He wished to indicate a mere unity of will, why did He set forth a kind of gradation and sequence in the completion of the unity, unless it were that, since He was in the Father through the nature of Deity, and we on the contrary in Him through His birth in the body, He would have us believe that He is in us through the mystery of the sacraments? And thus there might be taught a perfect unity through a Mediator, while, we abiding in Him, He abode in the Father, and as abiding in the Father abode also in us; and so we might arrive at unity with the Father, since in Him Who dwells naturally in the Father by birth, we also dwell naturally, while He Himself abides naturally in us also.

Again, Christ Himself testified how natural this unity is in us: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." For no one will dwell in Him unless He Himself also dwells in that person, because the only flesh He has taken to Himself is the flesh of those who have taken His flesh. Now He had already taught about the sacrament of this perfect unity before, saying, "As the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he that eats My flesh shall himself also live through Me." Therefore He lives through the Father, and just as He lives through the Father, we in the same way live through His flesh. Every comparison is chosen to help us understand, so that we may grasp what is being discussed through the analogy given to us. This is the reason for our life: we have Christ dwelling within our physical bodies through the flesh, and we will live through Him in the same way that He lives through the Father. If we live naturally through Him according to the flesh—that is, we have shared in the nature of His flesh—must He not also naturally have the Father within Himself according to the Spirit, since He Himself lives through the Father? And He lives through the Father because His birth has not given Him a foreign and different nature, since His very being comes from the Father but is not separated from Him by any barrier of unlikeness in nature. For He has the Father within Himself through His birth in the power of that nature.

16. Again, how natural this unity is in us He has Himself testified on this wise — He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:56 For no man shall dwell in Him, save him in whom He dwells Himself, for the only flesh which He has taken to Himself is the flesh of those who have taken His. Now He had already taught before the sacrament of this perfect unity, saying, As the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he that eats My flesh shall himself also live through Me. So then He lives through the Father, and as He lives through the Father in like manner we live through His flesh. For all comparison is chosen to shape our understanding, so that we may grasp the subject of which we treat by help of the analogy set before us. This is the cause of our life that we have Christ dwelling within our carnal selves through the flesh, and we shall live through Him in the same manner as He lives through the Father. If, then, we live naturally through Him according to the flesh, that is, have partaken of the nature of His flesh, must He not naturally have the Father within Himself according to the Spirit since He Himself lives through the Father? And He lives through the Father because His birth has not implanted in Him an alien and different nature inasmuch as His very being is from Him yet is not divided from Him by any barrier of an unlikeness of nature, for within Himself He has the Father through the birth in the power of the nature.

I have emphasized these points because the heretics wrongly claim that the union between Father and Son is only a matter of will, and they use the example of our own union with God as if we were united to the Son and through the Son to the Father by mere obedience and devout will alone. They deny that any natural truth of communion is given to us through the sacrament of the Body and Blood. But the glory of the Son, given to us through the Son dwelling in us according to the flesh while we are united in Him bodily and inseparably, requires us to proclaim the mystery of the true and natural unity.

17. I have dwelt upon these facts because the heretics falsely maintain that the union between Father and Son is one of will only, and make use of the example of our own union with God, as though we were united to the Son and through the Son to the Father by mere obedience and a devout will, and none of the natural verity of communion were vouchsafed us through the sacrament of the Body and Blood; although the glory of the Son bestowed upon us through the Son abiding in us after the flesh, while we are united in Him corporeally and inseparably, bids us preach the mystery of the true and natural unity.

We have responded to the foolishness of our hostile opponents simply to expose the emptiness of their lies and to stop them from deceiving the unsuspecting through their vain and foolish errors. But the faith of the Gospel did not actually require our response. The Lord prayed for our union with God, but God maintains His own unity and remains in it. The Father and Son are not one through some mysterious divine arrangement, but through a birth of nature, because God loses nothing when He begets the Son from Himself. They are one because the things that are not snatched from His hand are not snatched from the Father's hand, because when He is known the Father is known, because when He is seen the Father is seen, because what He speaks the Father speaks while dwelling in Him, because in His works the Father works, because He is in the Father and the Father in Him. This comes not from creation but from birth. It is not brought about by will but by power. It is not agreement of mind that is speaking—it is nature. This is because being created and being born are not the same thing, any more than willing and being able are the same. Nor is agreeing the same as abiding.

18. So we have made our reply to the folly of our violent opponents, merely to prove the emptiness of their falsehoods and so prevent them from misleading the unwary by the error of their vain and foolish statements. But the faith of the Gospel did not of necessity require our answer. The Lord prayed on our behalf for our union with God, but God keeps His own unity and abides in it. It is not through any mysterious appointment of God that they are one, but through a birth of nature, for God loses nothing in begetting Him from Himself. They are one, for the things which are not plucked out of His hand are not plucked out of the hand of the Father John 10:28-29, for, when He is known, the Father is known, for, when He is seen, the Father is seen, for what He speaks the Father speaks as abiding in Him, for in His works the Father works, for He is in the Father and the Father in Him. This proceeds from no creation but from birth; it is not brought about by will but by power; it is no agreement of mind that speaks, it is nature; because to be created and to be born are not one and the same, any more than to will and to be able; neither is it the same thing to agree and to abide.

We do not deny that the Father and the Son are in agreement—for heretics are used to spreading this lie, that because we do not accept mere concord by itself as the basis of unity, we are declaring that the Father and Son are in conflict. But let them hear how we affirm such agreement. The Father and the Son are one in physis (nature), honor, and power, and the same physis cannot will contradictory things. Furthermore, let them hear the Son's own testimony about the unity of physis between Himself and the Father, for He says, When that advocate has come, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me. The Advocate will come, and the Son will send Him from the Father, and He is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father. Let the entire company of heretics summon their sharpest mental powers; let them now search for whatever lies they can tell to the uninformed, and explain what it is that the Son sends from the Father. The one who sends demonstrates His power in what He sends. But regarding what He sends from the Father, how should we understand it—as something received, or sent forth, or begotten? For His words that He will send from the Father must imply one or another of these ways of sending. And He will send from the Father that Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father; therefore He cannot be the one receiving, since He is shown to be the Sender. It only remains for us to settle our conviction on this point: whether we are to believe in an egress of a co-existent Being, or a procession of a Being begotten.

19. Thus we do not deny a unanimity between the Father and the Son — for heretics are accustomed to utter this falsehood, that since we do not accept concord by itself as the bond of unity we declare Them to be at variance. But let them listen how it is that we do not deny such a unanimity. The Father and the Son are one in nature, honour, power, and the same nature cannot will things that are contrary. Moreover, let them listen to the testimony of the Son as touching the unity of nature between Himself and the Father, for He says, When that advocate has come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me. The Advocate shall come and the Son shall send Him from the Father, and He is the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father. Let the whole following of heretics arouse the keenest powers of their wit; let them now seek for what lies they can tell to the unlearned, and declare what that is which the Son sends from the Father. He Who sends manifests His power in that which He sends. But as to that which He sends from the Father, how shall we regard it, as received or sent forth or begotten? For His words that He will send from the Father must imply one or other of these modes of sending. And He will send from the Father that Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father; He therefore cannot be the Recipient, since He is revealed as the Sender. It only remains to make sure of our conviction on the point, whether we are to believe an egress of a co-existent Being, or a procession of a Being begotten.

For now I will not dwell on their speculative license, with some of them claiming that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. Our Lord has not left this uncertain, for after these same words He spoke as follows: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but whatever things He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" (John 16:12-15). Therefore He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether receiving from the Son is the same thing as proceeding from the Father. But if one believes there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely receiving from the Son and receiving from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, "Because He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you." Whatever He will receive—whether it be power, or excellence, or teaching—the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this reason He declared that it must be received from His own, He also teaches that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His. Such a unity admits no difference, nor does it make any difference from whom that is received which, given by the Father, is described as given by the Son. Is a mere unity of will being proposed here also? All things which the Father has are the Son's, and all things which the Son has are the Father's. For He Himself says, "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine." This is not yet the place to explain why He spoke thus, "For He shall receive of Mine," for this points to some later time when it is revealed that He shall receive. Now at any rate He says that He will receive of Himself, because all things that the Father had were His. Try if you can to break apart the unity of nature and introduce some necessary difference through which the Son may not exist in unity of nature. For the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and is sent from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father has are the Son's; and for this reason whatever He Who is to be sent shall receive, He shall receive from the Son, because all things that the Father has are the Son's. The nature in all respects maintains its law, and because Both are One, that same Godhead is signified as existing in Both through generation and nativity, since the Son affirms that what the Spirit of truth shall receive from the Father is to be given by Himself. Therefore the perverseness of heretics must not be allowed an unchecked license for impious beliefs in refusing to acknowledge that this saying of the Lord—that because all things which the Father has are His, therefore the Spirit of truth shall receive of Him—is to be referred to unity of nature.

20. For the present I forbear to expose their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus — I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but whatever things He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. John 16:12-15 Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, Because He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. That which He will receive — whether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching — the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this cause He declared that it must be received from His own, He teaches also that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His. Such a unity admits no difference, nor does it make any difference from whom that is received, which given by the Father is described as given by the Son. Is a mere unity of will brought forward here also? All things which the Father has are the Son's, and all things which the Son has are the Father's. For He Himself says, And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine. It is not yet the place to show why He spoke thus, For He shall receive of Mine: for this points to some subsequent time, when it is revealed that He shall receive. Now at any rate He says that He will receive of Himself, because all things that the Father had were His. Dissever if you can the unity of the nature, and introduce some necessary unlikeness through which the Son may not exist in unity of nature. For the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and is sent from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father has are the Son's; and for this cause whatever He Who is to be sent shall receive, He shall receive from the Son, because all things that the Father has are the Son's. The nature in all respects maintains its law, and because Both are One that same Godhead is signified as existing in Both through generation and nativity; since the Son affirms that that which the Spirit of truth shall receive from the Father is to be given by Himself. So the frowardness of heretics must not be allowed an unchecked licence of impious beliefs, in refusing to acknowledge that this saying of the Lord, — that because all things which the Father has are His, therefore the Spirit of truth shall receive of Him — is to be referred to unity of nature.

Let us listen to that chosen vessel and teacher of the Gentiles, after he had already praised the faith of the Roman people for their grasp of the truth. Wishing to teach the unity of nature in the case of the Father and the Son, he speaks as follows: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God is in you. But if any have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead through sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him Who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, He Who raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit Who dwells in you." We are all spiritual if the Spirit of God dwells in us. But this Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ, and though the Spirit of Christ is in us, yet His Spirit is also in us Who raised Christ from the dead, and He Who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken our mortal bodies because of His Spirit that dwells in us. We are therefore quickened because of the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us, through Him Who raised Christ from the dead. And since the Spirit of Him Who raised Christ from the dead dwells in us, and yet the Spirit of Christ is in us, nevertheless the Spirit which is in us cannot be anything other than the Spirit of God. Separate, then, O heretic, the Spirit of Christ from the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ raised from the dead from the Spirit of God which raises Christ from the dead—when the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us is the Spirit of God, and when the Spirit of Christ Who was raised from the dead is yet the Spirit of God Who raises Christ from the dead.

21. Let us listen to that chosen vessel and teacher of the Gentiles, when he had already commended the faith of the people of Rome because of their understanding of the truth. For wishing to teach the unity of nature in the case of the Father and the Son, he speaks thus, But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God is in you. But if any have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead through sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him Who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you; He Who raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit Who dwells in you. Romans 8:9-11 We are all spiritual if the Spirit of God dwells in us. But this Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ, and though the Spirit of Christ is in us, yet His Spirit is also in us Who raised Christ from the dead, and He Who raised Christ from the dead shall quicken our mortal bodies also on account of His Spirit that dwells in us. We are quickened therefore on account of the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us, through Him Who raised Christ from the dead. And since the Spirit of Him Who raised Christ from the dead dwells in us, and yet the Spirit of Christ is in us, nevertheless the Spirit Which is in us cannot but be the Spirit of God. Separate, then, O heretic, the Spirit of Christ from the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ raised from the dead from the Spirit of God Which raises Christ from the dead; when the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us is the Spirit of God, and when the Spirit of Christ Who was raised from the dead is yet the Spirit of God Who raises Christ from the dead.

22. Now I ask you whether you think that "the Spirit of God" signifies a physis or a property belonging to a physis. A physis is not the same as something that belongs to it, just as a man is not the same as what belongs to a man, nor fire the same as what belongs to fire itself, and in the same way God is not the same as that which belongs to God.

22. And now I ask whether you think that in the Spirit of God is signified a nature or a property belonging to a nature. For a nature is not identical with a thing belonging to it, just as neither is a man identical with what belongs to a man, nor fire with what belongs to fire itself, and in like manner God is not the same as that which belongs to God.

I am aware that the Son of God is revealed under the title "Spirit of God" so that we may understand the Father's presence in Him, and that the term "Spirit of God" may be used to indicate Either, and that this is shown not only by the authority of the prophets but also of the evangelists, when it is said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; therefore He has anointed Me" (Luke 4:18). And again, "Behold My Servant Whom I have chosen, My beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased, I will put My Spirit upon Him" (Matthew 12:18). And when the Lord Himself bears witness of Himself, "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." For these passages seem without any doubt to denote either the Father or the Son, while they still reveal the excellence of their shared nature.

23. For I am aware that the Son of God is revealed under the title Spirit of God in order that we may understand the presence of the Father in Him, and that the term Spirit of God may be employed to indicate Either, and that this is shown not only on the authority of prophets but of evangelists also, when it is said, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; therefore He has anointed Me. Luke 4:18 And again, Behold My Servant Whom I have chosen, My beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased, I will put My Spirit upon Him. Matthew 12:18 And when the Lord Himself bears witness of Himself, But if I in the Spirit of God cast out devils, then has the kingdom of God come upon you. For the passages seem without any doubt to denote either Father or Son, while they yet manifest the excellence of nature.

24. I believe that the expression "Spirit of God" was used with respect to Each, so that we would not think the Son was present in the Father or the Father in the Son in a merely physical way—that is, so that we would not think God exists in just one location and nowhere else apart from Himself. When a human being or anything similar to him is in one place, he cannot be in another, because whatever is in one place is limited to that place. His nature does not allow him to be everywhere when he exists in one position. But God is a living Force of infinite power, present everywhere and never absent. He manifests His whole self through His own, and shows that His own are nothing other than Himself, so that wherever they are, He Himself may be understood to be there. Yet we must not think that, in a physical way, when He is in one place He stops being everywhere, because through His own things He is still present in all places, while the things that are His are none other than His own self. These things have been said so we may understand what is meant by "nature" (physis).

24. For I think that the expression ' Spirit of God ' was used with respect to Each, lest we should believe that the Son was present in the Father or the Father in the Son in a merely corporeal manner, that is, lest God might be thought to abide in one position and exist nowhere else apart from Himself. For a man or any other thing like him, when he is in one place, cannot be in another, because what is in one place is confined to the place where it is: his nature cannot allow him to be everywhere when he exists in some one position. But God is a living Force, of infinite power, present everywhere and nowhere absent, and manifests His whole self through His own, and signifies that His own are naught else than Himself, so that where they are He may be understood to be Himself. Yet we must not think that, after a corporeal fashion, when He is in one place He ceases to be everywhere, for through His own things He is still present in all places, while the things which are His are none other than His own self. Now these things have been said to make us understand what is meant by 'nature.'

I think it should be clearly understood that God the Father is indicated by the expression "Spirit of God," because our Lord Jesus Christ declared that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him since He anoints Him and sends Him to preach the Gospel. For in Him the excellence of the Father's nature is made visible, showing that the Son shares in His nature even when born in the flesh through the mystery of this spiritual anointing. After His birth, confirmed in His baptism, this indication of His inherent Sonship was heard when a voice testified from Heaven: "You are My Son; this day have I begotten You." For He Himself cannot be understood as resting upon Himself or coming to Himself from Heaven, or as giving Himself the title of Son. Rather, all this demonstration was for the sake of our faith, so that through the mystery of a complete and true birth we would recognize that the unity of nature dwells in the Son who had also become man. We have thus found that in the Spirit of God the Father is designated. But we understand that the Son is indicated in the same way when He says: "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out devils, then has the kingdom of God come upon you." That is, He shows clearly that He, by the power of His nature, casts out devils, which can only be cast out by the Spirit of God. The phrase "Spirit of God" also denotes the Paraclete Spirit, and this is confirmed not only by the testimony of prophets but also of apostles, when it is said: "This is that which was spoken through the Prophet: It shall come to pass on the last day, says the Lord, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy." And we learn that all this prophecy was fulfilled in the case of the Apostles when, after the Holy Spirit was sent, they all spoke in the languages of the Gentiles.

25. Now I think that it ought to be clearly understood that God the Father is denoted by the Spirit of God, because our Lord Jesus Christ declared that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him since He anoints Him and sends Him to preach the Gospel. For in Him is made manifest the excellence of the Father's nature, disclosing that the Son partakes of His nature even when born in the flesh through the mystery of this spiritual unction, since after the birth ratified in His baptism this intimation of His inherent Sonship was heard as a voice bore witness from Heaven:– You are My Son; this day have I begotten You. For not even He Himself can be understood as resting upon Himself or coming to Himself from Heaven, or as bestowing on Himself the title of Son: but all this demonstration was for our faith, in order that under the mystery of a complete and true birth we should recognise that the unity of the nature dwells in the Son Who had begun to be also man. We have thus found that in the Spirit of God the Father is designated; but we understand that the Son is indicated in the same way, when He says: But if I in the Spirit of God cast out devils, then has the kingdom of God come upon you. That is, He shows clearly that He, by the power of His nature, casts out devils, which cannot be cast out save by the Spirit of God. The phrase ' Spirit of God ' denotes also the Paraclete Spirit, and that not only on the testimony of prophets but also of apostles, when it is said:– This is that which was spoken through the Prophet, It shall come to pass on the last day, says the Lord, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy. Acts 2:16-17 And we learn that all this prophecy was fulfilled in the case of the Apostles, when, after the sending of the Holy Spirit, they all spoke with the tongues of the Gentiles.

We have necessarily explained these things so that wherever the deception of heretics turns, it can still be held in check by the boundaries and limits of gospel truth. For Christ dwells in us, and where Christ dwells, God dwells. And when the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, this indwelling does not mean that some other Spirit dwells in us instead of the Spirit of God. But if we understand that Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, we must still recognize this Spirit of God as also the Spirit of Christ. And since the nature that dwells in us is the nature of one substantive Being, we must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit—who is both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God—is proved to be a Being of one nature. I now ask, therefore, how can they fail to be one by nature? The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, is sent by the Son, and receives from the Son. But all things that the Father has are the Son's, and for this reason the one who receives from him is the Spirit of God but at the same time the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit is a Being of the nature of the Son, but this same Being is of the nature of the Father. He is the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead, but this is none other than the Spirit of Christ who was so raised. The nature of Christ and of God must differ in some respect so as not to be the same, if it can be shown that the Spirit which is of God is not also the Spirit of Christ.

26. Now we have of necessity set these things forth with this object, that in whatever direction the deception of heretics betakes itself, it might yet be kept in check by the boundaries and limits of the gospel truth. For Christ dwells in us, and where Christ dwells God dwells. And when the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, this indwelling means not that any other Spirit dwells in us than the Spirit of God. But if it is understood that Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, we must yet recognise this Spirit of God as also the Spirit of Christ. And since the nature dwells in us as the nature of one substantive Being, we must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit Who is both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God is proved to be a Being of one nature. I ask now, therefore, how can They fail to be one by nature? The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, He is sent by the Son and receives from the Son. But all things that the Father has are the Son's, and for this cause He Who receives from Him is the Spirit of God but at the same time the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit is a Being of the nature of the Son but the same Being is of the nature of the Father. He is the Spirit of Him Who raised Christ from the dead; but this is no other than the Spirit of Christ Who was so raised. The nature of Christ and of God must differ in some respect so as not to be the same, if it can be shown that the Spirit which is of God is not the Spirit of Christ also.

But you, heretic, as you wildly rave and are driven about by the Spirit of your deadly doctrine, the Apostle seizes and constrains you, establishing Christ for us as the foundation of our faith. He is well aware also of that saying of our Lord: "If a man love Me, he will also keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." By this He testified that while the Spirit of Christ abides in us, the Spirit of God abides in us, and that the Spirit of Him who was raised from the dead does not differ from the Spirit of Him who raised Him from the dead. For they come and dwell in us. And I ask whether they will come as aliens associated together and make their abode, or in unity of physis? No, the teacher of the Gentiles contends that it is not two Spirits—the Spirits of God and of Christ—that are present in those who believe, but the Spirit of Christ which is also the Spirit of God. This is no joint indwelling; it is one indwelling. Yet it is an indwelling under the mysterious appearance of a joint indwelling, for it is not the case that two Spirits indwell, nor is the one that indwells different from the other. For there is in us the Spirit of God and there is also in us the Spirit of Christ, and when the Spirit of Christ is in us there is also in us the Spirit of God. And so since what is of God is also of Christ, and what is of Christ is also of God, Christ cannot be anything different from what God is. Christ, therefore, is God, one Spirit with God.

27. But you, heretic, as you wildly rave and are driven about by the Spirit of your deadly doctrine the Apostle seizes and constrains, establishing Christ for us as the foundation of our faith, being well aware also of that saying of our Lord, If a man love Me, he will also keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him. John 14:23 For by this He testified that while the Spirit of Christ abides in us the Spirit of God abides in us, and that the Spirit of Him that was raised from the dead differs not from the Spirit of Him that raised Him from the dead. For they come and dwell in us: and I ask whether they will come as aliens associated together and make Their abode, or in unity of nature? Nay, the teacher of the Gentiles contends that it is not two Spirits — the Spirits of God and of Christ — that are present in those who believe, but the Spirit of Christ which is also the Spirit of God. This is no joint indwelling, it is one indwelling: yet an indwelling under the mysterious semblance of a joint indwelling, for it is not the case that two Spirits indwell, nor is one that indwells different from the other. For there is in us the Spirit of God and there is also in us the Spirit of Christ, and when the Spirit of Christ is in us there is also in us the Spirit of God. And so since what is of God is also of Christ, and what is of Christ is also of God, Christ cannot be anything different from what God is. Christ, therefore, is God, one Spirit with God.

The Apostle declares that those words in the Gospel, "I and the Father are one," indicate unity of nature and not a solitary single Being, as he writes to the Corinthians: "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed." Do you now see, O heretic, by what spirit you call Christ a creature? For since those who have worshiped the creature rather than the Creator are under a curse—by claiming Christ is a creature, understand what you are, since you know very well that worship of the creature is cursed. And notice what follows: "And no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit." Do you see what you lack when you deny Christ what belongs to Him? If you acknowledge that Christ is Lord through His divine physis (nature), you have the Holy Spirit. But if He is Lord merely by an adopted title, you lack the Holy Spirit and are driven by a spirit of error, because no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. But when you say He is a creature rather than God, even though you call Him Lord, you still do not say He is the Lord. For to you He is Lord as one among many and by a common title, rather than by physis. Yet learn from Paul His physis.

28. Now the Apostle asserts that those words in the Gospel, I and the Father are one John 10:30, imply unity of nature and not a solitary single Being, as he writes to the Corinthians, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man in the Spirit of God calls Jesus anathema. 1 Corinthians 12:3 Do you now perceive, O heretic, in what spirit you call Christ a creature? For since they are under a curse who have served the creature more than the Creator — in affirming Christ to be a creature, learn what you are, since you know full well that the worship of the creature is accursed. And observe what follows, And no one can call Jesus Lord, but in the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3 Do you perceive what is lacking to you, when you deny Christ what is His own? If you hold that Christ is Lord through His Divine nature, you have the Holy Spirit. But if He be Lord merely by a name of adoption you lack the Holy Spirit, and are animated by a spirit of error: because no one can call Jesus Lord, but in the Holy Spirit. But when you say that He is a creature rather than God, although you style Him Lord, still you do not say that He is the Lord. For to you He is Lord as one of a common class and by a familiar name, rather than by nature. Yet learn from Paul His nature.

The Apostle continues by saying, Now there are diversities of gifts, but there is the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministrations but one and the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God, Who works all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for that which profits. In this passage we see a fourfold statement: in the diversity of gifts there is the same Spirit, in the diversity of ministrations there is the very same Lord, in the diversity of workings there is the same God, and in the giving of what is profitable there is a manifestation of the Spirit. And so that the giving of what is profitable might be recognized in the manifestation of the Spirit, he goes on: To one indeed is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith in the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing in the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.

29. For the Apostle goes on to say, Now there are diversities of gifts, but there is the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministrations but one and the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God, Who works all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for that which profits. In this passage before us we perceive a fourfold statement: in the diversity of gifts it is the same Spirit, in the diversity of ministrations it is the very same Lord, in the diversity of workings it is the same God, and in the bestowal of that which is profitable there is a manifestation of the Spirit. And in order that the bestowal of what is profitable might be recognised in the manifestation of the Spirit, he continues: To one indeed is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith in the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing in the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.

The fourth statement we identified—the manifestation of the Spirit in giving what is profitable—has a clear meaning. The Apostle has listed the profitable gifts through which this manifestation of the Spirit occurred. In these various activities, that Gift is clearly revealed—the one our Lord spoke about to the apostles when He instructed them not to leave Jerusalem but to "wait for the promise of the Father which you heard from My lips: for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, which you shall also receive not many days hence." And again: "But you shall receive power when the Holy Ghost comes upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." He tells them to wait for the Father's promise, which they had heard from His own lips. We can be certain this refers to the same promise of the Father. Therefore, it is through these miraculous workings that the manifestation of the Spirit takes place. The gift of the Spirit is made manifest when wisdom speaks and the words of life are heard, and when there is knowledge that comes from God-given insight—so that we don't fail like animals in our ignorance to know God, the Author of our life. Or through faith in God—so that by not believing God's Gospel we wouldn't place ourselves outside His Gospel. Or by the gift of healings—so that by curing diseases we testify to the grace of Him who gives these things. Or by the working of miracles—so that what we do may be understood as God's power. Or by prophesy—so that through our understanding of doctrine we might be known as taught by God. Or by discerning of spirits—so we can tell whether someone speaks with a holy or perverted spirit. Or by kinds of tongues—so that speaking in tongues may be given as a sign of the Holy Spirit's gift. Or by the interpretation of tongues—so that the faith of hearers isn't endangered by ignorance, since the interpreter explains the tongue to those who don't understand it. Thus in all these things distributed to each person for their profit, there is the manifestation of the Spirit, the Spirit's gift being evident through these marvelous benefits given to each person.

30. And indeed that which we called the fourth statement, that is the manifestation of the Spirit in the bestowal of what is profitable, has a clear meaning. For the Apostle has enumerated the profitable gifts through which this manifestation of the Spirit took place. Now in these diverse activities that Gift is set forth in no uncertain light of which our Lord had spoken to the apostles when He taught them not to depart from Jerusalem; but wait, said He, for the promise of the Father which you heard from My lips: for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, which you shall also receive not many days hence. Acts 1:4-5 And again: But you shall receive power when the Holy Ghost comes upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. He bids them wait for the promise of the Father of which they had heard from His lips. We may be sure that here we have a reference to the Father's same promise. Hence it is by these miraculous workings that the manifestation of the Spirit takes place. For the gift of the Spirit is manifest, where wisdom makes utterance and the words of life are heard, and where there is the knowledge that comes of God-given insight, lest after the fashion of beasts through ignorance of God we should fail to know the Author of our life; or by faith in God, lest by not believing the Gospel of God, we should be outside His Gospel; or by the gift of healings, that by the cure of diseases we should bear witness to His grace Who bestows these things; or by the working of miracles, that what we do may be understood to be the power of God, or by prophesy, that through our understanding of doctrine we might be known to be taught of God; or by discerning of spirits, that we should not be unable to tell whether any one speaks with a holy or a perverted spirit; or by kinds of tongues, that the speaking in tongues may be bestowed as a sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit; or by the interpretation of tongues, that the faith of those that hear may not be imperilled through ignorance, since the interpreter of a tongue explains the tongue to those who are ignorant of it. Thus in all these things distributed to each one to profit withal there is the manifestation of the Spirit, the gift of the Spirit being apparent through these marvellous advantages bestowed upon each.

The blessed Apostle Paul, in revealing the secret of these heavenly mysteries that are so difficult for human understanding, has maintained both clear expression and carefully worded caution. He shows that these diverse gifts are given through the Spirit and in the Spirit—and to be given through the Spirit is not the same thing as being given in the Spirit. This is because a gift that is exercised in the Spirit is still bestowed through the Spirit. But Paul summarizes these diversities of gifts this way: "Now all these things works one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one as He will" (1 Corinthians 12:11). So I ask: what Spirit works these things, dividing to each one according as He wills? Is it the Spirit by whom this distribution of gifts occurs, or the Spirit in whom it occurs? If anyone dares to say that the same Person is indicated in both cases, the Apostle will refute such a mistaken opinion, for he says earlier, "And there are diversities of workings, but the same God Who works all things in all." So there is one who distributes and another in whom the distribution is granted. Yet understand that it is always God who works all these things, but in such a way that Christ works, and the Son in His working performs the Father's work. And if you confess Jesus to be Lord in the Holy Spirit, understand the force of that threefold indication in the Apostle's letter: in the diversities of gifts, it is the same Spirit; in the diversities of ministrations, it is the same Lord; and in the diversities of workings, it is the same God. And again, it is one Spirit that works all things, distributing to each according as He will. Grasp the idea if you can: the Lord in the distribution of ministrations and God in the distribution of workings are this one and the same Spirit who both works and distributes as He will, because in the distribution of gifts there is one Spirit, and the same Spirit works and distributes.

31. Now the blessed Apostle Paul in revealing the secret of these heavenly mysteries, most difficult to human comprehension, has preserved a clear enunciation and a carefully worded caution in order to show that these diverse gifts are given through the Spirit and in the Spirit (for to be given through the Spirit and in the Spirit is not the same thing), because the granting of a gift which is exercised in the Spirit is yet bestowed through the Spirit. But he sums up these diversities of gifts thus: Now all these things works one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one as He will. 1 Corinthians 12:11 Now, therefore, I ask what Spirit works these things, dividing to each one according as He wills: is it He by Whom or He in Whom there is this distribution of gifts? But if any one shall dare to say that it is the same Person which is indicated, the Apostle will refute so faulty an opinion, for he says above, And there are diversities of workings, but the same God Who works all things in all. So there is one Who distributes and another in Whom the distribution is vouchsafed. Yet know that it is always God Who works all these things, but in such a way that Christ works, and the Son in His working performs the Father's work. And if in the Holy Spirit you confess Jesus to be Lord, understand the force of that threefold indication in the Apostle's letter; forasmuch as in the diversities of gifts, it is the same Spirit, and in the diversities of ministrations it is the same Lord, and in the diversities of workings it is the same God; and again, one Spirit that works all things distributing to each according as He will. And grasp the idea if you can that the Lord in the distribution of ministrations, and God in the distribution of workings, are this one and the same Spirit Who both works and distributes as He will; because in the distribution of gifts there is one Spirit, and the same Spirit works and distributes.

If this one Spirit of one Divinity, one in both God and Lord through the mystery of the birth, does not satisfy you, then show me what Spirit both works and distributes these diverse gifts to us, and in what Spirit He does this. However, you must show me nothing except what agrees with our faith, because the Apostle shows us who is to be understood, saying, "For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." He affirms that diversities of gifts come from one Lord Jesus Christ who is the body of all. For after he had made known the Lord in ministration, and made known also God in workings, he yet shows that one Spirit both works and distributes all these things, distributing these varieties of His gracious gifts for the perfecting of one body.

32. But if this one Spirit of one Divinity, one in both God and Lord through the mystery of the birth, does not please you, then point out to me what Spirit both works and distributes these diverse gifts to us, and in what Spirit He does this. But, you must show me nothing but what accords with our faith, because the Apostle shows us Who is to be understood, saying, For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12 He affirms that diversities of gifts come from one Lord Jesus Christ Who is the body of all. Because after he had made known the Lord in ministration, and made known also God in workings, he yet shows that one Spirit both works and distributes all these things, distributing these varieties of His gracious gifts for the perfecting of one body.

Perhaps you think the Apostle failed to maintain the principle of unity when he said, "And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord, and there are diversities of workings, but the same God." So because he referred ministrations to the Lord and workings to God, he might not appear to have understood one and the same Being in ministrations and operations. Learn how these members who minister are also members who work, when he says, "You are the body of Christ, and members of Him indeed." For God has placed some in the Church: first apostles, in whom is the word of wisdom; second prophets, in whom is the gift of knowledge; third teachers, in whom is the doctrine of faith; then mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases, the power to help, governments by the prophets, and gifts of either speaking or interpreting various kinds of tongues. Clearly these are the Church's agents of ministry and work, of whom the body of Christ consists, and God has ordained them. But perhaps you argue that they have not been ordained by Christ, because it was God who ordained them. But you will hear what the Apostle himself says: "Now to each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ." And again, "He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things. And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministering." Are not then the gifts of ministration Christ's, while they are also the gifts of God?

33. Unless perchance we think that the Apostle did not keep to the principle of unity in that he said, And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord, and there are diversities of workings, but the same God. 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 So that because he referred ministrations to the Lord and workings to God, he does not appear to have understood one and the same Being in ministrations and operations. Learn how these members which minister are also members which work, when he says, You are the body of Christ, and of Him members indeed. For God has set some in the Church, first apostles, in whom is the word of wisdom; secondly prophets, in whom is the gift of knowledge; thirdly teachers, in whom is the doctrine of faith; next mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases, the power to help, governments by the prophets, and gifts of either speaking or interpreting various kinds of tongues. Clearly these are the Church's agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them. But perhaps you maintain that they have not been ordained by Christ, because it was God Who ordained them. But you shall hear what the Apostle says himself: Now to each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And again, He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things. And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministering. Are not then the gifts of ministration Christ's, while they are also the gifts of God?

But if those who reject the faith claim that when Paul says "the same Lord" and "the same God," this means they are not united in physis (nature), I will defend this interpretation with arguments you consider even stronger. For the same apostle says, "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." And again, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is both through all, and in us all." By these words "one God" and "one Lord," it would seem that to God alone is attributed, as to one God, the property of being God, since the property of oneness does not allow for partnership with another. Truly, how rare and hard to obtain are such spiritual gifts! How clearly the manifestation of the Spirit is seen in the giving of such useful gifts! And rightly has this order in distributing graces been appointed: that the first should be the word of wisdom, for it is true that "no one can call Jesus Lord but in the Holy Spirit," because Christ could not be understood to be Lord without this word of wisdom. Then the word of understanding should follow, so that we might speak with understanding what we know and might know the word of wisdom. And the third gift should consist of faith, since those leading and higher graces would be useless gifts if we did not believe that he is God. So in the true sense of this greatest and most noble statement by the apostle, no heretics possess either the word of wisdom or the word of understanding or the faith of true religion, since willful wickedness, being incapable of understanding, is empty of knowledge of the word and of genuine faith. For no one speaks what he does not know, nor can he believe what he cannot speak. And so when the apostle preached one God, as a convert from the Law called to the gospel of Christ, he has reached the confession of a perfect faith. And lest the simplicity of a seemingly careless statement might give heretics any opportunity to deny the birth of the Son through the preaching of one God, the apostle has set forth one God while indicating his distinctive attribute in these words: "One God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him," so that he who is God might also be acknowledged as Father. Afterward, since this bare belief in one God the Father would not be enough for salvation, he added, "And one, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him," showing that the purity of saving faith consists in the preaching of one God and one Lord, so that we might believe in one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. For he knew very well how our Lord had said, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life." But in establishing the order of the Church's faith and basing our faith upon the Father and the Son, he has expressed the mystery of that indivisible and unbreakable unity and faith in the words "one God" and "one Lord."

34. But if impiety has assumed to itself that because he says, The same Lord and the same God 1 Corinthians 12:5-6, they are not in unity of nature, I will support this interpretation with what you deem still stronger arguments. For the same Apostle says, 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. And again, One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is both through all, and in us all. Ephesians 4:5-6 By these words one God and one Lord it would seem that to God only is attributed, as to one God, the property of being God; since the property of oneness does not admit of partnership with another. Verily how rare and hard to attain are such spiritual gifts! How truly is the manifestation of the Spirit seen in the bestowal of such useful gifts! And with reason has this order in the distribution of graces been appointed, that the foremost should be the word of wisdom; for true it is, And no one can call Jesus Lord but in the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 12:3, because but through this word of wisdom Christ could not be understood to be Lord; that then there should follow next the word of understanding, that we might speak with understanding what we know, and might know the word of wisdom; and that the third gift should consist of faith, seeing that those leading and higher graces would be unprofitable gifts did we not believe that He is God. So that in the true sense of this greatest and most noble utterance of the Apostle no heretics possess either the word of wisdom or the word of knowledge or the faith of religion, inasmuch as wilful wickedness, being incapable of understanding, is void of knowledge of the word and of genuineness of faith. For no one utters what he does not know; nor can he believe that which he cannot utter; and thus when the Apostle preached one God, a proselyte as He was from the Law, and called to the gospel of Christ, he has attained to the confession of a perfect faith. And lest the simplicity of a seemingly unguarded statement might afford heretics any opportunity for denying through the preaching of one God the birth of the Son, the Apostle has set forth one God while indicating His peculiar attribute in these words, One God the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, in order that He Who is God might also be acknowledged as Father. Afterwards, inasmuch as this bare belief in one God the Father would not suffice for salvation, he added, And one, our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him, showing that the purity of saving faith consists in the preaching of one God and one Lord, so that we might believe in one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. For he knew full well how our Lord had said, For this is the will of My Father, that every one that sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life. John 6:40 But in fixing the order of the Church's faith, and basing our faith upon the Father and the Son, he has uttered the mystery of that indivisible and indissoluble unity and faith in the words one God and one Lord.

First of all, then, heretic who has no part in the Spirit that spoke through the Apostle, recognize your folly. If you wrongly use the confession of one God to deny the divinity of Christ, claiming that where one God exists He must be regarded as alone, and that being One is distinctive and unique to Him Who is One—what meaning will you give to the statement that Jesus Christ is one Lord? For if, as you claim, the fact that the Father alone is God has excluded the possibility of Christ's divinity, then it must also follow according to your logic that the fact of Christ being one Lord excludes the possibility of God being Lord, since you insist that being One must be the essential property of Him Who is One. Therefore, if you deny that the one Lord Christ is also God, you must also deny that the one God the Father is also Lord. And what would God's greatness amount to if He is not Lord, and what would the Lord's power be if He is not God, since it is this greatness or power that makes what is Lord to be God, and makes what is God to be Lord?

35. First of all, then, O heretic that hast no part in the Spirit which spoke by the Apostle, learn your folly. If you wrongly employ the confession of one God to deny the Godhead of Christ, on the ground that where one God exists He must be regarded as solitary, and that to be One is characteristic and peculiar to Him Who is One — what sense will you assign to the statement that Jesus Christ is one Lord? For if, as you assert, the fact that the Father alone is God has not left to Christ the possibility of Godhead, it must needs be also according to you that the fact of Christ being one Lord does not leave God the possibility of being Lord, seeing that you will have it that to be One must be the essential property of Him Who is One. Hence if you deny that the one Lord Christ is also God, you must needs deny that the one God the Father is also Lord. And what will the greatness of God amount to if He be not Lord, and the power of the Lord if He be not God: since it (viz., the greatness or power) causes that to be God which is Lord, and makes that Lord which is God?

The Apostle Paul, upholding the true meaning of the Lord's words "I and the Father are one," declares that Both are One—not in the sense of a solitary single being, but in the unity of the Spirit. For one God the Father and one Christ the Lord, since Each is both Lord and God, do not require us to confess in our creed either two Gods or two Lords. Therefore Each is one, and though one, neither is alone. We cannot express the mystery of the faith except in the Apostle's own words. For there is one God and one Lord, and the fact that there is one God and one Lord demonstrates that there is Lordship in God and Godhead in the Lord. You cannot claim a union of prosopon (person) that would make God solitary, nor can you divide the Spirit in a way that would prevent the Two from being One. Nor in the one God and one Lord will you be able to separate the power so that He Who is Lord would not also be God, and He Who is God would not also be Lord. For the Apostle in announcing the Names has been careful not to preach either two Gods or two Lords. And for this reason he has used a method of teaching that presents in the one Lord Christ also one God, and in the one God the Father also one Lord. And to prevent us from falling into the blasphemy that God is solitary—which would destroy the birth of the Only-begotten God—he has confessed both Father and Christ.

36. Now the Apostle, maintaining the true sense of the Lord's saying, I and the Father are one John 10:30, while He asserts that Both are One, signifies that Both are One not after the manner of the soleness of a single being, but in the unity of the Spirit; for one God the Father and one Christ the Lord, since Each is both Lord and God, do not yet admit in our creed either two Gods or two Lords. So then Each is one, and though one, neither is sole. We shall not be able to express the mystery of the faith except in the words of the Apostle. For there is one God and one Lord, and the fact that there is one God and one Lord proves that there is at once Lordship in God, and Godhead in the Lord. You can not maintain a union of person, so making God single; nor yet can you divide the Spirit, so preventing the Two from being One. Nor in the one God and one Lord will you be able to separate the power, so that He Who is Lord should not also be God, and He Who is God should not also be Lord. For the Apostle in the enunciation of the Names has taken care not to preach either two Gods or two Lords. And for this reason he has employed such a method of teaching as in the one Lord Christ to set forth also one God, and in the one God the Father to set forth also one Lord. And, not to misguide us into the blasphemy that God is solitary, which would destroy the birth of the Only-begotten God, he has confessed both Father and Christ.

Unless perhaps the madness of complete desperation will dare to go so far as to claim that, since the Apostle has called Christ Lord, no one should acknowledge Him as anything other than Lord, and that because He possesses the property of Lord He does not possess true Godhead. But Paul knows very well that Christ is God, for he says, "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ, Who is God over all." It is not a creature here who is counted as God; rather, it is the God of created things Who is God over all.

37. Unless perchance the frenzy of utter desperation will venture to rush to such lengths that, inasmuch as the Apostle has called Christ Lord, no one ought to acknowledge Him as anything else save Lord, and that because He has the property of Lord He has not the true Godhead. But Paul knows full well that Christ is God, for he says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, Who is God over all. Romans 9:5 It is no creature here who is reckoned as God; nay, it is the God of things created Who is God over all.

Now that He Who is God over all is also Spirit inseparable from the Father, learn this also from that very statement of the Apostle which we are now discussing. For when he confessed one God the Father from Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things, what difference, I ask, did he intend by saying that all things are from God and that all things are through Christ? Can He possibly be regarded as of a nature and spirit separable from Himself, He from Whom and through Whom are all things? For all things have come into being through the Son out of nothing, and the Apostle has referred them to God the Father, from Whom are all things, but also to the Son, through Whom are all things. And I find here no difference, since the same power is exercised by Each. For if regarding the existence of the universe it was an exact and sufficient statement that created things are from God, what need was there to state that the things which are from God are through Christ, unless it is one and the same thing to be through Christ and from God? But just as it has been attributed to Each of Them that They are Lord and God in such a way that each title belongs to Both, so too from Whom and through Whom is here referred to Both—and this to show the unity of Both, not to make known God's singleness. The language of the Apostle affords no opening for wicked error, nor is his faith too exalted for careful statement. For he has guarded himself by those specially appropriate words from being understood to mean two Gods or a solitary God: for while he rejects oneness of person he yet does not divide the unity of Godhead. For this from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, although it did not posit a solitary Deity in the sole possession of majesty, must yet set forth One not different in efficiency, since from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things must signify an Author of the same nature engaged in the same work. He affirms, moreover, that Each is properly of the same nature. For after announcing the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, and after asserting the mystery of His inscrutable judgments and avowing our ignorance of His ways past finding out, he has yet made use of the exercise of human faith, and rendered this homage to the depth of the unsearchable and inscrutable mysteries of heaven: For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be glory forever. Amen. He employs this language to indicate the one nature, that which cannot but be the work of one nature.

38. Now that He Who is God over all is also Spirit inseparable from the Father, learn also from that very utterance of the Apostle, of which we are now speaking. For when he confessed one God the Father from Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things; what difference, I ask, did he intend by saying that all things are from God and that all things are through Christ? Can He possibly be regarded as of a nature and spirit separable from Himself, He from Whom and through Whom are all things? For all things have come into being through the Son out of nothing, and the Apostle has referred them to God the Father, From Whom are all things, but also to the Son, through Whom are all things. And I find here no difference, since by Each is exercised the same power. For if with regard to the subsistence of the universe it was an exact sufficient statement that things created are from God, what need was there to state that the things which are from God are through Christ, unless it be one and the same thing to be through Christ and from God? But as it has been ascribed to Each of Them that They are Lord and God in such wise that each title belongs to Both, so too from Whom and through Whom is here referred to Both; and this to show the unity of Both, not to make known God's singleness. The language of the Apostle affords no opening for wicked error, nor is his faith too exalted for careful statement. For he has guarded himself by those specially appropriate words from being understood to mean two Gods or a solitary God: for while he rejects oneness of person he yet does not divide the unity of Godhead. For this from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, although it did not posit a solitary Deity in the sole possession of majesty, must yet set forth One not different in efficiency, since from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things must signify an Author of the same nature engaged in the same work. He affirms, moreover, that Each is properly of the same nature. For after announcing the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, and after asserting the mystery of His inscrutable judgments and avowing our ignorance of His ways past finding out, he has yet made use of the exercise of human faith, and rendered this homage to the depth of the unsearchable and inscrutable mysteries of heaven, For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:36 He employs to indicate the one nature, that which cannot but be the work of one nature.

For whereas Paul has specifically attributed to God that all things are from Him, and he has assigned as a distinctive property to Christ that all things are through Him, and it is now the glory of God that from Him and through Him and in Him are all things; and whereas the Spirit of God is the same as the Spirit of Christ, or whereas in the ministry of the Lord and in the working of God, one Spirit both works and distributes, They cannot help but be one Whose properties are those of one; since in the same Lord the Son, and in the same God the Father, one and the same Spirit distributing in the same Holy Spirit accomplishes all things. How worthy is this saint of the knowledge of exalted and heavenly mysteries, adopted and chosen to share in the secret things of God, keeping proper silence over things which cannot be spoken, true apostle of Christ! How by the announcement of his clear teaching he has restrained the imaginations of human willfulness, confessing, as he does, one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, so that meanwhile no one can either preach two Gods or one solitary God; although He Who is not one prosopon cannot multiply into two Gods, nor on the other hand can They Who are not two Gods be understood to be one single prosopon; while meanwhile the revelation of God as Father demonstrates the true nativity of Christ.

39. For whereas he has specially ascribed to God that all things are from Him, and he has assigned as a peculiar property to Christ, that all things are through Him, and it is now the glory of God that from Him and through Him and in Him are all things; and whereas the Spirit of God is the same as the Spirit of Christ, or whereas in the ministration of the Lord and in the working of God, one Spirit both works and divides, They cannot but be one Whose properties are those of one; since in the same Lord the Son, and in the same God the Father, one and the same Spirit distributing in the same Holy Spirit accomplishes all things. How worthy is this saint of the knowledge of exalted and heavenly mysteries, adopted and chosen to share in the secret things of God, preserving a due silence over things which may not be uttered, true apostle of Christ! How by the announcement of his clear teaching has he restrained the imaginations of human wilfulness, confessing, as he does, one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, so that meanwhile no one can either preach two Gods or one solitary God; although He Who is not one person cannot multiply into two Gods, nor on the other hand can They Who are not two Gods be understood to be one single person; while meantime the revelation of God as Father demonstrates the true nativity of Christ.

Thrust out your quivering and hissing tongues now, you vipers of heresy—whether you are Sabellius or Photinus, or you who now preach that the Only-begotten God is a creature. Whoever denies the Son will hear of one God the Father, because insofar as a father becomes a father only by having a son, this name Father necessarily implies the existence of the Son. And again, let the one who takes away from the Son the unity of an identical nature acknowledge one Lord Jesus Christ. For unless through unity of the Spirit He is one Lord, there will be no room left for God the Father to be Lord. Again, let the one who holds that the Son became Son in time and by His Incarnation learn that through Him are all things and we through Him, and that His timeless infinity was creating all things before time existed. And meanwhile let him read again that there is one hope of our calling, and one baptism, and one faith. If after that he opposes himself to the preaching of the Apostle, he is accursed because he framed strange doctrines of his own making, and is neither called nor baptized nor believing—because in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ there lies the one faith of one hope and baptism. And no alien doctrine can boast that it has a place among the truths which belong to one God and Lord and hope and baptism and faith.

40. Thrust out now your quivering and hissing tongues, you vipers of heresy, whether it be you Sabellius or you Photinus, or you who now preach that the Only-begotten God is a creature. Whosoever denies the Son shall hear of one God the Father, because inasmuch as a father becomes a father only by having a son, this name Father necessarily connotes the existence of the Son. And again, let him who takes away from the Son the unity of an identical nature, acknowledge one Lord Jesus Christ. For unless through unity of the Spirit He is one Lord room will not be left for God the Father to be Lord. Again, let him who holds the Son to have become Son in time and by His Incarnation, learn that through Him are all things and we through Him, and that His timeless Infinity was creating all things before time was. And meanwhile let him read again that there is one hope of our calling, and one baptism, and one faith; if, after that, he oppose himself to the preaching of the Apostle, he, being accursed because he framed strange doctrines of his own device, is neither called nor baptized nor believing; because in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ there lies the one faith of one hope and baptism. And no alien doctrine can boast that it has a place among the truths which belong to one God and Lord and hope and baptism and faith.

So then the one faith is to confess the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father through the unity of an indivisible nature—not confused but inseparable, not intermingled but identical, not conjoined but coexisting, not incomplete but perfect. For there is birth, not separation; there is a Son, not an adoption; and He is God, not a creature. Neither is He a God of a different kind, but the Father and Son are one, for the nature was not changed by birth so as to become alien from the property of its original. So the Apostle holds the faith of the Son dwelling in the Father and the Father in the Son when he proclaims that for him there is one God the Father and one Lord Christ, since in Christ the Lord there was also God, and in God the Father there was also Lord. And these Two are that unity which is God, and these Two are also that unity which is the Lord, for reason shows that there must be something imperfect in God unless He be Lord, and in the Lord unless He were God. And so since Both are one, and Both are implied under either name, and neither exists apart from the unity, the Apostle has not gone beyond the preaching of the Gospel in his teaching, nor does Christ when He speaks in Paul differ from the words which He spoke while living in the world in bodily form.

41. So then the one faith is, to confess the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father through the unity of an indivisible nature, not confused but inseparable, not intermingled but identical, not conjoined but coexisting, not incomplete but perfect. For there is birth not separation, there is a Son not an adoption; and He is God, not a creature. Neither is He a God of a different kind, but the Father and Son are one: for the nature was not altered by birth so as to be alien from the property of its original. So the Apostle holds the faith of the Son abiding in the Father and the Father in the Son when he proclaims that for him there is one God the Father and one Lord Christ, since in Christ the Lord there was also God, and in God the Father there was also Lord, and They Two are that unity which is God, and They Two are also that unity which is the Lord, for reason indicates that there must be something imperfect in God unless He be Lord, and in the Lord unless He were God. And so since Both are one, and Both are implied under either name, and neither exists apart from the unity, the Apostle has not gone beyond the preaching of the Gospel in his teaching, nor does Christ when He speaks in Paul differ from the words which He spoke while abiding in the world in bodily form.

For the Lord had said in the gospels, "Work not for the meat which perishes, but for the meat which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him the Father, even God, has sealed. They said therefore unto Him, What must we do that we may work the works of God? And He said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent." In setting forth the mystery of His Incarnation and His Godhead, our Lord has also expressed the teaching of our faith and hope: that we should work for food, not that which perishes but that which lasts forever; that we should remember that this food of eternity is given to us by the Son of Man; that we should know the Son of Man as sealed by God the Father; that we should know that this is the work of God—namely, faith in Him Whom He has sent. And who is it Whom the Father has sent? The very one Whom the Father has sealed. And who is He Whom the Father has sealed? Truly, the Son of Man, the one who gives the food of eternal life. And further, who are those to whom He gives it? Those who will work for the food that does not perish. So then, the work for this food is at the same time the work of God—that is, to believe in Him Whom He has sent. But these words are spoken by the Son of Man. And how will the Son of Man give the food of eternal life? The person who does not know that the Son of Man, who bestows food unto eternal life, has been sealed by God the Father does not know the mystery of his own salvation. At this point I now ask in what sense we are to understand that the Son of Man has been sealed by God the Father.

42. For the Lord had said in the gospels, Work not for the meat which perishes, but for the meat which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him the Father, even God, has sealed. They said therefore unto Him, What must we do that we may work the works of God? And He said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent. John 6:27-29 In setting forth the mystery of His Incarnation and His Godhead our Lord has also uttered the teaching of our faith and hope that we should work for food, not that which perishes but that which abides for ever; that we should remember that this food of eternity is given us by the Son of Man; that we should know the Son of Man as sealed by God the Father; that we should know that this is the work of God, even faith in Him Whom He has sent. And Who is it Whom the Father has sent? Even He Whom the Father has sealed. And Who is He Whom the Father has sealed? In truth, the Son of Man, even He who gives the food of eternal life. And further who are they to whom He gives it? They who shall work for the food that does not perish. Thus, then, the work for this food is at the same time the work of God, namely, to believe in Him Whom He has sent. But these words are uttered by the Son of Man. And how shall the Son of Man give the food of life eternal? Why, he knows not the mystery of his own salvation, who knows not that the Son of Man, bestowing food unto life eternal, has been sealed by God the Father. At this point I now ask in what sense are we to understand that the Son of Man has been sealed by God the Father?

We need to recognize first that God has spoken not for His own sake but for ours, and that He has adjusted the language He uses so that our weak human nature can grasp and understand it. After the Jews rebuked Him for making Himself equal to God by claiming to be the Son of God, He answered that He Himself did everything the Father did, that He had received all judgment from the Father, and that He must be honored just as the Father is honored. In all these statements, having already declared Himself to be the Son, He made Himself equal to the Father in honor, power, and physis (nature). Later He said that just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself. In this statement He indicated that through the mystery of His birth He possesses the unity of the same physis. When He says He has what the Father has, He means He has the Father's very self. God is not composed of parts like a human being, so that in Him there would be a difference in kind between the one who possesses and what is possessed. Rather, all that He is is life—a physis that is complete, absolute, and infinite, not made up of different elements but with one life permeating the whole. Since this life was given in the same way it was possessed, the fact that it was given clearly reveals the birth of the one who received it, yet it does not imply a difference in kind, because the life that was given was the same as the life that was possessed.

43. Now we ought to recognise first of all that God has spoken not for Himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of His utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it. For after being rebuked by the Jews for having made Himself the equal of God by professing to be the Son of God, He had answered that He Himself did all things that the Father did, and that He had received all judgment from the Father; moreover that He must be honoured even as the Father. And in all these things having before declared Himself Son, He had made Himself equal to the Father in honour, power and nature. Afterwards He had said that as the Father had life in Himself, so He had given the Son to have life in Himself, wherein He signified that by virtue of the mystery of the birth He possessed the unity of the same nature. For when He says that He has what the Father has, He means that He has the Father's self. For that God is not after human fashion of a composite being, so that in Him there is a difference of kind between Possessor and Possessed; but all that He is is life, a nature, that is, complete, absolute and infinite, not composed of dissimilar elements but with one life permeating the whole. And since this life was in such wise given as it was possessed, although the fact that it was given manifestly reveals the birth of the Recipient, it yet does not involve a difference of kind since the life given was such as was possessed.

Therefore, after this extensive and exact revelation of the Father's nature being present in Himself, He goes on to say, "For Him has the Father sealed, even God." It is the nature of a seal to display the complete form of the figure engraved upon it, and an impression taken from it reproduces it in every detail. Since it receives the whole of what is impressed, it also displays wholly within itself whoever has been impressed upon it. Yet this comparison is not adequate to illustrate the Divine birth, because in seals there is matter, difference of nature, and an act of impression, by which the likeness of stronger natures is impressed upon things of a more yielding nature. But the Only-begotten God, who was also through the mystery of our salvation the Son of Man, wanted to show us the likeness of His Father's own nature in Himself. He said that He was sealed by God because the Son of Man was about to give the food of eternal life, and through this we might perceive in Him the power of giving food unto eternity, since He possessed within Himself all the fullness of His Father's form—even of the God who sealed Him. This means that what God had sealed should display in itself nothing other than the form of the God who sealed it. The Lord spoke these things to the Jews, who could not receive His saying because of unbelief.

44. Therefore after this manifold and precise revelation of the presence of the Father's nature in Himself, He goes on to say, For Him has the Father sealed, even God. John 6:27 It is the nature of a seal to exhibit the whole form of the figure graven upon it, and that an impression taken from it reproduces it in every respect; and since it receives the whole of that which is impressed, it displays also in itself wholly whoever has been impressed upon it. Yet this comparison is not adequate to exemplify the Divine birth, because in seals there is a matter, difference of nature, and an act of impression, whereby the likeness of stronger natures is impressed upon things of a more yielding nature. But the Only-begotten God, Who was also through the Mystery of our salvation the Son of Man, desiring to point out to us the likeness of His Father's proper nature in Himself, said that He was sealed by God; because the Son of Man was about to give the food of eternal life, and that we thereby might perceive in Him the power of giving food unto eternity, in that He possessed within Himself all the fullness of His Father's form, even of the God Who sealed Him: so that what God had sealed should display in itself none other than the form of the God Who sealed it. These things indeed the Lord spoke to the Jews, who could not receive His saying because of unbelief.

But the preacher of the Gospel, through the Spirit of Christ who spoke through him, teaches us about this proper nature when he says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant." For He whom God had sealed could be nothing other than the form of God, and whatever has been sealed in the form of God must necessarily present at the same time, imaged forth within itself, all that God possesses. For this reason the Apostle taught that He whom God sealed is God abiding in the form of God. When about to speak of the mystery of the body He assumed and was born in, the Apostle says, "He thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant." As regards His being in the form of God, by virtue of God's seal upon Him, He still remained God. But because He was to take the form of a servant and become obedient unto death, not grasping at His equality with God, He emptied Himself through obedience to take the form of a slave. He emptied Himself of the form of God—that is, of that wherein He was equal with God—not that He regarded His equality with God as any encroachment, even though He was in the form of God and equal with God and sealed by God as God.

45. But in us the preacher of the Gospel by the Spirit of Christ Who spoke through him, instils the knowledge of this His proper nature when he says, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. For He, Whom God had sealed, could be naught else than the form of God, and that which has been sealed in the form of God must needs present at the same time imaged forth within itself all that God possesses. And for this cause the Apostle taught that He Whom God sealed is God abiding in the form of God. For when about to speak of the Mystery of the body assumed and born in Him, he says, He thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. As regards His being in the form of God, by virtue of God's seal upon Him, he still remained God. But inasmuch as He was to take the form of a servant and become obedient unto death, not grasping at His equality with God, He emptied Himself through obedience to take the form of a slave. And He emptied Himself of the form of God, that is, of that wherein He was equal with God — not that He regarded His equality with God as any encroachment — although He was in the form of God and equal with God and sealed by God as God.

At this point I ask whether He who remains as God in the form of God is a different kind of God, as we see with seals regarding the images that stamp and those that are stamped, since a steel die pressed into lead or a gem pressed into wax shapes the figure carved in it or impresses what stands out in relief upon it. But if anyone is so foolish and senseless as to think that what God fashions to be God, belonging to Himself, is anything other than God, and that He who is in the form of God is in any way anything other than God after the mystery of His Incarnation and of His humility, made perfect through obedience even to the death of the cross, he will hear, by the confession of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth and of every tongue, that Jesus is in the glory of God the Father. If then, when His form had become that of a slave He remains in such glory, how, I ask, did He remain when in the form of God? Must not Christ the Spirit have been in the physis of God—for this is what is meant by "in the glory of God"—when Christ as Jesus, that is, born as man, exists in the glory of God the Father?

46. At this point I ask whether He Who abides as God in the form of God is a God of another kind, as we perceive in the case of seals in respect of the likenesses which stamp and those which are stamped, since a steel die impressed upon lead or a gem upon wax shapes the figure cut in it or imprints that which stands in relief upon it. But if there be any one so foolish and senseless as to think that that, pertaining to Himself, which God fashions to be God, is anything but God, and that He Who is in the form of God is in any respect anything else save God after the mystery of His Incarnation and of His humility, made perfect through obedience even unto the death of the cross, he shall hear, by the confession of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth and of every tongue, that Jesus is in the glory of God the Father. If then, when His form had become that of a slave He abides in such glory, how, I ask, did He abide when in the form of God? Must not Christ the Spirit have been in the nature of Gods — for this is what is meant by 'in the glory of God' — when Christ as Jesus, that is, born as man, exists in the glory of God the Father?

In all things the blessed Apostle preserves the unchangeable teaching of the Gospel faith. The Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed as God in such a way that the Apostle's faith neither falls away into confessing two Gods by calling Him a God of a different order, nor leaves an opening for the unholy doctrine of a single and solitary God by making God the Son inseparable from the Father. For when he says "in the form of God" and "in the glory of the Father," the Apostle neither teaches that They differ from one another, nor allows us to think of Him as not existing. For He Who is in the form of God neither ends up becoming another God nor loses His own Godhead, because He cannot be severed from the form of God since He exists in it, nor is He Who is in the form of God not God. Just as He Who is in the glory of God cannot be anything other than God, and since He is God in the glory of God, He cannot be proclaimed as another god different from the true God, seeing that by the very fact that He is in the glory of God, He naturally possesses from Him in Whose glory He is the property of divinity.

47. In all things the blessed Apostle preserves the unchangeable teaching of the Gospel faith. The Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed as God in such wise that neither does the Apostle's faith, by calling Him a God of a different order, fall away to the confession of two Gods, nor by making God the Son inseparable from the Father does it leave an opening for the unholy doctrine of a single and solitary God. For when he says, in the form of God and in the glory of the Father the Apostle neither teaches that They differ one from another, nor allows us to think of Him as not existing. For He Who is in the form of God neither ends by becoming another God nor Himself loses His Godhead: for He cannot be severed from the form of God since He exists in it, nor is He, Who is in the form of God, not God Just as He Who is in the glory of God cannot be anything else than God, and, since He is God in the glory of God, cannot be proclaimed as another god and one different from the true God, seeing that by reason of the fact that He is in the glory of God He possesses naturally from Him in Whose glory He is, the property of divinity.

48. But there is no danger that the one faith will stop being unified because it is preached in different ways. The Evangelist taught that our Lord said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father also." But has Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, forgotten or concealed the meaning of the Lord's words when he says, "Who is the image of the invisible God"? I ask whether He is the visible likeness of the invisible God, and whether the infinite God can be presented to our sight in the likeness of a finite form. For a likeness must reproduce the form of what it represents. However, let those who claim the Son has a different physis decide what kind of likeness of the invisible God they want the Son to be. Is it a bodily likeness exposed to our eyes, moving from place to place with human walk and movement? No, but let them remember that according to the Gospels and the Prophets, both Christ is a Spirit and God is a Spirit. If they confine this Christ the Spirit within the limits of shape and body, such a bodily Christ will not be the likeness of the invisible God, nor will a finite limitation represent what is infinite.

48. But there is no danger that the one faith will cease to be such through diversity in its preaching. The Evangelist had taught that our Lord said, He that has seen Me, has seen the Father also. John 14:9 But has Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, forgotten or kept back the meaning of the Lord's words, when he says, Who is the image of the invisible God Colossians 1:15? I ask whether He is the visible likeness of the invisible God, and whether the infinite God can also be presented to view under the likeness of a finite form? For a likeness must needs repeat the form of that of which it is the likeness. Let those, however, who will have a nature of a different sort in the Son determine what sort of likeness of the invisible God they wish the Son to be. Is it a bodily likeness exposed to the gaze, and moving from place to place with human gait and motion? Nay, but let them remember that according to the Gospels and the Prophets both Christ is a Spirit and God is a Spirit. If they confine this Christ the Spirit within the bounds of shape and body, such a corporeal Christ will not be the likeness of the invisible God, nor will a finite limitation represent that which is infinite.

Neither did the Lord leave us in doubt when He said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father also," nor was the Apostle silent about His nature when he wrote, "Who is the image of the invisible God." The Lord had said, "If I do not do the works of My Father, believe Me not," teaching them to see the Father in Himself through the fact that He did the Father's works. By perceiving the power of His nature, they would understand the nature of that power they perceived. Therefore the Apostle, proclaiming that this is the image of God, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him all things were made in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and through Him all things should be reconciled to Him." So through the power of these works He is the image of God. Certainly the Creator of invisible things is not compelled by any necessity inherent in His nature to be the visible image of the invisible God. And to prevent Him from being regarded as the likeness of the form rather than of the nature, He is called the likeness of the invisible God so that we may understand through His exercise of the powers—not the invisible attributes—of the Divine nature, that that nature is in Him.

49. But, as it is, neither did the Lord leave us in doubt: He who has seen Me, has seen the Father also; nor was the Apostle silent as to His nature, Who is the image of the invisible God. For the Lord had said, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not John 10:37, teaching them to see the Father in Himself in that He did the works of the Father; that through perceiving the power of His nature they might understand the nature of that power which they perceived. Wherefore the Apostle proclaiming that this is the image of God, says, Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him were all things made in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell, and through Him all things should be reconciled to Him. Colossians 1:15-20 So through the power of these works He is the image of God. For assuredly the Creator of things invisible is not compelled by any necessity inherent in His nature to be the visible image of the invisible God. And lest He should be regarded as the likeness of the form and not of the nature, He is styled the likeness of the invisible God in order that we may understand by His exercise of the powers (not the invisible attributes) of the Divine nature, that that nature is in Him.

Therefore, He is the firstborn of every creature because all things were created in Him. And in case anyone should dare to attribute the creation of all things in Himself to anyone other than Him, Paul says, "All things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist." So all things consist for Him who is before all things and in whom are all things. Now this describes the origin of created things. But concerning the plan by which He took on our body, Paul adds, "And He is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it was the Father's good pleasure that in Him should all the fullness dwell, and that through Him all things should be reconciled to Him." The Apostle has connected the spiritual mysteries with their material results. For He who is the image of the invisible God is Himself the head of His body, the Church, and He who is the firstborn of every creature is at the same time the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He might have the preeminence. He is for us the Body while He is also the image of God, since He who is the firstborn of created things is at the same time the firstborn for eternity. This means that just as spiritual things, being created in the Firstborn, owe their continued existence to Him, so also all human things owe it to Him that in the Firstborn from the dead they are born again into eternity. For He is Himself the beginning, who as Son is therefore the image, and because He is the image, He is of God. Furthermore, He is the firstborn of every created thing, possessing in Himself the origin of the universe, and again He is the head of His body, the Church, and the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He has the preeminence. And because all things consist for Him, in Him the fullness of the Godhead is pleased to dwell, for in Him all things are reconciled through Him to Him, through whom all things were created in Himself.

50. He is accordingly the first-born of every creature because in Him all things were created. And lest any one should dare to refer to any other than Him the creation of all things in Himself, he says, All things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. All things then consist for Him Who is before all things, and in Whom are all things. Now this indeed describes the origin of created things. But concerning the dispensation by which He assumed our body, he adds, And He is the head of the body, the Church: Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell, and that through Him all things should be reconciled to Him. The Apostle has assigned to the spiritual mysteries their material effects. For He Who is the image of the invisible God is Himself the head of His body, the Church, and He Who is the first-born of every creature is at the same time the beginning, the first born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, being for us the Body, while He is also the image of God, since He, Who is the first-born of created things, is at the same time the first-born for eternity; so that as to Him things spiritual, being created in the First-born, owe it that they abide, even so all things human also owe it to Him that in the First-born from the dead they are born again into eternity. For He is Himself the beginning, Who as Son is therefore the image, and because the image, is of God. Further He is the first-born of every created thing, possessing in Himself the origin of the universe: and again He is the head of His body, the Church, and the first-born from the dead, so that in all things He has the pre-eminence. And because all things consist for Him, in Him the fullness of the Godhead is pleased to dwell, for in Him all things are reconciled through Him to Him, through Whom all things were created in Himself.

Do you now see what it means to be the image of God? It means that all things are created in Him through Him. Since all things are created in Him, understand that He whose image He is also creates all things in Him. And since all things that are created in Him are also created through Him, recognize that the nature of the one whose image He is is present in Him who is the image. For through Himself He creates the things that are created in Him, just as through Himself all things are reconciled in Him. Since they are reconciled in Him, recognize in Him the nature of the Father's unity, reconciling all things to Himself in Him. Since all things are reconciled through Him, understand that He is reconciling to the Father in Himself all things that He reconciled through Himself. For the same Apostle says, "But all things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." Compare this with the whole mystery of the faith of the Gospel. For He who is seen when Jesus is seen, who works in His works and speaks in His words, also reconciles in His reconciliation. And for this reason, in Him and through Him there is reconciliation, because the Father abiding in Him through a like nature restored the world to Himself by reconciliation through and in Him.

51. Do you now perceive what it is to be the image of God? It means that all things are created in Him through Him. Whereas all things are created in Him, understand that He, Whose image He is, also creates all things in Him. And since all things which are created in Him are also created through Him, recognize that in Him Who is the image there is present the nature of Him, Whose image He is. For through Himself He creates the things which are created in Him, just as through Himself all things are reconciled in Him. Inasmuch as they are reconciled in Him, recognise in Him the nature of the Father's unity, reconciling all things to Himself in Him. Inasmuch as all things are reconciled through Him, perceive Him reconciling to the Father in Himself all things which He reconciled through Himself. For the same Apostle says, But all things are from God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation: to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 Compare with this the whole mystery of the faith of the Gospel. For He Who is seen when Jesus is seen, Who works in His works, and speaks in His words, also reconciles in His reconciliation. And for this cause, in Him and through Him there is reconciliation, because the Father abiding in Him through a like nature restored the world to Himself by reconciliation through and in Him.

Thus God, out of regard for human weakness, has not set forth the faith in bare and uncertain statements. For although the authority of our Lord's mere words compelled their acceptance by itself, He has nevertheless informed our reason by a revelation that explains their meaning, so that we might learn to know His words, "I and the Father are one," by means of that which was itself the cause of the unity in question. For in saying that the Father speaks in His words, and works through His working, and judges through His judgment, and is seen in His manifestation, and reconciles through His reconciliation, and abides in Him while He in turn abides in the Father—what more fitting words, I ask, could He have employed in His teaching to suit the faculties of our reason, that we might believe in their unity, than those by which, through the truth of the birth and the unity of the physis, it is declared that whatever the Son did and said, the Father said and did in the Son? This says nothing of a physis foreign to Himself, or added by creation to God, or born into Godhead by a partition of God, but it indicates the divinity of one who by a perfect birth is begotten perfect God, who has so confident an assurance of His physis that He says, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and again, "All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine." For nothing of the Godhead is lacking in Him, in whose working and speaking and manifestation God works and speaks and is beheld. They are not two Gods who in their working and words and manifestation put on a semblance of unity. Neither is He a solitary God who in the works and words and sight of God Himself worked and spoke and was seen as God. The Church understands this. The Synagogue does not believe, philosophy does not know, that being One of One, Whole of Whole, God and Son, He has neither by His birth deprived the Father of His completeness, nor failed to possess the same completeness in Himself by right of His birth. And whoever is caught in this folly of unbelief is a disciple either of the Jews or of the heathen.

52. Thus God out of regard for human weakness has not set forth the faith in bare and uncertain statements. For although the authority of our Lord's mere words of itself compelled their acceptance, He nevertheless has informed our reason by a revelation which explains their meaning, that we might learn to know His words, I and the Father are one John 10:30, by means of that which was itself the cause of the unity in question. For in saying that the Father speaks in His words, and works through His working, and judges through His judgment, and is seen in His manifestation, and reconciles through His reconciliation, and abides in Him, while He in turn abides in the Father — what more fitting words, I ask, could He have employed in His teaching to suit the faculties of our reason, that we might believe in Their unity, than those by which, through the truth of the birth and the unity of the nature, it is declared that whatever the Son did and said, the Father said and did in the Son? This says nothing of a nature foreign to Himself, or added by creation to God, or born into Godhead by a partition of God, but it betokens the divinity of One Who by a perfect birth is begotten perfect God, Who has so confident an assurance of His nature that He says, I in the Father and the Father in Me, and again, All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine. For nought of the Godhead is lacking in Him, in Whose working and speaking and manifestation God works and speaks and is beheld. They are not two Gods, Who in their working and words and manifestation put on a semblance of unity. Neither is He a solitary God. Who in the works and words and sight of God, Himself worked and spoke and was seen as God. The Church understands this. The Synagogue does not believe, philosophy does not know, that being One of One, Whole of Whole, God and Son, He has neither by His birth deprived the Father of His completeness, nor failed to possess the same completeness in Himself by right of His birth. And whosoever is caught in this folly of unbelief is a disciple either of the Jews or of the heathen.

To help you understand the Lord's saying, "All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine," learn the teaching and faith of the Apostle who said, "Take heed lest any lead you astray through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world and not after Christ; for in Him dwells the fullness of Godhead bodily." Anyone who does not know Christ to be the true God, who does not recognize in Him the fullness of Godhead, is of the world and follows human teaching and is a victim of philosophy. The human mind knows only what it understands, and the world's powers of belief are limited, since it judges according to the laws of the material elements and considers possible only what it can see or do. The elements of the world came into being out of nothing, but Christ's continuity of existence did not begin in what does not exist, nor did He ever begin to exist—He took from the beginning a beginning which is eternal. The elements of the world are either without life or have emerged from that state into life, but Christ is life, born to be living God from the living God. The elements of the world have been established by God, but they are not God: Christ as God of God is Himself wholly all that God is. The elements of the world, since they are within it, cannot possibly rise out of their condition and cease to be within it, but Christ, while having God within Himself through the Mystery, is Himself in God. The elements of the universe, generating from themselves creatures with a life like their own, do indeed through the exercise of their bodily functions bestow upon them from their own bodies the beginnings of life, but they are not themselves present as living beings in their offspring, whereas in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead is present in bodily shape.

53. Now that you may understand the saying of the Lord, when He said, All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine John 16:15, learn the teaching and faith of the Apostle who said, Take heed lest any lead you astray through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world and not after Christ; for in Him dwells the fullness of Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9 That man is of the world and savours of the teaching of men and is the victim of philosophy, who does not know Christ to be the true God, who does not recognise in Him the fullness of Godhead. The mind of man knows only that which it understands, and the world's powers of belief are limited, since it judges according to the laws of the material elements that that alone is possible which it can see or do. For the elements of the world have come into being out of nothing, but Christ's continuity of existence did not begin in the non-existent, nor did He ever begin to exist, but He took from the beginning a beginning which is eternal. The elements of the world are either without life, or have issued out of this stage into life, but Christ is life, born to be living God from the living God. The elements of the world have been established by God, but they are not God: Christ as God of God is Himself wholly all that God is. The elements of the world, since they are within it, cannot possibly rise out of their condition and cease to be within it, but Christ, while having God within Himself through the Mystery, is Himself in God. The elements of the universe, generating from themselves creatures with a life like their own, do indeed through the exercise of their bodily functions bestow upon them from their own bodies the beginnings of life, but they are not themselves present as living beings in their offspring, whereas in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead is present in bodily shape.

I now ask: whose Godhead is it that dwells fully in Him? If it is not the Father's, then what other God are you—misleading preacher of one God—forcing on me as the one whose Godhead dwells fully in Christ? But if it is the Father's Godhead, then explain to me how this fullness dwells in Him bodily. If you claim the Father remains in the Son bodily, then the Father, while dwelling in the Son, would not exist in Himself. But if instead—and this is the truer view—the Godhead remaining in Him in bodily form reveals within Him the reality of the physis of God from God, since God is in Him, remaining not through condescension or through will but through birth, truly and wholly in bodily fullness according to what He is; and since, in the entire scope of His being, He was born through His divine birth to be God, and within the Godhead there is no difference or dissimilarity except that in Christ He dwells in bodily form, and yet whatever dwells in Him bodily is according to the fullness of Godhead—then why follow human teachings? Why cling to the teaching of empty lies? Why speak of "agreement" or "harmony of will" or "a creature"? The fullness of Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.

54. Now I ask, whose Godhead is it whereof the fullness dwells in Him? If it be not that of the Father, what other God do you, misleading preacher of one God, thrust upon me as Him Whose Godhead dwells fully in Christ? But if it be that of the Father, inform me how this fullness dwells in Him in bodily fashion. If you hold that the Father abides in the Son in bodily fashion, the Father, while dwelling in the Son, will not exist in Himself. If on the other hand, and this is more true, the Godhead abiding in Him in bodily shape displays within Him the verity of the nature of God from God, inasmuch as God is in Him, abiding neither through condescension nor through will but by birth, true and wholly in bodily fullness according as He is; and inasmuch as, in the whole compass of His being, He was born by His divine birth to be God, and within the Godhead there is no difference or dissimilarity, except that in Christ He dwells in bodily form, and yet whatever dwells in Him bodily is according to the fullness of Godhead; why follow after the doctrines of men? Why cleave to the teaching of empty falsehoods? Why talk of 'agreement' or 'harmony of will?' or 'a creature?' The fullness of Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.

The Apostle has held firmly to the rule of his faith by teaching that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily. He did this so that the teaching of the faith would not degenerate into an impious claim of a oneness of Persons, nor break out into the sinful madness of believing in two different natures. The fullness of Godhead that dwells in Christ in bodily fashion is neither solitary nor separable. The fullness in bodily form does not allow any division from the other bodily fullness, and the indwelling Godhead cannot be considered to also be the dwelling-place of the Godhead. Christ is so constituted that the fullness of Godhead dwells in Him in bodily fashion, and this fullness must be understood as one in nature with Christ. Take every opportunity you can find for your arguments, sharpen the points of your blasphemous reasoning. At least name the imaginary being whose fullness of Godhead it is that dwells in Christ in bodily fashion. For He is Christ, and dwelling in Him in bodily fashion is the fullness of Godhead.

55. The Apostle has herein held fast to the canon of his faith, by teaching that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily; and this, in order that the teaching of the faith might not degenerate into an unholy profession of a oneness of Persons or sinful frenzy break forth into the belief of two different natures. For the fullness of Godhead which dwells in Christ in bodily fashion is neither solitary nor separable; for the fullness in bodily form does not admit any partition from the other bodily fullness, and the indwelling Godhead cannot be regarded as also the dwelling-place of the Godhead. And Christ is so constituted that the fullness of Godhead dwells in Him in bodily fashion, and that this fullness must be held one in nature with Christ. Lay hands on every chance that offers for your quibbles, sharpen the points of your blasphemous wit. Name, at least, the imaginary being whose fullness of Godhead it is which dwells in Christ in bodily fashion. For He is Christ, and there is dwelling in Him in bodily fashion the fullness of Godhead.

If you want to understand what it means to 'dwell in bodily fashion,' grasp what it means to speak in someone who speaks, to be seen in someone who is seen, to work in someone who works, to be God in God, whole from whole, one from one. In this way you will learn what is meant by the fullness of God in bodily form. Remember also that the Apostle does not remain silent about whose Godhead dwells fully in Christ in bodily fashion, for he says, "For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity." So it is His Godhead that dwells in Christ in bodily fashion—not partially but wholly, not in separate parts but in fullness. They dwell together in such a way that the Two are one, and are so united that the One Who is God does not differ from the Other Who is God. Both are equally divine, since a perfect birth brought forth perfect God. And the birth exists in this perfection because the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in God born of God.

56. And if you would know what it is to 'dwell in bodily fashion,' understand what it is to speak in one that speaks, to be seen in one who is seen, to work in one who works, to be God in God, whole of whole, one of one; and thus learn what is meant by the fullness of God in bodily shape. Remember, too, that the Apostle does not keep silence on the question, whose Godhead it is, which dwells fully in Christ in bodily fashion, for he says, For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity. Romans 1:20 So it is His Godhead that dwells in Christ in bodily fashion, not partially but wholly, not parcelwise but in fullness; and so dwelling that the Two are one, and so one, that the One Who is God does not differ from the Other Who is God: Both so equally divine, as a perfect birth engendered perfect God. And the birth exists thus in its perfection, because the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in God born of God.

This is the seventh book of our work against the wild excesses of modern heresy. In the sequence of books it must follow the earlier ones; but in importance, as an explanation of the mysteries of the true faith, it comes before and surpasses them all. I am well aware how difficult and steep is the path of evangelical teaching that we are climbing. My awareness of my own inadequacy makes me fearful and pulls me back, but the fervor of faith pushes me forward; the attacks of heresy stir my passion, and the dangers facing the ignorant move me to compassion. I am afraid to speak, yet I cannot remain silent. A double fear weighs on my spirit: either speaking or staying silent may make me guilty of abandoning the truth. For this cunning heresy has surrounded itself with remarkable strategies of twisted cleverness. First there is the appearance of piety; then the language carefully chosen to calm the suspicions of a trusting listener; and again, the adjustment of their views to secular philosophy; and finally, their diverting of attention from obvious truth by a pretended explanation of Divine methods. Their loud declaration of the unity of God is a fraudulent imitation of the faith; their claim that Christ is the Son of God is a manipulation of words meant to deceive their hearers; their statement that He did not exist before He was born is an appeal for the support of the world's philosophers; their confession of God as incorporeal and immutable leads, through a display of deceptive logic, to a denial of the birth of God from God. They turn our arguments against us; the Church's faith is made the instrument of its own destruction. They have managed to trap us in the confusing situation of facing equal danger whether we debate with them or stay silent. For they use the fact that we let certain of their claims go unchallenged as an argument in favor of those claims which we do contradict.

1. This is the seventh book of our treatise against the wild extravagance of modern heresy. In order of place it must follow its predecessors; in order of importance, as an exposition of the mysteries of the right faith, it precedes and excels them all. I am well aware how hard and steep is the path of evangelical instruction up which we are mounting. The fears inspired by consciousness of my own incapacity are plucking me back, but the warmth of faith urges me on; the assaults of heresy heat my blood, and the dangers of the ignorant excite my compassion. I fear to speak, and yet I cannot be silent. A double dread subdues my spirit; it may be that speech, it may be that silence, will render me guilty of a desertion of the truth. For this cunning heresy has hedged itself round with marvellous devices of perverted ingenuity. First there is the semblance of devotion; then the language carefully chosen to lull the suspicions of a candid listener; and again, the accommodation of their views to secular philosophy; and finally, their withdrawing of attention from manifest truth by a pretended explanation of Divine methods. Their loud profession of the unity of God is a fraudulent imitation of the faith; their assertion that Christ is the Son of God a play upon words for the delusion of their hearers; their saying that He did not exist before He was born a bid for the support of the world's philosophers; their confession of God as incorporeal and immutable leads, by a display of fallacious logic, up to a denial of the birth of God from God. They turn our arguments against ourselves; the Church's faith is made the engine of its own destruction. They have contrived to involve us in the perplexing position of an equal danger, whether we reason with them or whether we refrain. For they use the fact that we allow certain of their assumptions to pass unchallenged as an argument on behalf of those which we do contradict.

We should remember that in the previous books the reader has been encouraged to study that entire blasphemous document and notice how it is driven throughout by the single goal of spreading the belief that our Lord Jesus Christ is neither God nor Son of God. Its authors claim that He is allowed to use the titles of God and of Son through a kind of adoption, though neither Godhead nor Sonship belong to Him by nature. They use the fact, which is true in itself, that God is unchangeable and incorporeal, as an argument against the Son being born from Him. They value the truth that God the Father is One only as a weapon against our faith in the Godhead of Christ. They argue that an incorporeal nature cannot reasonably be thought of as generating another, and that our faith in One God is incompatible with the confession of God from God. But our earlier books have already refuted and defeated this argument of theirs by appealing to the Law and the Prophets. Our defense has followed their attack step by step. We have presented God from God, and at the same time confessed One true God, showing that this presentation of the faith neither falls short of the truth by attributing singleness of Person to the One true God, nor adds to the faith by asserting the existence of a second Deity. For we confess neither an isolated God nor two Gods. Thus, neither denying that God is One nor claiming that He is alone, we hold to the straight path of truth. Each Divine Person is in the Unity, yet no Person is the One God. Next, since our purpose is to demonstrate the unshakable truth of this mystery through the testimony of the Evangelists and Apostles, our first duty has been to make our readers understand the nature, truly subsisting and truly born, of the Son of God—to show that He has no origin outside of God, and was not created out of nothing, but is the Son, born from God. This is a truth which the evidence presented in the last book has placed beyond all doubt. The claim that He bears the name of Son through adoption has been silenced, and He stands forth as a true Son by a true birth. Our present task is to prove from the Gospels that, because He is true Son, He is also true God. For unless He is true Son He cannot be true God, nor true God unless He is true Son.

2. We call to mind that in the preceding books the reader has been urged to study the whole of that blasphemous manifesto, and mark how it is animated throughout by the one aim of propagating the belief that our Lord Jesus Christ is neither God, nor Son of God. Its authors argue that He is permitted to use the names of God and of Son by virtue of a certain adoption, though neither Godhead nor Sonship be His by nature. They use the fact, true in itself, that God is immutable and incorporeal, as an argument against the birth of the Son from Him. They value the truth, that God the Father is One, only as a weapon against our faith in the Godhead of Christ; pleading that an incorporeal nature cannot be rationally conceived as generating another, and that our faith in One God is inconsistent with the confession of God from God. But our earlier books have already refuted and foiled this argument of theirs by an appeal to the Law and the Prophets. Our defense has followed, step by step, the course of their attack. We have set forth God from God, and at the same time confessed One true God; showing that this presentation of the faith neither falls short of the truth by ascribing singleness of Person to the One true God, nor adds to the faith by asserting the existence of a second Deity. For we confess neither an isolated God, nor yet two Gods. Thus, neither denying that God is One nor maintaining that He is alone, we hold the straight road of truth. Each Divine Person is in the Unity, yet no Person is the One God. Next, our purpose being to demonstrate the irrefragable truth of this mystery by the evidence of the Evangelists and Apostles, our first duty has been to make our readers acquainted with the nature, truly subsisting and truly born, of the Son of God; to demonstrate that He has no origin external to God, and was not created out of nothing, but is the Son, born from God. This is a truth which the evidence adduced in the last book has placed beyond all doubt. The assertion that He bears the name of Son by virtue of adoption has been put to silence, and He stands forth as a true Son by a true birth. Our present task is to prove from the Gospels that, because He is true Son, He is true God also. For unless He be true Son He cannot be true God, nor true God unless He be true Son.

Nothing troubles human nature more than the sense of approaching danger. If disasters we didn't know about or expect happen to us, we may deserve sympathy, but at least we were free from worry beforehand; no burden of anxiety weighed us down. But someone whose mind is filled with possible troubles already suffers torment through fear. I who am now venturing out to sea am a sailor no stranger to shipwreck, a traveler who knows from experience that holy brigands hide in the forests, an explorer of African deserts aware of the danger from scorpions and asps and basilisks. I have no moment's relief from knowing and fearing the present danger. Every heretic is watching, noting every word that falls from my mouth. The entire course of my argument is riddled with ambushes and pitfalls and snares. I am not complaining about the road itself, about its difficulty or steepness; I am following in the footsteps of the Apostles, not choosing my own path. My problem is the constant danger, the constant dread, of wandering into some ambush, of stumbling into some pit, of being caught in some net. My purpose is to proclaim the unity of God, in the sense taught by the Law and Prophets and Apostles. Sabellius is close at hand, eager with cruel kindness to welcome me on the basis of this unity and swallow me up in his own destruction. If I resist him and deny that God is One in the Sabellian sense, a new heresy is ready to receive me, pointing out that I teach the existence of two Gods. Again, if I undertake to explain how the Son of God was born from Mary, Photinus, the Ebion of our day, will be quick to twist this statement of truth into a confirmation of his lie. I need mention no other heresies except one; the whole world knows they are foreign to the Church. This one has been often condemned, often rejected, yet it still preys upon our vital organs. Galatia has raised a large group of godless advocates of the unity of God. Alexandria has scattered across almost the entire world her denial, which is really an affirmation, of the doctrine of two Gods. Pannonia upholds her destructive doctrine that the only birth of Jesus Christ was from the Virgin. And the Church, torn apart by these competing beliefs, is in danger of being led by means of truth into a rejection of truth. Doctrines are being forced upon her for godless purposes, which, depending on how they are used, will either support or destroy the faith. For example, we cannot as true believers assert that God is One if we mean by it that He is alone; for faith in a solitary God denies the Godhead of the Son. If, on the other hand, we assert, as we truly can, that the Son is God, we are in danger, as they foolishly imagine, of abandoning the truth that God is One. We are in danger on both sides; we may deny the unity or we may maintain the isolation. But this is a danger that holds no terror for the foolish things of the world. Our adversaries are blind to the fact that His statement that He is not alone is consistent with unity; that though He is One He is not solitary.

3. Nothing is more harassing to human nature than the sense of impending danger. If calamities unknown or unanticipated befall us, we may need pity, yet we have been free from care; no load of anxiety has oppressed us. But he whose mind is full of possibilities of trouble suffers already a torment in his fear. I who now am venturing out to sea, am a mariner not unused to shipwreck, a traveller who knows by experience holy brigands lurk in the forests, an explorer of African deserts aware of the danger from scorpions and asps and basilisks. I enjoy no instant of relief from the knowledge and fear of present danger. Every heretic is on the watch, noting every word as it drops from my mouth. The whole progress of my argument is infested with ambuscades and pitfalls and snares. It is not of the road, of its hardness or steepness, that I complain; I am following in the footsteps of the Apostles, not choosing my own path. My trouble is the constant peril, the constant dread, of wandering into some ambush, of stumbling into some pit, of being entangled in some net. My purpose is to proclaim the unity of God, in the sense of the Law and Prophets and Apostles. Sabellius is at hand, eager with cruel kindness to welcome me, on the strength of this unity, and swallow me up in his own destruction. If I withstand him, and deny that, in the Sabellian sense, God is One a fresh heresy is ready to receive me, pointing out that I teach the existence of two Gods. Again, if I undertake to tell how the Son of God was born from Mary, Photinus, the Ebion of our day, will be prompt to twist this assertion of the truth into a confirmation of his lie. I need mention no other heresies save one; all the world knows that they are alien from the Church. It is one that has been often denounced, often rejected, yet it preys upon our vitals still. Galatia has reared a large brood of godless assertors of the unity of God. Alexandria has sown broadcast, over almost the whole world, her denial, which is an affirmation, of the doctrine of two Gods. Pannonia upholds her pestilent doctrine that the only birth of Jesus Christ was from the Virgin. And the Church, distracted by these rival faiths, is in danger of being led by means of truth into a rejection of truth. Doctrines are being forced upon her for godless ends, which, according to the use that is made of them, will either support or overthrow the faith. For instance, we cannot, as true believers, assert that God is One, if we mean by it that He is alone; for faith in a lonely God denies the Godhead of the Son. If, on the other hand, we assert, as we truly can, that the Son is God, we are in danger, so they fondly imagine, of deserting the truth that God is One. We are in peril on either hand; we may deny the unity or we may maintain the isolation. But it is a danger which has no terrors for the foolish things of the world. 1 Corinthians 1:27 Our adversaries are blind to the fact that His assertion that He is not alone is consistent with unity; that though He is One He is not solitary.

But I trust that the Church, through the light of her teaching, will enlighten the world's empty wisdom so completely that even if it does not accept the mystery of the faith, it will recognize that in our conflict with heretics we—not they—are the true representatives of that mystery. For truth has great power. Not only does it witness to itself, but the more it is attacked, the clearer it becomes. The constant assaults it faces only strengthen its inherent stability. It is the Church's distinctive characteristic that when she is struck, she triumphs; when she is attacked with arguments, she proves herself right; when her supporters abandon her, she holds her ground. She wants all people to remain at her side and within her embrace. If it were up to her, no one would become unworthy to remain under that revered mother's protection, and no one would be cast out or allowed to leave her peaceful shelter. But when heretics abandon her or she expels them, the loss she suffers in not being able to save them is offset by a greater assurance that she alone can offer salvation. This truth becomes most clearly visible through the passionate zeal of competing heresies. The Church, appointed by the Lord and established by his apostles, is one for everyone. But the wild madness of conflicting sects has separated them from her. And it is clear that these disagreements about the faith come from a twisted mind that distorts Scripture's words to fit its own opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to fit Scripture's words. So amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching but by that of her opponents. They are all arrayed against her, and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her complete answer to their godless delusions. The armies of heresy gather against her. Each of them can defeat all the others, but none can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph that the Church celebrates over all of them. Each heresy uses against its enemy some weapon already broken, in another case, by the Church's condemnation. There is no unity among them, and the result of their internal conflicts is the confirmation of the faith.

4. But I trust that the Church, by the light of her doctrine, will so enlighten the world's vain wisdom, that, even though it accept not the mystery of the faith, it will recognise that in our conflict with heretics we, and not they, are the true representatives of that mystery. For great is the force of truth; not only is it its own sufficient witness, but the more it is assailed the more evident it becomes; the daily shocks which it receives only increase its inherent stability. It is the peculiar property of the Church that when she is buffeted she is triumphant, when she is assaulted with argument she proves herself in the right, when she is deserted by her supporters she holds the field. It is her wish that all men should remain at her side and in her bosom; if it lay with her, none would become unworthy to abide under the shelter of that august mother, none would be cast out or suffered to depart from her calm retreat. But when heretics desert her or she expels them, the loss she endures, in that she cannot save them, is compensated by an increased assurance that she alone can offer bliss. This is a truth which the passionate zeal of rival heresies brings into the clearest prominence. The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all. Each heresy wields against its adversary some weapon already shattered, in another instance, by the Church's condemnation. There is no point of union between them, and the outcome of their internecine struggles is the confirmation of the faith.

Sabellius denies the birth of the Son, and then proclaims the unity of God. But he does not doubt that the mighty physis, which acted in the human Christ, was God. He closes his eyes to the revealed mystery of the Sonship. The works done seem to him so marvelous that he cannot believe that the one who performed them could undergo a true generation. When he hears the words, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also" (John 14:9), he jumps to the blasphemous conclusion of an inseparable and indistinguishable identity of physis in Father and Son, because he fails to see that the revelation of the birth is the way in which their unity of physis is made known to us. For the fact that the Father is seen in the Son is proof of the Son's divinity, not disproof of his birth. Thus our knowledge of each of them depends on our knowledge of the other, for there is no difference of physis between them and, since in this respect they are one, a reverent study of the character of either will give us a true insight into the physis of both. For indeed, it is certain that he who was in the form of God must in his self-revelation present himself to us in the exact aspect of the form of God (Philippians 2:6). Again, this perverse and insane delusion draws further encouragement from the words, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). From the fact of unity in the same physis they have impiously deduced a confusion of persons. Their interpretation, that the words signify a single power, contradicts the meaning of the passage. For "I and the Father are one" does not indicate a solitary God. The use of the conjunction "and" shows clearly that more than one person is signified, and "are" requires a plurality of subjects. Moreover, the "one" is not incompatible with a birth. Its sense is that the two persons have the one physis in common. The "one" is inconsistent with difference; the "are" with identity.

5. Sabellius sweeps away the birth of the Son, and then preaches the unity of God; but he does not doubt that the mighty Nature, which acted in the human Christ, was God. He shuts his eyes to the revealed mystery of the Sonship; the works done seem to him so marvellous that he cannot believe that He who performed them could undergo a true generation. When he hears the words, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also John 14:9, he jumps to the blasphemous conclusion of an inseparable and indistinguishable identity of nature in Father and Son, because he fails to see that the revelation of the birth is the mode in which Their unity of nature is manifested to us. For the fact that the Father is seen in the Son is a proof of the Son's Divinity, not a disproof of His birth. Thus our knowledge of Each of Them is conditioned by our knowledge of the Other, for there is no difference of nature between them and, since in this respect they are One, a reverent study of the character of Either will give us a true insight into the nature of Both. For, indeed, it is certain that He, Who was in the form of God, must in His self-revelation present Himself to us in the exact aspect of the form of God. Philippians 2:6 Again, this perverse and insane delusion derives a further encouragement from the words, I and the Father are One. John 10:30 From the fact of unity in the same nature they have impiously deduced a confusion of Persons; their interpretation, that the words signify a single Power, contradicts the tenour of the passage. For I and the Father are One does not indicate a solitary God. The use of the conjunction and shows clearly that more than one Person is signified; and are requires a plurality of subject. Moreover, the One is not incompatible with a birth. Its sense is, that the Two Persons have the one nature in common. The One is inconsistent with difference; the are with identity.

Place our modern heresy in opposition to the equally misguided delusion of Sabellius, and let them make the best case they can. The new heretics will bring forward the passage, The Father is greater than I. Ignoring the mystery of the Divine birth and the mystery of God's emptying Himself and taking flesh, they will argue that His nature is inferior based on His statement that the Father is greater. They will argue against Sabellius that Christ is a Son, insofar as anyone can be a Son who is inferior to the Father and needs to ask for restoration to His glory, and fears death and actually did die. In response, Sabellius will point to His deeds as evidence of His Divine nature. While our new heresy, to avoid admitting Christ's true Sonship, will enthusiastically agree with him that God is One, Sabellius will emphatically assert the same article of faith, meaning that no Son exists. One side emphasizes the action of the Son; the other insists that in that action God is revealed. One will demonstrate the unity, the other will disprove the identity. Sabellius will defend his position like this: The works that were done could have been done by no other nature than the Divine. Sins were forgiven, the sick were healed, the lame ran, the blind saw, the dead lived. God alone has power to do this. The words I and the Father are One could only have been spoken from self-knowledge; no nature outside the Father's could have spoken them. Why then propose a second substance and urge me to believe in a second God? These works belong to God alone; the One God performed them. His opponents, driven by an equally poisonous hatred for the faith, will argue that the Son is unlike in nature to God the Father: You are ignorant of the mystery of your salvation. You must believe in a Son through Whom the worlds were made, through Whom man was created, Who gave the Law through Angels, Who was born of Mary, Who was sent by the Father, was crucified, dead and buried, Who rose again from the dead and is at the right hand of God, Who is the Judge of the living and the dead. We must rise again to Him, we must confess Him, we must earn our place in His kingdom. Each of the two enemies of the Church is fighting the Church's battle. Sabellius displays Christ as God by the witness of the Divine nature revealed in His works; Sabellius' opponents confess Christ, on the evidence of the revealed faith, to be the Son of God.

6. Set our modern heresy in array against the delusion, equally wild, of Sabellius; let them make the best of their case. The new heretics will advance the passage. The Father is greater than I. Neglecting the mystery of the Divine birth, and the mystery of God's emptying Himself and taking flesh, they will argue the inferiority of His nature from His assertion that the Father is the greater. They will plead against Sabellius that Christ is a Son, in so far as One can be a Son who is inferior to the Father and needs to ask for restoration to His glory, and fears to die and indeed did die. In reply Sabellius will adduce His deeds in evidence of His Divine nature; and while our novel heresy, to escape the admission of Christ's true Sonship, will heartily agree with him that God is One, Sabellius will emphatically assert the same article of the faith, in the sense that no Son exists. The one side lays stress upon the action of the Son; the other urges that in that action God is manifest. The one will demonstrate the unity, the other disprove the identity. Sabellius will defend his position thus:– The works that were done could have been done by no other nature than the Divine. Sins were remitted, the sick were healed, the lame ran, the blind saw, the dead lived. God alone has power for this. The words I and the Father are One could only have been spoken from self- knowledge; no nature, outside the Father's, could have uttered them. Why then suggest a second substance, and urge me to believe in a second God? These works are peculiar to God; the One God wrought them. His adversaries, animated by a hatred, equally venomous, for the faith, will argue that the Son is unlike in nature to God the Father:– You are ignorant of the mystery of your salvation. You must believe in a Son through Whom the worlds were made, through Whom man was fashioned, Who gave the Law through Angels, Who was born of Mary, Who was sent by the Father, was crucified, dead and buried, Who rose again from the dead and is at the right hand of God, Who is the Judge of quick and dead. Unto Him we must rise again, we must confess Him, we must earn our place in His kingdom. Each of the two enemies of the Church is fighting the Church's battle. Sabellius displays Christ as God by the witness of the Divine nature manifested in His works; Sabellius' antagonists confess Christ, on the evidence of the revealed faith, to be the Son of God.

Again, what a glorious victory for our faith this is: Ebion—in other words, Photinus—both wins and loses at the same time! He criticizes Sabellius for denying that the Son of God is Man, but then he must endure criticism from Arian fanatics for failing to see that this Man is the Son of God. Against Sabellius, Photinus uses the Gospels as evidence about the Son of Mary. But Arius takes away this support by proving that the Gospels show Christ is more than just the Son of Mary. Sabellius denies there is a Son of God; against him, Photinus elevates a man to the position of Son. Photinus refuses to accept a Son born before the worlds; against him, Arius denies that the only birth of the Son of God was His human birth. Let them defeat each other as much as they like, because every victory one of them wins is balanced by a defeat. Our present adversaries are wrong about the divine physis of the Son; Sabellius is wrong about the Son's revealed existence; Photinus is convicted of ignorance, or else of lying, when he denies the Son's birth before the worlds. Meanwhile the Church, whose faith is based on the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles, holds firmly, against Sabellius, that the Son exists; against Arius, that He is God by physis; against Photinus, that He created the universe. And she is more convinced of her faith precisely because they cannot unite to contradict it. For Sabellius points to the works of Christ as proof of the divinity of the one who performed them, though he does not know that the Son was their author. The Arians grant Him the name of Son, though they do not confess that the true physis of God dwelt in Him. Photinus maintains His manhood, though in doing so he forgets that Christ was born as God before the worlds. Thus, in their various assertions and denials, there are points where each heresy is correct in defense or attack; and the result of their conflicts is that the truth of our confession is brought into clearer light.

7. Again, how glorious a victory for our faith is that in which Ebion — in other words, Photinus — both wins the day and loses it! He castigates Sabellius for denying that the Son of God is Man, and in his turn has to submit to the reproaches of Arian fanatics for failing to see that this Man is the Son of God. Against Sabellius he calls the Gospels to his aid, with their evidence concerning the Son of Mary; Arius deprives him of this ally by proving that the Gospels make Christ something more than the Son of Mary. Sabellius denies that there is a Son of God; against him Photinus elevates man to the place of Son. Photinus will hear nothing of a Son born before the worlds; against him, Arius denies that the only birth of the Son of God was His human birth. Let them defeat one another to their hearts' content, for every victory which each of them wins is balanced by a defeat. Our present adversaries are ranted in the matter of the Divine nature of the Son; Sabellius in the matter of the Son's revealed existence; Photinus is convicted of ignorance, or else of falsehood, in his denial of the Son's birth before the worlds. Meanwhile the Church, whose faith is based upon the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles, holds fast, against Sabellius, her assertion that the Son exists; against Arius, that He is God by nature; against Photinus, that He created the universe. And she is the more convinced of her faith, in that they cannot combine to contradict it. For Sabellius points to the works of Christ in proof of the Divinity of Him Who wrought them, though he knows not that the Son was their Author. The Arians grant Him the name of Son, though they confess not that the true nature of God dwelt in Him. Photinus maintains His manhood, though in maintaining it he forgets that Christ was born as God before the worlds. Thus, in their several assertions and denials, there are points in which each heresy is in the right in defense or attack; and the result of their conflicts is that the truth of our confession is brought into clearer light.

I felt I needed to take a little space to point this out. This hasn't been from any love of lengthy writing, but rather to serve as a warning. First, I wanted to expose the vague and confused character of this crowd of heresies, whose mutual conflicts turn out, as we've seen, to our advantage. Second, in my struggle against the blasphemous teachings of modern heresy—that is, in my task of proclaiming that both God the Father and God the Son are God, in other words, that Father and Son are One in name, One in nature, One in the kind of Divinity they possess—I wanted to protect myself from any accusation that might be brought against me, either as someone promoting two Gods or one lonely and isolated Deity. For in God the Father and God the Son, as I have presented them, no confusion of persons (prosopa) can be detected; nor in my explanation of their common nature can any difference between the Godhead of the One and the Other be found. In the previous book I have adequately refuted, through the witness of the Gospels, those who deny the real existence of God the Son through a true birth from God; my present task is to show that He, who in the truth of His nature is Son of God, is also in the truth of His nature God. But this proof must not deteriorate into the fatal confession of a solitary God, or of a second God. It will demonstrate God as One yet not alone; but in its care to avoid the error of making Him lonely it will not fall into the error of denying His unity.

8. I felt that I must spare a little space to point this out. It has been from no love for amplification, but that it might serve as a warning. First, I wished to expose the vague and confused character of this crowd of heresies, whose mutual feuds turn, as we have seen, to our advantage. Secondly, in my warfare against the blasphemous doctrines of modern heresy; that is, in my task of proclaiming that both God the Father and God the Son are God — in other words, that Father and Son are One in name, One in nature, One in the kind of Divinity which they possess — I wished to shield myself from any charge which might be brought against me, either as an advocate of two Gods or of one lonely and isolated Deity. For in God the Father and God the Son, as I have set them forth, no confusion of Persons can be detected; nor in my exposition of Their common nature can any difference between the Godhead of the One and of the Other be discerned. In the preceding book I have sufficiently refuted, by the witness of the Gospels, those who deny the subsistence of God the Son by a true birth from God; my present duty is to show that He, Who in the truth of His nature is Son of God, is also in the truth of His nature God. But this proof must not degenerate into the fatal profession of a solitary God, or of a second God. It shall manifest God as One yet not alone; but in its care to avoid the error of making Him lonely it shall not fall into the error of denying His unity.

Thus we have all these different assurances of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: His name, His birth, His nature, His power, His own assertion. As to the name, I think no doubt is possible. It is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). What reason can there be for suspecting that He is not what His name indicates? And does not this name clearly describe His nature? If a statement is contradicted, it must be for some reason. What reason, I ask, is there in this case for denying that He is God? The name is given to Him plainly and distinctly, and unqualified by any contradictory addition that might raise a doubt. The Word, we read, who was made flesh, was none other than God. Here is no loophole for any such suggestion as that He has received this name as a favor or taken it upon Himself, so possessing a titular Godhead which is not His by physis.

9. Thus we have all these different assurances of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ:– His name, His birth, His nature, His power, His own assertion. As to the name, I conceive that no doubt is possible. It is written, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 What reason can there be for suspecting that He is not what His name indicates? And does not this name clearly describe His nature? If a statement be contradicted, it must be for some reason. What reason, I demand, is there in this instance for denying that He is God? The name is given Him, plainly and distinctly, and unqualified by any incongruous addition which might raise a doubt. The Word, we read, which was made flesh, was none other than God. Here is no loophole for any such conjecture as that He has received this name as a favour or taken it upon Himself, so possessing a titular Godhead which is not His by nature.

Consider the other recorded instances where this name was given as a favor or was taken on. To Moses it was said, "I have made you a god to Pharaoh." Doesn't this addition, "to Pharaoh," explain the title? Did God give Moses the Divine nature? Or rather, didn't He make Moses a god in Pharaoh's eyes, who was to be struck with terror when Moses' serpent swallowed the magic serpents and turned back into a rod, when he drove back the venomous flies he had called forth, when he stopped the hail by the same power he had summoned it with, and made the locusts leave by the same might that had brought them—when in the wonders he performed the magicians saw the finger of God? That was the sense in which Moses was appointed to be god to Pharaoh: he was feared and pleaded with, he punished and healed. It is one thing to be appointed a god; it is another thing to be God. He was made a god to Pharaoh; he did not have that nature and that name in which God consists. I recall another instance of the name being given as a title, where it is written, "I have said, You are gods." But this is clearly the granting of a favor. "I have said" proves that it is not a definition, but only a description by One Who chooses to speak this way. A definition gives us knowledge of the thing defined; a description depends on the arbitrary will of the speaker. When a speaker is clearly conferring a title, that title has its origin only in the speaker's words, not in the thing itself. The title is not the name which expresses its nature and kind.

10. Consider the other recorded instances in which this name was given by favour or assumed. To Moses it was said, I have made you a god to Pharaoh. Exodus 7:1 Does not this addition, to Pharaoh, account for the title? Did God impart to Moses the Divine nature? Did He not rather make Moses a god in the sight of Pharaoh, who was to be smitten with terror when Moses' serpent swallowed the magic serpents and returned into a rod, when he drove back the venomous flies which he had called forth, when he stayed the hail by the same power wherewith he had summoned it, and made the locusts depart by the same might which had brought them; when in the wonders that he wrought the magicians saw the finger of God? That was the sense in which Moses was appointed to be god to Pharaoh; he was feared and entreated, he chastised and healed. It is one thing to be appointed a god; it is another thing to be God. He was made a god to Pharaoh; he had not that nature and that name wherein God consists. I call to mind another instance of the name being given as a title; that where it is written, I have said, You are gods. But this is obviously the granting of a favour. I have said proves that it is no definition, but only a description by One Who chooses to speak thus. A definition gives us knowledge of the object defined; a description depends on the arbitrary will of the speaker. When a speaker is manifestly conferring a title, that title has its origin only in the speaker's words, not in the thing itself. The title is not the name which expresses its nature and kind.

In this case, the Word truly is God. The essence of the Godhead exists in the Word, and that essence is expressed in the Word's name. The name Word belongs to the Son of God as a result of His mysterious birth, as do the names Wisdom and Power. These, together with the substance that is His through a true birth, were brought into existence to be the Son of God. Yet since they are elements of God's nature, they remain present in Him in their full extent, even though they were born from Him to be His Son. As we have often said, the mystery we proclaim is that of a Son whose existence comes not from division but from birth. He is not a piece cut off and therefore incomplete, but an Offspring born and therefore perfect. Birth does not diminish the one who begets and allows for the perfection of the one begotten. Therefore these titles of substantial properties are applied to God the Only-begotten, because when He came into existence through birth, these properties constituted His perfection. Yet they did not abandon the Father, in whom they are eternally present by the unchangeableness of His nature. For example, the Word is God the Only-begotten, and yet the Unbegotten Father is never without His Word. But the nature of the Son is not that of a sound that is spoken. He is God from God, existing through a true birth—God's own Son, born from the Father, indistinguishable from Him in nature and therefore inseparable. This is the lesson His title of the Word is meant to teach us. In the same way, Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God—not that He is, as He is often considered, the inner activity of the Father's might or thought, but that His nature, possessing through birth a true substantial existence, is indicated by these names of inner forces. An object that has its own existence through birth cannot be regarded as a property; a property necessarily exists within some being and cannot have independent existence. But to prevent us from concluding that the Son is foreign to the divine nature of His Father, He, the Only-begotten from the eternal God His Father, born as God into a substantial existence of His own, has revealed Himself to us under these names of properties, of which the Father, from whom He came into existence, has suffered no loss. Thus He, being God, is nothing other than God. When I hear the words "And the Word was God," they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that He is God. In those earlier instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods, there was simply the addition of a name as a title. Here a solid essential truth is stated: "The Word was God." That "was" indicates no accidental title, but an eternal reality, a permanent element of His existence, an inherent character of His nature.

11. But in this case the Word in very truth is God; the essence of the Godhead exists in the Word, and that essence is expressed in the Word's name. For the name Word is inherent in the Son of God as a consequence of His mysterious birth, as are also the names Wisdom and Power. These, together with the substance which is His by a true birth, were called into existence to be the Son of God; yet, since they are the elements of God's nature, they are still immanent in Him in undiminished extent, although they were born from Him to be His Son. For, as we have said so often, the mystery which we preach is that of a Son Who owes His existence not to division but to birth. He is not a segment cut off, and so incomplete, but an Offspring born, and therefore perfect; for birth involves no diminution of the Begetter, and has the possibility of perfection for the Begotten. And therefore the titles of those substantive properties are applied to God the Only-begotten, for when He came into existence by birth it was they which constituted His perfection; and this although they did not thereby desert the Father, in Whom, by the immutability of His nature, they are eternally present. For instance, the Word is God the Only-begotten, and yet the Unbegotten Father is never without His Word. Not that the nature of the Son is that of a sound which is uttered. He is God from God, subsisting through a true birth; God's own Son, born from the Father, indistinguishable from Him in nature, and therefore inseparable. This is the lesson which His title of the Word is meant to teach us. And in the same way Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God; not that He is, as He is often regarded, the inward activity of the Father's might or thought, but that His nature, possessing through birth a true substantial existence, is indicated by these names of inward forces. For an object, which has by birth an existence of its own, cannot be regarded as a property; a property is necessarily inherent in some being and can have no independent existence. But it was to save us from concluding that the Son is alien from the Divine nature of His Father that He, the Only-begotten from the eternal God His Father, born as God into a substantial existence of His own, has had Himself revealed to us under these names of properties, of which the Father, out of Whom He came into existence, has suffered no diminution. Thus He, being God, is nothing else than God. For when I hear the words, And the Word was God, they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that He is God. In those previous instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods, there was the mere addition of a name by way of title. Here a solid essential truth is stated; The Word was God. That was indicates no accidental title, but an eternal reality, a permanent element of His existence, an inherent character of His nature.

And now let us see whether the confession of Thomas the Apostle, when he cried out, "My Lord and My God," matches this statement of the Evangelist. We see that he speaks of the one he confesses to be God as "My God." Now Thomas was certainly familiar with those words of the Lord: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One." How then could the faith of an Apostle become so forgetful of that primary command as to confess Christ as God, when life depends upon the confession of the Divine unity? It was because, in the light of the Resurrection, the whole mystery of the faith had become visible to the Apostle. He had often heard such words as "I and the Father are One," and "All things that the Father has are Mine," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me"; and now he can confess that the name of God expresses the nature of Christ, without endangering the faith. Without breaking loyalty to the One God, the Father, his devotion could now regard the Son of God as God, since he believed that everything contained in the nature of the Son was truly of the same nature with the Father. He no longer needed to fear that such a confession as his was the proclamation of a second God, a betrayal of the unity of the Divine nature, for it was not a second God whom that perfect birth of the Godhead had brought into being. Thus it was with full knowledge of the mystery of the Gospel that Thomas confessed his Lord and his God. It was not a title of honor; it was a confession of nature. He believed that Christ was God in substance and in power. And the Lord, in turn, shows that this act of worship was the expression not of mere reverence, but of faith, when He says, "Because you have seen, you have believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed." For Thomas had seen before he believed. But, you ask, what was it that Thomas believed? That, without a doubt, which is expressed in his words: "My Lord and my God." No nature but that of God could have risen by its own power from death to life; and it is this fact, that Christ is God, which was confessed by Thomas with the confidence of an assured faith. Shall we, then, imagine that His name of God is not a substantial reality, when that name has been proclaimed by a faith based upon certain evidence? Surely a Son devoted to His Father, one who did not His own will but the will of Him that sent Him, who sought not His own glory but the glory of Him from whom He came, would have rejected the adoration involved in such a name as destructive of that unity of God which had been the burden of His teaching. Yet, in fact, He confirms this assertion of the mysterious truth, made by the believing Apostle; He accepts as His own the name which belongs to the nature of the Father. And He teaches that they are blessed who, though they have not seen Him rise from the dead, yet have believed, on the assurance of the Resurrection, that He is God.

12. And now let us see whether the confession of Thomas the Apostle, when he cried, My Lord and My God, corresponds with this assertion of the Evangelist. We see that he speaks of Him, Whom he confesses to be God, as My God. Now Thomas was undoubtedly familiar with those words of the Lord, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. How then could the faith of an Apostle become so oblivious of that primary command as to confess Christ as God, when life is conditional upon the confession of the Divine unity? It was because, in the light of the Resurrection, the whole mystery of the faith had become visible to the Apostle. He had often heard such words as, I and the Father are One, and, All things that the Father has are Mine, and, I in the Father and the Father in Me; and now he can confess that the name of God expresses the nature of Christ, without peril to the faith. Without breach of loyalty to the One God, the Father, his devotion could now regard the Son of God as God, since he believed that everything contained in the nature of the Son was truly of the same nature with the Father. No longer need he fear that such a confession as his was the proclamation of a second God, a treason against the unity of the Divine nature; for it was not a second God Whom that perfect birth of the Godhead had brought into being. Thus it was with full knowledge of the mystery of the Gospel that Thomas confessed his Lord and his God. It was not a title of honour; it was a confession of nature. He believed that Christ was God in substance and in power. And the Lord, in turn, shows that this act of worship was the expression not of mere reverence, but of faith, when He says, Because you have seen, you have believed; blessed are they which have not seen, and have believed. For Thomas had seen before he believed. But, you ask, What was it that Thomas believed? That, beyond a doubt, which is expressed in his words, My Lord and my God. No nature but that of God could have risen by its own might from death to life; and it is this fact, that Christ is God, which was confessed by Thomas with the confidence of an assured faith. Shall we, then, dream that His name of God is not a substantial reality, when that name has been proclaimed by a faith based upon certain evidence? Surely a Son devoted to His Father, One Who did not His own will but the will of Him that sent Him, Who sought not His own glory but the glory of Him from Whom He came, would have rejected the adoration involved in such a name as destructive of that unity of God which had been the burden of His teaching. Yet, in fact, He confirms this assertion of the mysterious truth, made by the believing Apostle; He accepts as His own the name which belongs to the nature of the Father. And He teaches that they are blessed who, though they have not seen Him rise from the dead, yet have believed, on the assurance of the Resurrection, that He is God.

Thus the name that expresses His nature proves the truth of our confession of the faith. For the name that indicates any single substance also points out any other substance of the same kind. In this case, there are not two substances but one substance of the one kind. For the Son of God is God; this is the truth expressed in His name. The one name does not embrace two Gods, for the one name God is the name of one indivisible nature. Since the Father is God and the Son is God, and that name which is peculiar to the Divine nature belongs to Each, therefore the Two are One. For the Son, though He exists through a birth from the Divine nature, still preserves the unity in His name. This birth of the Son does not force faithful believers to acknowledge two Gods, since our confession declares that Father and Son are One, both in nature and in name. Thus the Son of God has the Divine name as the result of His birth. Now the second step in our demonstration was to show that it is by virtue of His birth that He is God. I still need to bring forward the evidence of the Apostles that the Divine name is used of Him in an exact sense, but for now I intend to continue our inquiry into the language of the Gospels.

13. Thus the name which expresses His nature proves the truth of our confession of the faith. For the name, which indicates any single substance, points out also any other substance of the same kind; and, in this instance, there are not two substances but one substance, of the one kind. For the Son of God is God; this is the truth expressed in His name. The one name does not embrace two Gods; for the one name God is the name of one indivisible nature. For since the Father is God and the Son is God, and that name which is peculiar to the Divine nature is inherent in Each, therefore the Two are One. For the Son, though He subsists through a birth from the Divine nature, yet preserves the unity in His name; and this birth of the Son does not compel loyal believers to acknowledge two Gods, since our confession declares that Father and Son are One, both in nature and in name. Thus the Son of God has the Divine name as the result of His birth. Now the second step in our demonstration was to be that of showing that it is by virtue of His birth that He is God. I have still to bring forward the evidence of the Apostles that the Divine name is used of Him in an exact sense; but for the present I purpose to continue our enquiry into the language of the Gospels.

And first I ask what new element that destroys His Godhead could have been introduced by birth into the nature of the Son? Universal reason rejects the idea that a being can become different in nature through the process of birth from the being that gave it birth, although we recognize that from parents of different kinds, offspring sharing the nature of both but different from either can be produced. This fact is familiar in the case of animals, both domesticated and wild. But even in this case there is no real novelty; the new qualities already exist hidden in the two different parental natures and are only developed by their union. The birth of their joint offspring is not the cause of that offspring's difference from its parents. The difference is a gift from them of various qualities that are received and combined in one body. When this is true even for the transmission and reception of bodily differences, is it not a form of madness to claim that the birth of God the Only-begotten was the birth from God of a nature inferior to Himself? For giving birth is a function of the true nature of the one who transmits life, and without the presence and action of that true nature there can be no birth. The goal of all this intensity and passion is to prove that there was no birth but a creation of the Son of God, that the Divine nature is not His origin and that He does not possess that nature in His personal subsistence (hypostasis), but draws from what did not exist a nature different in kind from the Divine. They are angry because He says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." For since God is a Spirit, it is clear that in One born from Him there can be nothing alien or different from that Spirit from which He was born. Thus the birth of God constitutes Him perfect God. And from this it is also clear that we must not say that He began to exist, but only that He was born. For in a sense beginning is different from birth. A thing that begins to exist either comes into existence out of nothing or develops from one state into another, ceasing to be what it was before; so, for instance, gold is formed from earth, solids melt into liquids, cold changes to warmth, white to red, water produces moving creatures, lifeless objects turn into living. In contrast to all this, the Son of God did not begin out of nothing to be God, but was born as God; nor did He have an existence of another kind before the Divine. Thus He who was born to be God had neither a beginning of His Godhead nor a development up to it. His birth retained for Him that nature out of which He came into being; the Son of God, in His distinct existence, is what God is and is nothing else.

14. And first I ask what new element, destructive of His Godhead, can have been imported by birth into the nature of the Son? Universal reason rejects the supposition that a being can become different in nature, by the process of birth, from the being to which its birth is due; although we recognise the possibility that from parents, different in kind, an offspring sharing the nature of both, yet diverse from either, may be propagated. The fact is familiar in the case of beasts, both tame and wild. But even in this case there is no real novelty; the new qualities already exist, concealed in the two different parental natures, and are only developed by the connection. The birth of their joint offspring is not the cause of that offspring's difference from its parents. The difference is a gift from them of various diversities, which are received and combined in one frame. When this is the case as to the transmission and reception even of bodily differences, is it not a form of madness to assert that the birth of God the Only-begotten was the birth from God of a nature inferior to Himself? For the giving of birth is a function of the true nature of the transmitter of life; and without the presence and action of that true nature there can be no birth. The object of all this heat and passion is to prove that there was no birth, but a creation, of the Son of God; that the Divine nature is not His origin and that He does not possess that nature in His personal subsistence, but draws, from what was non-existent, a nature different in kind from the Divine. They are angry because He says, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. John 3:6 For, since God is a Spirit, it is clear that in One born from Him there can be nothing alien or different from that Spirit from which He was born. Thus the birth of God constitutes Him perfect God. And hence also it is clear that we must not say that He began to exist, but only that He was born. For there is a sense in which beginning is different from birth. A thing which begins to exist either comes into existence out of nothing, or developes out of one state into another, ceasing to be what it was before; so, for instance, gold is formed out of earth, solids melt into liquids, cold changes to warmth, white to red, water breeds moving creatures, lifeless objects turn into living. In contrast to all this, the Son of God did not begin, out of nothing, to be God, but was born as God; nor had He an existence of another kind before the Divine. Thus He Who was born to be God had neither a beginning of His Godhead, nor yet a development up to it. His birth retained for Him that nature out of which He came into being; the Son of God, in His distinct existence, is what God is, and is nothing else.

Again, anyone who has doubts about this matter can gain accurate knowledge of Christ's nature from the Jews themselves—or rather, learn that He was truly born, from the Gospel, where it is written: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18). This passage is unlike most others in that it does not give us the words spoken by the Jews, but the Apostle's explanation of their motive in wishing to kill the Lord. We see that no plea of misunderstanding can excuse the wickedness of these blasphemers, for we have the Apostle's evidence that the true nature of Christ was fully revealed to them. They could speak of His birth: "He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." Was this not clearly a birth of nature from nature, when He revealed the equality of His nature by speaking of God, by name, as His own Father? Now it is clear that equality consists in the absence of difference between those who are equal. Is it not also clear that the result of birth must be a nature in which there is an absence of difference between Son and Father? And this is the only possible origin of true equality: birth can only bring into existence a nature equal to its origin. But again, we cannot hold that there is equality where there is confusion any more than where there is difference. Thus equality, as of the image (Hebrews 1:3), is incompatible with isolation and with diversity, for equality cannot exist with difference, nor yet in solitude.

15. Again, any one who is in doubt concerning this matter may gain from the Jews an accurate knowledge of Christ's nature; or rather learn that He was truly born from the Gospel, where it is written, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:18 This passage is unlike most others in not giving us the words spoken by the Jews, but the Apostle's explanation of their motive in wishing to kill the Lord. We see that no plea of misapprehension can excuse the wickedness of these blasphemers; for we have the Apostle's evidence that the true nature of Christ was fully revealed to them. They could speak of His birth:– He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Was not His clearly a birth of nature from nature, when He published the equality of His nature by speaking of God, by name, as His own Father? Now it is manifest that equality consists in the absence of difference between those who are equal. Is it not also manifest that the result of birth must be a nature in which there is an absence of difference between Son and Father? And this is the only possible origin of true equality; birth can only bring into existence a nature equal to its origin. But again, we can no more hold that there is equality where there is confusion, than we can where there is difference. Thus equality, as of the image Hebrews 1:3, is incompatible with isolation and with diversity; for equality cannot dwell with difference, nor yet in solitude.

And now, although we have found that the meaning of Scripture, as we understand it, agrees with the conclusions of ordinary reason—both showing that equality is incompatible with either diversity or isolation—we must seek fresh support for our position from the actual words of our Lord. For only in this way can we restrain that freedom of arbitrary interpretation by which these bold attackers of the faith would even dare to argue against the Lord's solemn self-revelation. His answer to the Jews was this: "The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do; for whatever things He does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. For the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honours not the Son honours not the Father which has sent Him." The course of our argument, as I had planned it in my mind, required that each separate point of the debate should be handled one at a time. Since we have been taught that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God in name, in birth, in nature, in power, and in self-revelation, our demonstration of the faith should establish each successive point in that order. But His birth is a barrier to such a treatment of the question, for a consideration of it includes a consideration of His name and nature and power and self-revelation. For His birth involves all these, and they are His by the fact that He is born. And thus our argument concerning His birth has taken such a course that it is impossible for us to keep these other matters back for separate discussion in their turn.

16. And now, although we have found the sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord. For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil at the Lord's solemn self-revelation. His answer to the Jews was this:– The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do; for whatever things He does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. For the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honours not the Son honours not the Father which has sent Him. John 5:19-22 The course of our argument, as I had shaped it in my mind, required that each several point of the debate should be handled singly; that, since we had been taught that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God in name, in birth, in nature, in power, in self-revelation, our demonstration of the faith should establish each successive point in that order. But His birth is a barrier to such a treatment of the question; for a consideration of it includes a consideration of His name and nature and power and self-revelation. For His birth involves all these, and they are His by the fact that He is born. And thus our argument concerning His birth has taken such a course that it is impossible for us to keep these other matters back for separate discussion in their turn.

The main reason the Jews wanted to kill the Lord was that by calling God His Father, He had made Himself equal with God. Therefore, He shaped His response—which addressed their evil passion—as an explanation of the entire mystery of our faith. Just before this, when He had healed the paralytic and they had judged Him worthy of death for breaking the Sabbath, He had said, "My Father works until now, and I work." Their jealousy was stirred to the highest degree by His raising Himself to God's level through this use of the name Father. Now He wants to declare His birth and reveal the powers of His nature, so He says, "I tell you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do." These opening words of His response are directed at that wicked zeal of the Jews that drove them even to want to kill Him. It is in reference to the charge of breaking the Sabbath that He says, "My Father works until now, and I work." He wanted them to understand that His practice was justified by divine authority, and He taught them by these same words that His work must be regarded as the Father's work, since the Father was working in Him all that He accomplished. And again, to subdue the jealousy aroused by His calling God His Father, He spoke those words: "Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do." In case this making of Himself equal to God—by having the name and nature of God's Son—should pull people's faith away from the truth that He had been born, He says that the Son can do nothing except what He sees the Father do. Next, to confirm the saving harmony of truths in our confession of Father and of Son, He displays this nature which is His by birth—a nature that derives its power of action not from successive gifts of strength to do particular deeds, but from knowledge. He shows that this knowledge is not given through the Father's performance of any bodily work as a pattern for the Son to imitate what the Father has previously done. Rather, through the action of the divine nature, He had come to share the existence of the divine nature—in other words, He had been born as Son from the Father. He told them that because the power and nature of God dwelt consciously within Him, it was impossible for Him to do anything which He had not seen the Father doing. Since it is in the might of the Father that God the Only-begotten performs His works, His freedom of action corresponds in its extent with His knowledge of the powers of the nature of God the Father—a nature inseparable from Himself and rightfully possessed by Him by virtue of His birth. For God does not see in a bodily way, but possesses, by His nature, the vision of Omnipotence.

17. The chief reason why the Jews wished to kill the Lord was that, in calling God His Father, He had made Himself equal with God; and therefore He put His answer, in which He reproved their evil passion, into the form of an exposition of the whole mystery of our faith. For just before this, when He had healed the paralytic and they had passed their judgment upon Him that He was worthy of death for breaking the Sabbath, He had said, My Father works hitherto, and I work. Their jealousy had been inflamed to the utmost by the raising of Himself to the level of God which was involved in this use of the name of Father. And now He wishes to assert His birth and to reveal the powers of His nature, and so He says, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. These opening words of His reply are aimed at that wicked zeal of the Jews, which hurried them on even to the desire of slaying Him. It is in reference to the charge of breaking the Sabbath that He says, My Father works hitherto, and I work. He wished them to understand that His practice was justified by Divine authority; and He taught them by the same words that His work must be regarded as the work of the Father, Who was working in Him all that He wrought. And again, it was to subdue the jealousy awakened by His speaking of God as His Father that He uttered those words, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. Lest this making of Himself equal to God, as having the name and nature of God's Son, should withdraw men's faith from the truth that He had been born, He says that the Son can do nothing but what He sees the Father do. Next, in confirmation of the saving harmony of truths in our confession of Father and of Son, He displays this nature which is His by birth; a nature which derives its power of action not from successive gifts of strength to do particular deeds, but from knowledge. He shows that this knowledge is not imparted by the Father's performance of any bodily work, as a pattern, that the Son may imitate what the Father has previously done; but that, by the action of the Divine nature, He had come to share the subsistence of the Divine nature, or, in other words, had been born as Son from the Father. He told them that, because the power and the nature of God dwelt consciously within Him, it was impossible for Him to do anything which He had not seen the Father doing; that, since it is in the might of the Father that God the Only-begotten performs His works His liberty of action coincides in its range with His knowledge of the powers of the nature of God the Father; a nature inseparable from Himself, and lawfully owned by Him in virtue of His birth. For God sees not after a bodily fashion, but possesses, by His nature, the vision of Omnipotence.

The next words are, "For whatever things He—the Father—does, these also does the Son likewise." The word "likewise" is added to indicate His birth; "whatsoever" and "same" indicate the true divinity of His nature. "Whatsoever" and "same" make it impossible for there to be any actions of His that are different from or outside the actions of the Father. Therefore, He whose nature has the power to do all the same things as the Father is included in the same nature with the Father. But when we read, in contrast with this, that all these same things are done by the Son "likewise," the fact that the works are like those of Another rules out the idea that He who does them works in isolation. Thus the same things that the Father does are all done likewise by the Son. Here we have clear proof of His true birth, and at the same time convincing evidence of the mystery of our faith, which, with its foundation in the unity of the nature of God, confesses that there resides in Father and Son an indivisible divinity. For the Son does the same things as the Father, and does them likewise; while acting in like manner He does the same things. Two truths are combined in one statement: that His works are done "likewise" proves His birth; that they are the same works proves His nature.

18. The next words are, For whatever things He — the Father — does, these also does the Son likewise. This likewise is added to indicate His birth; whatsoever and same to indicate the true Divinity of His nature. Whatsoever and same make it impossible that there should be any actions of His that are different from or outside, the actions of the Father. Thus He, Whose nature has power to do all the same things as the Father, is included in the same nature with the Father. But when, in contrast with this, we read that all these same things are done by the Son likewise, the fact that the works are like those of Another is fatal to the supposition that He Who does them works in isolation. Thus the same things that the Father does are all done likewise by the Son. Here we have clear proof of His true birth, and at the same time a convincing attestation of the Mystery of our faith, which, with its foundation in the Unity of the nature of God, confesses that there resides in Father and Son an indivisible Divinity. For the Son does the same things as the Father, and does them likewise; while acting in like manner He does the same things. Two truths are combined in one proposition; that His works are done likewise proves His birth; that they are the same works proves His nature.

The gradual unfolding found in our Lord's reply matches the gradual statement of truth in the Church's confession of faith. Neither divides the nature, and both declare the birth. Christ's next words are, "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will." What other purpose could this revelation of how God works have, except to teach us the true birth—the faith in a subsisting Son born from the subsisting God, His Father? The only alternative would be that God the Only-begotten was so ignorant that He needed the instruction conveyed in this showing, but the reckless blasphemy of this suggestion makes it impossible. Since He knows everything that He is taught, He has no need of the teaching. Therefore, after the words "The Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does," we are told that all this showing is for our instruction in the faith, so that the Father and the Son may have their equal share in our confession, and so that we may be saved—by this statement that the Father shows all that He does to the Son—from the false belief that the Son's knowledge is imperfect. With this purpose He continues, "And He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will." We see that the Son has full knowledge of the future works which the Father will show Him later. He knows that He will be shown how, following His Father's example, He is to give life to the dead. He says that the Father will show the Son things at which they will marvel, and immediately proceeds to tell them what these things are: "For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will." The power is equal because the nature is one and the same. The showing of the works is an aid not to ignorance in Him, but to faith in us. It conveys to the Son no knowledge of things unknown, but it gives us the confidence to proclaim His birth by assuring us that the Father has shown Him all the works that He Himself can do. The terms used in this Divine discourse have been chosen with the utmost care, lest any vague language should suggest a difference of nature between the Two. Christ says that the Father's works were shown to Him, instead of saying that a mighty nature was given to Him to enable Him to perform them. By this He wishes to reveal to us that this showing was an essential part of the process of His birth, since, at the same time as that birth, knowledge of the works which the Father willed Him to do was given to Him by the Father's love. And again, to prevent us from being led by this declaration of the showing to suppose that the Son's nature is ignorant and therefore different from the Father's, He makes it clear that He already knows the things that are to be shown to Him. So far is He from needing the authority of precedent to enable Him to act that He is to give life to whom He will. To will implies a free nature, subsisting with power to choose in the blessed exercise of omnipotence.

19. Thus the progressive revelation contained in our Lord's reply is at one with the progressive statement of truth in the Church's confession of faith. Neither of them divides the nature, and both declare the birth. For the next words of Christ are, For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. Can there be any other purpose in this revelation of the manner in which God works, except that of inculcating the true birth; the faith in a subsisting Son born from the subsisting God, His Father? The only other explanation is that God the Only-begotten was so ignorant that He needed the instruction conveyed in this showing; but the reckless blasphemy of the suggestion makes this alternative impossible. For He, knowing, as He does, everything that He is taught, has no need of the teaching. And accordingly, after the words, The Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does, we are next informed that all this showing is for our instruction in the faith; that the Father and the Son may have their equal share in our confession, and we be saved, by this statement that the Father shows all that He does to the Son, from the delusion that the Son's knowledge is imperfect. With this object He goes on to say, And He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. We see that the Son has full knowledge of the future works which the Father will show Him hereafter. He knows that He will be shown how, after His Father's example, He is to give life to the dead. For He says that the Father will show to the Son things at which they shall marvel; and at once proceeds to tell them what these things are; For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. The power is equal because the nature is one and the same. The showing of the works is an aid, not to ignorance in Him, but to faith in us. It conveys to the Son no knowledge of things unknown, but it imparts to us the confidence to proclaim His birth, by assuring us that the Father has shown to Him all the works that He Himself can do. The terms used in this Divine discourse have been chosen with the utmost deliberation, lest any vagueness of language should suggest a difference of nature between the Two. Christ says that the Father's works were shown Him, instead of saying that, to enable Him to perform them, a mighty nature was given Him. Hereby He wishes to reveal to us that this showing was a substantive part of the process of His birth, since, simultaneously with that birth, there was imparted to Him by the Father's love a knowledge of the works which the Father willed that He should do. And again, to save us from being led, by this declaration of the showing, to suppose that the Son's nature is ignorant and therefore different from the Father's, He makes it clear that He already knows the things that are to be shown Him. So far, indeed, is He from needing the authority of precedent to enable Him to act, that He is to give life to whom He will. To will implies a free nature, subsisting with power to choose in the blissful exercise of omnipotence.

And next, to prevent anyone from thinking that giving life to whom He will is not within the power of One who has been truly born, but is only the unique right of unbegotten Omnipotence, He quickly adds, "For the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son." The statement that all judgment is given teaches both His birth and His Sonship, because only a nature that is completely one with the Father's could possess all things, and a Son can possess nothing except by gift. But all judgment has been given Him because He gives life to whom He will. Now we cannot suppose that judgment is taken away from the Father, even though He does not exercise it, for the Son's whole power of judgment proceeds from the Father's, being a gift from Him. And there is no concealment of the reason why judgment has been given to the Son, for the words that follow are, "But He has given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father who has sent Him." What possible excuse remains for doubt, or for the irreverence of denial? The reason for the gift of judgment is that the Son may receive an honor equal to that which is paid to the Father, and thus he who dishonors the Son is guilty of dishonoring the Father also. How, after this proof, can we imagine that the nature given Him by birth is different from the Father's, when He is the Father's equal in work, in power, in honor, in the punishment awarded to gainsayers? Thus this whole Divine reply is nothing else than an unfolding of the mystery of His birth. And the only distinction that it is right or possible to make between Father and Son is that the Latter was born, yet born in such a way as to be One with His Father.

20. And next, lest it should seem that to give life to whom He will is not within the power of One Who has been truly born, but is only the prerogative of ingenerate Omnipotence, He hastens to add, For the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son. The statement that all judgment is given teaches both His birth and His Sonship; for only a nature which is altogether one with the Father's could possess all things; and a Son can possess nothing, except by gift. But all judgment has been given Him for He quickens whom He will. Now we cannot suppose that judgment is taken away from the Father, although He does not exercise it; for the Son's whole power of judgment proceeds from the Father's, being a gift from Him. And there is no concealment of the reason why judgment has been given to the Son, for the words which follow are, But He has given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honours not the Son honours not the Father Which has sent Him. What possible excuse remains for doubt, or for the irreverence of denial? The reason for the gift of judgment is that the Son may receive an honour equal to that which is paid to the Father; and thus he who dishonours the Son is guilty of dishonouring the Father also. How, after this proof, can we imagine that the nature given Him by birth is different from the Father's, when He is the Father's equal in work, in power, in honour, in the punishment awarded to gainsayers? Thus this whole Divine reply is nothing else than an unfolding of the mystery of His birth. And the only distinction that it is right or possible to make between Father and Son is that the Latter was born; yet born in such a sense as to be One with His Father.

The Father works continuously and the Son works. In "Father" and "Son" you have the names that express their nature in relation to each other. Notice also that it is the divine nature—the nature through which God works—that is working here. And remember, in case you mistakenly think that two different natures are operating here, what was said about the blind man: "But that the works of God may be made manifest in him, I must work the works of Him that sent Me." You can see that in his case, the work done by the Son is the Father's work, and the Son's work is God's work. The rest of this passage also deals with works, but my argument right now is only concerned with showing that the whole work belongs to both of them, and pointing out that they are united in their way of working, since the Son is engaged in the work that the Father does continuously. The fact that, because of his divine birth, the Father is working with him in everything he does will prevent us from thinking that the Lord of the Sabbath was doing wrong by working on the Sabbath. His Sonship is not compromised, for there is no confusion of his divinity with the Father's, and no denial of it. His Godhead is not compromised, for his divine nature remains intact. Their unity is not compromised, for no difference appears to separate them. And their unity is not presented in a way that contradicts their distinct existence. First, recognize the Sonship of the Son: "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do." Here his birth is evident, because of it he can do nothing by himself until he sees it being done. He cannot be unbegotten, because he can do nothing by himself. He has no power to initiate, and therefore he must have been born. But the fact that he can see the Father's works proves that he has the understanding that belongs to one who consciously possesses divinity. Next, notice that he does possess this true divine nature: "For whatever things He does, these also does the Son likewise." And now that we have seen him endowed with the powers of that nature, notice how this results in unity—how one nature dwells in the two: "That all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." And then, in case reflecting on this unity traps you in the false idea of a solitary, self-contained God, take to heart the mystery of the faith revealed in these words: "He that honours not the Son honours not the Father Which has sent Him." The rage and cunning of heresy may do their worst—our position cannot be shaken. He is the Son because he can do nothing by himself. He is God because whatever the Father does, he does the same. The two are one because he is equal in honor to the Father and does the very same works. He is not the Father because he is sent. The wealth of mysterious truth contained in this one doctrine of the birth is so great! It includes his name, his nature, his power, his self-revelation, for everything given to him in his birth must be contained in that nature from which his birth comes. Into his nature no element of any substance different from that of his source is introduced, for a nature that springs from only one nature must be entirely one with the nature that is its parent. A unity is that which, containing no conflicting elements, is one in kind with itself. A unity formed through birth cannot be solitary, for solitude can have only a single occupant, while a unity formed through birth implies the joining together of two.

21. Thus the Father works hitherto and the Son works. In Father and Son you have the names which express Their nature in relation to Each other. Note also that it is the Divine nature, that through which God works, that is working here. And remember, lest you fall into the error of imagining that the operation of two unlike natures is here described, how it was said concerning the blind man, But that the works of God may be made manifest in him, I must work the works of Him that sent Me. John 9:3 You see that in his case the work wrought by the Son is the Father's work; and the Son's work is God's work. The remainder of the discourse which we are considering also deals with works; but my defense is at present only concerned with assigning the whole work to Both, and pointing out that They are at one in Their method of working, since the Son is employed upon that work which the Father does hitherto. The sanction contained in this fact that, by virtue of His Divine birth, the Father is working with Him in all that He does, will save us from supposing that the Lord of the Sabbath was doing wrong in working on the Sabbath. His Sonship is not affected, for there is no confusion of His Divinity with the Father's, and no negation of it; His Godhead is not affected, for His Divine nature is untouched. Their unity is not affected, for no difference is revealed to sever Them; and Their unity is not presented in such a light as to contradict Their distinct existence. First recognise the Sonship of the Son; The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. Here His birth is manifest; because of it He can do nothing of Himself till He sees it being done. He cannot be unbegotten, because He can do nothing of Himself; He has no power of initiation, and therefore He must have been born. But the fact that He can see the Father's works proves that He has the comprehension which belongs to the conscious Possessor of Divinity. Next, mark that He does possess this true Divine nature;– For whatever things He does, these also does the Son likewise. And now that we have seen Him endowed with the powers of that nature, note how this results in unity, how one nature dwells in the Two — That all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. And then, lest reflection on this unity entangle you in the delusion of a solitary and self-contained God, take to heart the mystery of the faith manifested in these words, He that honours not the Son honours not the Father Which has sent Him. The rage and cunning of heresy may do their worst; our position is impregnable. He is the Son, because He can do nothing of Himself; He is God, because, whatever the Father does, He does the same; They Two are One, because He is equal in honour to the Father and does the very same works; He is not the Father, because He is sent. So great is the wealth of mysterious truth contained in this one doctrine of the birth! It embraces His name, His nature, His power, His self-revelation; for everything conveyed to Him in His birth must be contained in that nature from which His birth is derived. Into His nature no element of any substance different in kind from that of His Author is introduced, for a nature which springs from one nature only must be entirely one with that nature which is its parent. An unity is that which, containing no discordant elements, is one in kind with itself; an unity constituted through birth cannot be solitary; for solitude can have but a single occupant, while an unity constituted through birth implies the conjunction of Two.

And furthermore, let His own Divine words bear witness to Himself. He says, "They that are of My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them of My hand. That which My Father has given Me is greater than all, and no man shall be able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one." What sluggishness can so completely dull the sharpness of our understanding as to make such a clear statement even momentarily unclear to us? What arrogant sophistication can so manipulate human teachability as to convince those who have learned from these words the knowledge of what God is that they must not recognize God in Him whose Godhead was here revealed to them? Heresy ought either to produce other Gospels to support its teaching, or else, if our existing Gospels are the only documents which teach about God, why do they not believe the lessons taught? If they are the only source of knowledge, why not draw faith, as well as knowledge, from them? Yet now we find that their faith is held in opposition to their knowledge; and therefore it is a faith rooted not in knowledge, but in sin—a faith of bold irreverence, instead of reverent humility, toward the truth admittedly known. God the Only-begotten, as we have seen, fully assured of His own nature, reveals with the greatest precision of language the mystery of His birth. He reveals it, ineffable though it is, in such a way that we can believe and confess it; that we can understand that He was born and believe that He has the nature of God and is One with the Father, and One with Him in such a way that God is not alone nor is Son another name for Father, but that in very truth He is the Son. For, first, He assures us of the powers of His Divine nature, saying of His sheep, "and no man shall pluck them out of My hand." It is the utterance of conscious power, this confession of free and irresistible energy, that will allow no one to pluck His sheep from His hand. But more than this: not only does He have the nature of God, but He would have us know that nature is His by birth from God, and therefore He adds, "That which the Father has given Me is greater than all." He makes no secret of His birth from the Father, for what He received from the Father He says is greater than all. And He who received it, received it at His birth, not after His birth, and yet it came to Him from Another, for He received it. But He, who received this gift from Another, forbids us to suppose that He Himself is different in kind from That Other, and does not eternally exist with the same nature as that of Him who gave the gift, by saying, "No man shall be able to pluck them out of My Father's hand." None can pluck them out of His hand, for He has received from His Father that which is greater than all things. What, then, does this apparently contradictory assertion mean, that none can pluck them from His Father's hand? It is the Son's hand which received them from the Father, the Father's hand which gave them to the Son: in what sense is it said that what cannot be plucked from the Son's hand cannot be plucked from the Father's hand? Hear, if you wish to know: "I and the Father are one." The Son's hand is the Father's hand. For the Divine nature does not deteriorate or cease to be the same in passing through birth; nor yet is this sameness an obstacle to our faith in the birth, for in that birth no alien element was admitted into His nature. And here He speaks of the Son's hand, which is the hand of the Father, so that by a bodily analogy you may learn the power of the one Divine nature which is in Both; for the nature and the power of the Father is in the Son. And finally, that in this mysterious truth of the birth you may discern the true and indistinguishable unity of the nature of God, the words were spoken, "I and the Father are One." They were spoken so that in this unity we might see neither difference nor solitude; for They are Two, and yet no second nature came into being through that true birth and generation.

22. And furthermore, let His own Divine words bear witness to Himself. He says, They that are of My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them of My hand. That which My Father has given Me is greater than all, and no man shall be able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one. John 10:27-30 What lethargy can blunt so utterly the edge of our understanding as to render so precise a statement for one moment obscure to us? What proud sophistry can play such pranks with human docility as to persuade those, who have learned from these words the knowledge of what God is that they must not recognise God in Him Whose Godhead was here revealed to them? Heresy ought either to bring forward other Gospels in support of its doctrine; or else, if our existing Gospels are the only documents which teach of God, why do they not believe the lessons taught? If they are the only source of knowledge, why not draw faith, as well as knowledge, from them? Yet now we find that their faith is held in defiance of their knowledge; and hence it is a faith rooted not in knowledge, but in sin; a faith of bold irreverence, instead of reverent humility, towards the truth confessedly known. God the Only-begotten, as we have seen, fully assured of His own nature, reveals with the utmost precision of language the mystery of His birth. He reveals it, ineffable though it is, in such wise that we can believe and confess it; that we can understand that He was born and believe that He has the nature of God and is One with the Father, and One with Him in such a sense that God is not alone nor Son another name for Father, but that in very truth He is the Son. For, firstly, He assures us of the powers of His Divine nature, saying of His sheep, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. It is the utterance of conscious power, this confession of free and irresistible energy, that will allow no man to pluck His sheep from His hand. But more than this; not only has He the nature of God, but He would have us know that nature is His by birth from God, and hence He adds, That which the Father has given Me is greater than all. He makes no secret of His birth from the Father, for what He received from the Father He says is greater than all. And He Who received it, received it at His birth, not after His birth, and yet it came to Him from Another, for He received it. But He, Who received this gift from Another, forbids us to suppose that He Himself is different in kind from That Other, and does not eternally subsist with the same nature as that of Him Who gave the gift, by saying, No man shall be able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. None can pluck them out of His hand, for He has received from His Father that which is greater than all things. What, then, means this contradictory assertion that none can pluck them from His Father's hand? It is the Son's hand which received them from the Father, the Father's hand which gave them to the Son: in what sense is it said that what cannot be plucked from the Son's hand cannot be plucked from the Father's hand? Hear, if you wish to know:– I and the Father are one. The Son's hand is the Father's hand. For the Divine nature does not deteriorate or cease to be the same in passing through birth: nor yet is this sameness a bar to our faith in the birth, for in that birth no alien element was admitted into His nature. And here He speaks of the Son's hand, which is the hand of the Father, that by a bodily similitude you may learn the power of the one Divine nature which is in Both; for the nature and the power of the Father is in the Son. And lastly, that in this mysterious truth of the birth you may discern the true and indistinguishable unity of the nature of God, the words were spoken, I and the Father are One. They were spoken that in this unity we might see neither difference nor solitude; for They are Two, and yet no second nature came into being through that true birth and generation.

The same desire still remains in these deranged souls, if I understand them correctly, though they have lost the opportunity to fulfill it. Their bitter hearts still hold a longing for evil which they can no longer hope to satisfy. The Lord is on His throne in heaven, and the furious hatred of heresy cannot drag Him to the Cross as the Jews did. But the spirit of unbelief is the same, though now it takes the form of rejecting His divinity. They defy His words, though they cannot deny that He spoke them. They pour out their hatred in blasphemy; instead of stones they hurl insults. If they could, they would bring Him down from His throne to a second crucifixion. When the Jews were provoked to anger by the newness of Christ's teaching we read, "The Jews therefore took up stones to stone Him. He answered them, Many good works have I shown you from the Father; for which of those works do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him, For a good work we stone You not, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God." I tell you, heretic, to recognize in this your own deeds, your own words. Be certain that you are their partner, for you have made their unbelief your model. It was at the words "I and the Father are One" that the Jews took up stones. Their godless irritation at the revelation of that saving mystery drove them even to an attempt to kill. There is no one whom you can stone, but is your guilt in denying Him any less than theirs? The will is the same, though it is frustrated by His throne in heaven. No, you are more impious than the Jew. He lifted his stone against the Body, you lift yours against the Spirit; he, as he thought, against man, you against God; he against a sojourner on earth, you against Him who sits upon the throne of majesty; he against One whom he did not know, you against Him whom you confess; he against the mortal Christ, you against the Judge of the universe. The Jew says, "Being Man"; you say, "Being a creature." You and he join in the cry "Make Yourself God" with the same insolence of blasphemy. You deny that He is God begotten of God; you deny that He is the Son by a true birth; you deny that His words "I and the Father are One" contain the assertion of one and the same nature in Both. You force upon us in His place a modern, a strange, an alien god; you make Him God of another kind from the Father, or else not God at all, since He does not exist by a birth from God.

23. There still remains, if I read them aright, the same desire in these maddened souls, though their opportunity for fulfilling it is lost. Their bitter hearts still cherish a longing for mischief which they can no longer hope to satisfy. The Lord is on His throne in heaven, and the furious hatred of heresy cannot drag Him, as the Jews did, to the Cross. But the spirit of unbelief is the same, though now it takes the form of rejecting His Godhead. They bid defiance to His words, though they cannot deny that He spoke them. They vent their hatred in blasphemy; instead of stones they shower abuse. If they could they would bring Him down from His throne to a second crucifixion. When the Jews were moved to wrath by the novelty of Christ's teaching we read, The Jews therefore took up stones to stone Him. He answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him, For a good work we stone You not, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God. John 10:31-33 I bid you, heretic, to recognise herein your own deeds, your own words. Be sure that you are their partner, for you have made their unbelief your pattern. It was at the words, I and the Father are One, that the Jews took up stones. Their godless irritation at the revelation of that saving mystery hurried them on even to an attempt to slay. There is no one whom you can stone; but is your guilt in denying Him less than theirs? The will is the same, though it is frustrated by His throne in heaven. Nay, it is you that are more impious than the Jew. He lifted his stone against the Body, you lift yours against the Spirit; he as he thought, against man, you against God; he against a sojourner on earth, you against Him that sits upon the throne of majesty; he against One Whom he knew not, you against Him Whom you confess; he against the mortal Christ, you against the Judge of the universe. The Jew says, Being Man; you say, 'Being a creature.' You and he join in the cry, Make Yourself God, with the same insolence of blasphemy. You deny that He is God begotten of God; you deny that He is the Son by a true birth; you deny that His words, I and the Father are One, contain the assertion of one and the same nature in Both. You foist upon us in His stead a modern, a strange, an alien god; you make Him God of another kind from the Father, or else not God at all, as not subsisting by a birth from God.

The mystery contained in those words, "I and the Father are One," moves you to anger. The Jew answered, "You, being a man, make Yourself God." Your blasphemy matches his: "You, being a creature, make Yourself God." You are effectively saying, "You are not a Son by birth, You are not God in truth; You are a creature, surpassing all other creatures. But You were not born to be God, for I refuse to believe that the incorporeal God gave birth to Your physis. You and the Father are not One. In fact, You are not the Son, You are not like God, You are not God." The Lord had His answer for the Jews—an answer that addresses your blasphemy even better than it addressed theirs: "Is it not written in the Law, 'I said, You are gods'? If, therefore, He called them gods, those to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Me, Whom the Father has sanctified and sent into this world, that I have blasphemed, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of the Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, and you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." The content of this reply was determined by the blasphemous attack upon Him. The accusation was that He, being a man, made Himself God. Their proof of this charge was His own statement, "I and the Father are One." He therefore sets out to prove that the Divine nature, which is His by birth, gives Him the right to assert that He and the Father are One. He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the arrogance, of such a charge as making Himself God, though He was a man. The Law had conferred the title upon holy men; the word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its approval to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by Him Whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world? The unchangeable record of the Word of God has confirmed the title to those to whom the Law assigned it. There is an end, therefore, to the charge that He, being a man, makes Himself God, when the Law gives the name of gods to those who are admittedly men. And further, if other men may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the Man Whom the Father has sanctified—and note here that throughout this argument He calls Himself Man, for the Son of God is also Son of Man—since He surpasses the rest, who yet are guilty of no irreverence in calling themselves gods. He surpasses them in that He has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification: "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and was appointed to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of sanctification." Thus the accusation of blasphemy on His part, in making Himself God, collapses. For the Word of God has conferred this name upon many men; and He, Who was sanctified and sent by the Father, did no more than proclaim Himself the Son of God.

24. The mystery contained in those words, I and the Father are One, moves you to wrath. The Jew answered, You, being a man make Yourself God; your blasphemy is a match for his:– 'You, being a creature, make Yourself God.' You say, in effect, 'You are not a Son by birth, You are not God in truth; You are a creature, excelling all other creatures. But You were not born to be God, for I refuse to believe that the incorporeal God gave birth to Your nature. You and the Father are not One. Nay more. You are not the Son, You are not like God, You are not God.' The Lord had His answer for the Jews; an answer that meets the case of your blasphemy even better than it met theirs:– Is it not written in the Law, I said, You are gods? If, therefore, He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Me, Whom the Father has sanctified and sent into this world, that I have blasphemed, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, and you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. John 10:34-38 The matter of this reply was dictated by that of the blasphemous attack upon Him. The accusation was that He, being a man, made Himself God. Their proof of this allegation was His own statement, I and the Father are One. He therefore sets Himself to prove that the Divine nature, which is His by birth, gives Him the right to assert that He and the Father are One. He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making Himself God, though He was a man. The Law had conferred the title upon holy men; the word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by Him Whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world? The unalterable record of the Word of God has confirmed the title to those to whom the Law assigned it. There is an end, therefore, of the charge that He, being a man, makes Himself God, when the Law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly men. And further, if other men may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the Man Whom the Father has sanctified, — and note here that throughout this argument He calls Himself Man, for the Son of God is also Son of Man — since He excels the rest, who yet are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels them, in that He has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification:– Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, Which was made of the seal of David according to the flesh, and was appointed to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of sanctification. Romans 1:2-4 Thus the accusation of blasphemy on His part, in making Himself God, falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name upon many men; and He, Who was sanctified and sent by the Father, did no more than proclaim Himself the Son of God.

I believe there can be no doubt that the words "I and the Father are One" refer to the nature He possesses by birth. The Jews criticized Him because through these words He, being a man, claimed to be God. The way He answered proves that in saying "I and the Father are One," He declared Himself to be the Son of God—first in name, then in nature, and finally by birth. The terms "I" and "Father" refer to distinct existing Beings. "One" declares Their nature—that it is essentially the same in Both. "Are" prevents us from confusing Them together. "Are one," while preventing confusion, teaches that the unity of the Two results from a birth. All this truth comes from the title "the Son of God," which He, being sanctified by the Father, applies to Himself—a title whose validity is confirmed by His statement "I and the Father are One." Birth cannot give an offspring any nature other than that of the parent from whom the offspring is born.

25. There remains, I conceive, no possibility of doubt but that the words, I and the Father are One, were spoken with regard to the nature which is His by birth. The Jews had rebuked Him because by these words He, being a man, made Himself God. The course of His answer proves that, in this I and the Father are One, He did profess Himself the Son of God, first in name, then in nature, and lastly by birth. For I and Father are the names of substantive Beings; One is a declaration of Their nature, namely, that it is essentially the same in Both; are forbids us to confound Them together; are one, while forbidding confusion, teaches that the unity of the Two is the result of a birth. Now all this truth is drawn out from that name, the Son of God, which He being sanctified by the Father, bestows upon Himself; a name, His right to which is confirmed by His assertion, I and the Father are One. For birth cannot confer any nature upon the offspring other than that of the parent from whom that offspring is born.

Once more, God the Only-begotten has summed up for us in his own words the whole revealed mystery of the faith. After he had answered the charge that he, being a man, made himself God, he determined to show that his words "I and the Father are One" are a clear and necessary conclusion. Therefore he continued his argument: "You say that I have blasphemed because I said, 'I am the Son of God.' If I do not the works of the Father, believe me not; but if I do, and you will not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." After this, heresy that still persists in its course commits a willful outrage in conscious despair; the assertion of unbelief is deliberate shamelessness. Those who make it take pride in folly and are dead to the faith, for it is not ignorance but madness to contradict this saying. The Lord had said, "I and the Father are One," and the mystery of his birth, which he revealed, was the unity in physis of Father and Son. Again, when he was accused of claiming the divine physis, he justified his claim by advancing a reason: "If I do not the works of the Father, believe me not." We are not to believe his assertion that he is the Son of God unless he does his Father's works. From this we see that his birth has given him no new or alien physis, for his doing of the Father's works is to be the reason why we must believe that he is the Son. What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name, or for denial that he was born from the physis of God, when the proof that he is God's Son is that he does the works which belong to the Father's physis? No creature is equal or like to God, no physis external to his is comparable in might to him; it is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and equal to him. Nothing outside himself can be compared to God without insult to his august majesty. If any being not born from God's self can be discovered that is like him and equal to him in power, then God, in admitting a partner to share his throne, forfeits his preeminence. No longer is God One, for a second, indistinguishable from himself, has arisen. On the other hand, there is no insult in making his own true Son his equal. For then that which is like him is his own; that which is compared with him is born from himself; the Power that can do his own works is not external to him. In fact, it is an actual heightening of his glory that he has begotten Omnipotence, and yet not severed that Omnipotent physis from himself. The Son performs the Father's works, and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance, for he bases it upon his works and bids us examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own, but his Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the Body which he had taken, the Humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name: "But if I do them, and you will not believe me, believe the works." First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God except on the evidence of God's works which he does. Next, if he does the works yet seems unworthy, in his bodily humility, to bear the divine name, he demands that they shall believe the works. Why should the mystery of his human birth hinder our recognition of his birth as God, when he who is divinely born fulfills every divine task by the agency of that Manhood which he has assumed? If we believe not the Man, for the works' sake, when he tells us that he is the Son of God, let us believe the works when they, which are beyond a doubt the works of God, are manifestly wrought by the Son of God. For the Son of God possesses, in virtue of his birth, everything that is God's; and therefore the Son's work is the Father's work because his birth has not excluded him from that physis which is his source and wherein he abides, and because he has in himself that physis to which he owes it that he exists eternally.

26. Once more, God the Only-begotten has summed up for us, in words of His own, the whole revealed mystery of the faith. When He had given His answer to the charge that He, being a man, made Himself God, He determined to show that His words, I and the Father are One, are a clear and necessary conclusion; and therefore He thus pursued His argument — You say that I have blasphemed, because I said, I am the Son of God. If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, and you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. After this, heresy that still persists in its course perpetrates a wilful outrage in conscious despair; the assertion of unbelief is deliberate shamelessness. They who make it take pride in folly and are dead to the faith, for it is not ignorance, but madness, to contradict this saying. The Lord had said, I and the Father are One; and the mystery of His birth, which He revealed, was the unity in nature of Father and Son. Again, when He was accused for claiming the Divine nature, He justified His claim by advancing a reason;– If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not. We are not to believe His assertion that He is the Son of God, unless He does His Father's works. Hence we see that His birth has given Him no new or alien nature, for His doing of the Father's works is to be the reason why we must believe that He is the Son. What room is there here for adoption, or for leave to use the name, or for denial that He was born from the nature of God, when the proof that He is God's Son is that He does the works which belong to the Father's nature? No creature is equal or like to God, no nature external to His is comparable in might to Him; it is only the Son, born from Himself, Whom we can without blasphemy liken and equal to Him. Nothing outside Himself can be compared to God without insult to His august majesty. If any being, not born from God's self, can be discovered that is like Him and equal to Him in power, then God, in admitting a partner to share His throne, forfeits His pre-eminence. No longer is God One, for a second, indistinguishable from Himself, has arisen. On the other hand, there is no insult in making His own true Son His equal. For then that which is like Him is His own; that which is compared with Him is born from Himself; the Power that can do His own works is not external to Him. Nay more, it is an actual heightening of His glory, that He has begotten Omnipotence, and yet not severed that Omnipotent nature from Himself. The Son performs the Father's works, and on that ground demands that we should believe that He is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for He bases it upon His works, and bids us examine them. And He bears witness that these works are not His own, but His Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendour of the deeds from the evidence for His birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the Body which He had taken, the Humanity born of Mary, and recognise the Son of God, He appeals to His deeds for confirmation of His right to the name — But if I do them, and you will not believe Me, believe the works. First, He would not have them believe that He is the Son of God, except on the evidence of God's works which He does. Next, if He does the works, yet seems unworthy, in His bodily humility, to bear the Divine name, He demands that they shall believe the works. Why should the mystery of His human birth hinder our recognition of His birth as God, when He that is Divinely born fulfils every Divine task by the agency of that Manhood which He has assumed? If we believe not the Man, for the works' sake, when He tells us that He is the Son of God, let us believe the works when they, which are beyond a doubt the works of God, are manifestly wrought by the Son of God. For the Son of God possesses, in virtue of His birth, everything that is God's; and therefore the Son's work is the Father's work because His birth has not excluded Him from that nature which is His source and wherein He abides, and because He has in Himself that nature to which He owes it that He exists eternally.

So the Son, who does the Father's works and asks us to believe at least in His works if we will not believe Him, must tell us what point we are to believe the works about. And He does tell us in what follows: "But if I do, and you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." This is the same truth as is contained in "I am the Son of God" and "I and the Father are One." This is the nature (physis) which is His by birth; this is the mystery of the saving faith, that we must not divide the unity, nor separate the nature from the birth, but must confess that the living God was truly born from the living God. God, who is Life, is not a being built up of various and lifeless parts. He is Power, and not made up of weak elements. He is Light, mixed with no shades of darkness. He is Spirit, who cannot be combined with anything incompatible. All that is within Him is One. What is Spirit is Light and Power and Life, and what is Life is Light and Power and Spirit. He who says, "I am, and I change not," can suffer neither change in detail nor transformation in kind. For these attributes that I have named are not attached to different parts of Him, but meet and unite, entirely and perfectly, in the whole being of the living God. He is the living God, the eternal Power of the living divine nature. And that which is born from Him, according to the mysterious truth which He reveals, could not be other than living. For when He said, "As the living Father has sent Me, and I live through the Father," He taught that it is through the living Father that He has life in Himself. And moreover, when He said, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son also to have life in Himself," He testified that life, to the fullest extent, is His gift from the living God. Now if the living Son was born from the living Father, that birth took place without a new nature coming into existence. Nothing new comes into existence when the Living is begotten by the Living, for life was not sought out from the nonexistent to receive birth. And Life, which receives its birth from Life, must necessarily—because of that unity of nature and because of the mysterious event of that perfect and ineffable birth—live always in Him who lives and have the life of the Living in Himself.

27. And so the Son, Who does the Father's works and demands of us that, if we believe not Him, at least we believe His works, is bound to tell us what the point is as to which we are to believe the works. And He does tell us in the words which follow:– But if I do, and you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and be sure that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. It is the same truth as is contained in I am the Son of God, and I and the Father are One. This is the nature which is His by birth; this the mystery of the saving faith, that we must not divide the unity, nor separate the nature from the birth, but must confess that the living God was in truth born from the living God. God, Who is Life, is not a Being built up of various and lifeless portions; He is Power, and not compact of feeble elements, Light, intermingled with no shades of darkness, Spirit, that can harmonise with no incongruities. All that is within Him is One; what is Spirit is Light and Power and Life, and what is Life is Light and Power and Spirit. He Who says, I am, and I change not Malachi 3:6, can suffer neither change in detail nor transformation in kind. For these attributes, which I have named, are not attached to different portions of Him, but meet and unite, entirely and perfectly, in the whole being of the living God. He is the living God, the eternal Power of the living Divine nature; and that which is born from Him, according to the mysterious truth which He reveals, could not be other than living. For when He said, As the living Father has sent Me, and I live through the Father John 6:57, He taught that it is through the living Father that He has life in Himself. And, moreover, when He said, For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son also to have life in Himself, He bore witness that life, to the fullest extent, is His gift from the living God. Now if the living Son was born from the living Father, that birth took place without a new nature coming into existence. Nothing new comes into existence when the Living is begotten by the Living; for life was not sought out from the non-existent to receive birth; and Life, which receives its birth from Life, must needs, because of that unity of nature and because of the mysterious event of that perfect and ineffable birth, live always in Him that lives and have the life of the Living in Himself.

I recall that at the beginning of this work, I warned that human analogies match their Divine counterparts imperfectly, yet our understanding does receive real, though incomplete, enlightenment by comparing the latter with visible examples. Now I appeal to human experience regarding birth: doesn't the source of their children's being remain within the parents? For though the lifeless and ordinary matter that starts life passes from one parent to the other, both parents still keep their respective natural powers. They have brought into existence a nature one with their own, and therefore the one who begets is bound up with the existence of the one begotten. And the one begotten, receiving birth through a power transmitted yet not lost by the begetter, remains in that begetter. This is enough to describe what happens in human birth. It is inadequate as a parallel to the perfect birth of God the Only-begotten, because humanity is born in weakness and from the union of two unlike natures, and is sustained in life by a combination of lifeless substances. Also, humanity does not immediately begin exercising its appointed life and never fully lives that life, being always burdened with many bodily parts that decay and are gradually discarded. In God, however, the Divine life is lived in the fullest sense, for God is Life, and from Life nothing that is not truly living can be born. And His birth is not by way of emanation but results from an act of power. Thus, since God's life is perfect in its intensity, and since what is born from Him is perfect in power, God has the power of giving birth but not of suffering change. His nature is capable of increase, not of diminution, for He continues in and shares the life of that Son to Whom He gave in birth a nature like and inseparable from His own. And that Son, the Living born from the Living, is not separated by the event of His birth from the nature that begot Him.

28. I call to mind that, at the beginning of our treatise, I gave the warning that human analogies correspond imperfectly to their Divine counterparts, yet that our understanding receives a real, if incomplete, enlightenment by comparing the latter with visible types. And now I appeal to human experience in the matter of birth, whether the source of their children's being remain not within the parents. For though the lifeless and ignoble matter, which sets in motion the beginnings of life, pass from one parent into the other, yet these retain their respective natural forces. They have brought into existence a nature one with their own, and therefore the begetter is bound up with the existence of the begotten; and the begotten, receiving birth through a force transmitted, yet not lost, by the begetter, abides in that begetter. This may suffice as a statement of what happens in a human birth. It is inadequate as a parallel to the perfect birth of God the Only-begotten; for humanity is born in weakness and from the union of two unlike natures, and maintained in life by a combination of lifeless substances. Again, humanity does not enter at once into the exercise of its appointed life, and never fully lives that life, being always encumbered with a multitude of members which decay and are insensibly discarded. In God, on the other hand, the Divine life is lived in the fullest sense, for God is Life; and from Life nothing that is not truly living can be born. And His birth is not by way of emanation but results from an act of power. Thus, since God's life is perfect in its intensity, and since that which is born from Him is perfect in power, God has the power of giving birth but not of suffering change. His nature is capable of increase, not of diminution, for He continues in, and shares the life of, that Son to Whom He gave in birth a nature like to, and inseparable from, His own. And that Son, the Living born from the Living, is not separated by the event of His birth from the nature that begot Him.

Another analogy that sheds some light on the meaning of the faith is that of fire containing fire within itself and remaining in fire. Fire contains the brightness of light, the heat which is its essential nature, and the property of destroying by combustion—the flickering inconstancy of flame. Yet all the while it is fire, and in all these manifestations there is only one nature. Its weakness is that it depends for its existence on flammable material, and it perishes along with the material on which it has lived. A comparison with fire gives us, to some degree, insight into the incomparable nature of God. It helps us believe in the properties of God when we find them, to a certain extent, present in an earthly element. I ask, then, whether in fire derived from fire there is any division or separation. When one flame is kindled from another, is the original nature cut off from the derived flame, so as not to remain in it? Does it not rather continue on and dwell in the second flame through a kind of increase, as though by birth? For no portion has been cut off from the nature of the first flame, and yet there is light from light. Does not the first flame live on in the second, which owes its existence, though not through division, to the first? Does not the second still dwell in the first, from which it was not cut off, from which it went forth, retaining its unity with the substance to which its nature belongs? Are not the two one, when it is physically impossible to derive light from light by division, and logically impossible to distinguish between them in nature?

29. Another analogy which casts some light upon the meaning of the faith is that of fire as containing fire in itself and as abiding in fire. Fire contains the brightness of light, the heat which is its essential nature, the property of destroying by combustion the flickering inconstancy of flame. Yet all the while it is fire, and in all these manifestations there is but one nature. Its weakness is that it is dependent for its existence upon inflammable matter, and that it perishes with the matter on which it has lived. A comparison with fire gives us, in some measure, an insight into the incomparable nature of God; it helps us to believe in the properties of God that we find them, to a certain extent, present in an earthly element. I ask, then, whether in fire derived from fire there is any division or separation. When one flame is kindled from another, is the original nature cut off from the derived, so as not to abide in it? Does it not rather follow on, and dwell in the second flame by a kind of increase, as it were by birth? For no portion has been cut off from the nature of the first flame, and yet there is light from light. Does not the first flame live on in the second, which owes its existence, though not by division, to the first? Does not the second still dwell in the first, from which it was not cut off; from which it went forth, retaining its unity with the substance to which its nature belongs? Are not the two one, when it is physically impossible to derive light from light by division, and logically impossible to distinguish between them in nature.

I repeat that these illustrations should only be used as aids to understand the faith, not as standards of comparison for the Divine majesty. Our method is to use physical examples as a clue to what is invisible. Both reverence and reason justify our use of such help, which we find God Himself uses when bearing witness to Himself, though we do not claim to find a true parallel to the nature of God. But the minds of simple believers have been troubled by the insane heretical objection that it is wrong to accept a teaching about God which needs physical analogies to become understandable. Therefore, in accordance with our Lord's words which we have already cited, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6), we have thought it necessary, since God is Spirit, to give these comparisons a certain place in our argument. By doing this we shall clear God of the accusation that He has deceived us by using these analogies, showing as we have done that such illustrations from the nature of His creatures enable us to grasp the meaning of God's self-revelation to us.

30. These illustrations, I repeat, must only be used as aids to apprehension of the faith, not as standards of comparison for the Divine majesty. Our method is that of using bodily instances as a clue to the invisible. Reverence and reason justify us in using such help, which we find used in God's witness to Himself, while yet we do not aspire to find a parallel to the nature of God. But the minds of simple believers have been distressed by the mad heretical objection that it is wrong to accept a doctrine concerning God which needs, in order to become intelligible, the help of bodily analogies. And therefore, in accordance with that word of our Lord which we have already cited, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit John 2:6, we have thought it expedient, since God is Spirit, to give to these comparisons a certain place in our argument. By so doing we shall avert from God the charge that He has deceived us in using these analogies; showing, as we have done, that such illustrations from the nature of His creatures enable us to grasp the meaning of God's self-revelation to us.

We see how the living Son of the living Father, who is God from God, reveals the unity of the divine nature—indivisibly one and the same—and the mystery of his birth in these words: "I and the Father are one." Because the apparent arrogance of these words created prejudice against him, he made it clearer that he had spoken with full awareness of his divinity by saying, "You say that I have blasphemed because I said, I am the Son of God." This shows that his oneness of nature with God comes from being born from God. Then, to strengthen their faith in his birth with a clear statement, and at the same time to prevent them from imagining that this birth involves a difference in nature, he completes his argument with these words: "Believe the works, that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Does his birth, as revealed here, show that his divinity is not his by nature, not truly his own? Each is in the other. The Son's birth is from the Father alone. No foreign or different nature has been elevated to godhood and exists as God. God from God, eternally existing, owes his divinity to God alone. Try, if you think you can, to introduce two gods into the Church's faith. Separate the Son from the Father as much as you can while still admitting the birth you acknowledge. Still, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father—not by some exchange of emanations but by the perfect birth of the living nature. So you cannot add God the Father and God the Son together and count them as two gods, because the two are one God. You cannot confuse them together, because the two are not one prosopon. Therefore the apostolic faith rejects two gods, for it knows nothing of two Fathers or two Sons. In confessing the Father it confesses the Son; it believes in the Son by believing in the Father. The name of Father implies the Son, since no one can be a father without having a son. Evidence that a son exists proves there has been a father, for a son cannot exist except from a father. When we confess that God is one, we deny that he is solitary, for the Son completes the Father, and the Son's existence is owed to the Father. But birth brings no change to the divine nature; in both Father and Son that nature remains true to itself. The right way for us to express this unity of nature is to confess that they, being two by birth and generation, are one God, not one prosopon.

31. We see how the living Son of the living Father, He Who is God from God, reveals the unity of the Divine nature, indissolubly One and the same, and the mystery of His birth in these words, I and the Father are One. Because the seeming arrogance of them engendered a prejudice against Him, He made it more clear that He had spoken in the conscious possession of Divinity by saying, You say that I have blasphemed because I said, I am the Son of God; thus showing that the oneness of His nature with that of God was due to birth from God. And then, to clench their faith in His birth by a positive assertion, and to guard them, at the same time, from imagining that the birth involves a difference of nature, He crowns His argument with the words, Believe the works, that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Does His birth, as here revealed, display His Divinity as not His by nature, as not His own by right? Each is in the Other; the birth of the Son is from the Father only; no alien or unlike nature has been raised to Godhead and subsists as God. God from God, eternally abiding, owes His Godhead to none other than God. Import, if you see your opportunity, two gods into the Church's faith; separate Son from Father as far as you can, consistently with the birth which you admit; yet still the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, and this by no interchange of emanations but by the perfect birth of the living nature. Thus you cannot add together God the Father and God the Son, and count Them as two Gods, for They Two are One God. You cannot confuse Them together, for They Two are not One Person. And so the Apostolic faith rejects two gods; for it knows nothing of two Fathers or two Sons. In confessing the Father it confesses the Son; it believes in the Son in believing in the Father. For the name of Father involves that of Son, since without having a son none can be a father. Evidence of the existence of a son is proof that there has been a father, for a son cannot exist except from a father. When we confess that God is One we deny that He is single; for the Son is the complement of the Father, and to the Father the Son's existence is due. But birth works no change in the Divine nature; both in Father and in Son that nature is true to its kind. And the right expression for us of this unity of nature is the confession that They, being Two by birth and generation, are One God, not one Person.

We will leave it to him to preach two Gods, who can preach One God without confessing the unity. He shall proclaim that God is solitary, who can deny that there are two Persons, Each dwelling in the Other by the power of Their nature and the mystery of birth given and received. And that man may assign a different nature to Each of the Two, who is ignorant that the unity of Father and of Son is a revealed truth. Let the heretics erase this record of the Son's self-revelation: "I in the Father and the Father in Me." Then, and not until then, shall they assert that there are two Gods, or one God in loneliness. There is no suggestion of more than one nature in what we are told about Their possession of the one Divine nature. The truth that God is from God does not multiply God by two. The birth destroys the idea of a lonely God. And again, because They are interdependent, They form a unity. And that They are interdependent is proved by Their being One from One. For the One, in begetting the One, gave Him nothing that was not His own. And the One, in being begotten, received from the One only what belongs to one. Thus the apostolic faith, in proclaiming the Father, will proclaim Him as One God, and in confessing the Son will confess Him as One God. This is because one and the same Divine nature exists in Both, and because the Father being God and the Son being God, and the one name of God expressing the nature of Both, the term "One God" signifies the Two. God from God, or God in God, does not mean that there are two Gods, for God abides, One from One, eternally with the one Divine nature and the one Divine name. Nor does God shrink down to a single Person, for One and One can never be in solitude.

32. We will leave it to him to preach two Gods, who can preach One God without confessing the unity; he shall proclaim that God is solitary, who can deny that there are two Persons, Each dwelling in the Other by the power of Their nature and the mystery of birth given and received. And that man may assign a different nature to Each of the Two, who is ignorant that the unity of Father and of Son is a revealed truth. Let the heretics blot out this record of the Son's self-revelation I in the Father and the Father in Me; then, and not till then, shall they assert that there are two Gods, or one God in loneliness. There is no hint of more natures than one in what we are told of Their possession of the one Divine nature. The truth that God is from God does not multiply God by two; the birth destroys the supposition of a lonely God. And again, because They are interdependent They form an unity; and that They are interdependent is proved by Their being One from One. For the One, in begetting the One, conferred upon Him nothing that was not His own; and the One, in being begotten, received from the One only what belongs to one. Thus the apostolic faith, in proclaiming the Father, will proclaim Him as One God, and in confessing the Son will confess Him as One God; since one and the same Divine nature exists in Both, and because, the Father being God and the Son being God, and the one name of God expressing the nature of Both, the term 'One God?' signifies the Two. God from God, or God in God, does not mean that there are two Gods, for God abides, One from One, eternally with the one Divine nature and the one Divine name; nor does God dwindle down to a single Person, for One and One can never be in solitude.

The Lord has not left the teaching about this great mystery doubtful or obscure. He has not abandoned us to wander lost in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the complete knowledge of this faith to His apostles: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Me, you know My Father also; and from now on you shall know Him, and have seen Him." Philip says to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus says to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father also. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe because of the works themselves." He who is the Way does not lead us into dead ends or trackless wastelands. He who is the Truth does not mock us with lies. He who is the Life does not betray us into delusions that bring death. He Himself has chosen these appealing names to show the methods He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. Therefore it is absolutely essential for us to know the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life. "No man comes to the Father but through Me." The way to the Father is through the Son. Now we must ask whether this happens by following His teaching or by faith in His Godhead. For it is possible that our way to the Father may be through following the Son's teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. Therefore let us next seek out the true meaning of the instruction given to us here. For it is not by holding onto a preconceived opinion, but by examining the force of the words, that we shall take possession of this faith.

33. The Lord has not left in doubt or obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles;– I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man comes unto the Father but through Me. If you know Me, you know My Father also; and from henceforth you shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip says unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us. Jesus says unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. How do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works' sake. John 14:6-11 He Who is the Way leads us not into by-paths or trackless wastes: He Who is the Truth mocks us not with lies; He Who is the Life betrays us not into delusions which are death. He Himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods which He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what is the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life. No man comes to the Father but through Me. The way to the Father is through the Son. And now we must enquire whether this is to be by a course of obedience to His teaching, or by faith in His Godhead. For it is conceivable that our way to the Father may be through adherence to the Son's teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. And therefore let us, in the next place, seek out the true meaning of the instruction given us here. For it is not by cleaving to a preconceived opinion, but by studying the force of the words, that we shall enter into possession of this faith.

The words that follow are, "If you know Me, you know My Father also." It is the Man, Jesus Christ, whom they see. How can knowing Him mean knowing the Father? The Apostles see Him bearing the form of that human nature which belongs to Him, but God is not burdened with body and flesh, and cannot be known by those who live in our weak and fleshly body. The Lord gives the answer by declaring that beneath the flesh, which He took in a mystery, His Father's nature dwells within Him. He arranges the facts in their proper order: "If you know Me, you know My Father also; and from henceforth you shall know Him, and have seen Him." He distinguishes between the time of seeing and the time of knowing. He says that from this point forward they will know Him whom they had already seen, and so will possess, from the time of this revelation onward, the knowledge of that nature which, in Him, they had long gazed upon.

34. The words which follow those last cited are, If you know Me, you know My Father also. It is the Man, Jesus Christ, Whom they behold. How can a knowledge of Him be a knowledge of the Father? For the Apostles see Him wearing the aspect of that human nature which belongs to Him; but God is not encumbered with body and flesh, and is incognisable by those who dwell in our weak and fleshly body. The answer is given by the Lord, Who asserts that under the flesh, which, in a mystery, He had taken, His Father's nature dwells within Him. He sets the facts in their due order thus — If you know Me, you know My Father also; and from henceforth you shall know Him, and have seen Him. He makes a distinction between the time of sight, and the time of knowledge. He says that from henceforth they shall know Him Whom they had already seen; and so shall possess, from the time of this revelation onward, the knowledge of that nature, on which, in Him, they long had gazed.

The strange sound of these words troubled the Apostle Philip. A Man stands before them. This Man declares Himself to be the Son of God and states that when they have known Him they will know the Father. He tells them they have seen the Father, and that because they have seen Him, they will know Him in the future. This truth is too vast for weak humanity to grasp; their faith falters when faced with these paradoxes. Christ says the Father has already been seen and will now be known—yet sight itself is knowledge. He says that if the Son has been known, the Father has been known as well. But the Son has given knowledge of Himself through the physical senses of sight and hearing, while the Father's nature, completely different from the visible Man they know, could not be learned from their knowledge of the nature of the One they have seen. Christ has also often testified that no one has seen the Father. And so Philip spoke up, with the loyalty and confidence of an Apostle, making the request, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us. He was not questioning the faith; it was simply a mistake made in ignorance. For the Lord had said the Father had already been seen and would from now on be known, but the Apostle had not understood that He had been seen. Therefore he did not deny that the Father had been seen, but asked to see Him. He did not ask that the Father be revealed to his physical eyes, but that he might receive some indication that would enlighten him about the Father Who had been seen. For he had seen the Son in the form of Man, but could not understand how he could thereby have seen the Father. His adding, And it suffices us, to the prayer, Lord, show us the Father, clearly reveals that he desired a mental, not a physical, vision of the Father. He did not refuse to believe the Lord's words, but asked for such enlightenment to his mind as would enable him to believe, for the fact that the Lord had spoken was conclusive proof to the Apostle that faith was his duty. What moved him to ask that the Father be shown was that the Son had said He had been seen, and would be known because He had been seen. There was no presumption in this prayer that He Who had already been seen should now be made manifest.

35. But the novel sound of these words disturbed the Apostle Philip. A Man is before their eyes; this Man avows Himself the Son of God, and declares that when they have known Him they will know the Father. He tells them that they have seen the Father, and that, because they have seen Him, they shall know Him hereafter. This truth is too broad for the grasp of weak humanity; their faith fails in the presence of these paradoxes. Christ says that the Father has been seen already and shall now be known; and this, although sight, is knowledge. He says that if the Son has been known, the Father has been known also; and this though the Son has imparted knowledge of Himself through the bodily senses of sight and sound, while the Father's nature, different altogether from that of the visible Man, which they know, could not be learned from their knowledge of the nature of Him Whom they have seen. He has also often borne witness that no man has seen the Father. And so Philip broke forth, with the loyalty and confidence of an Apostle, with the request, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us. He was not tampering with the faith; it was but a mistake made in ignorance. For the Lord had said that the Father had been seen already and henceforth should be known; but the Apostle had not understood that He had been seen. Accordingly he did not deny that the Father had been seen, but asked to see Him. He did not ask that the Father should be unveiled to his bodily gaze, but that he might have such an indication as should enlighten him concerning the Father Who had been seen. For he had seen the Son under the aspect of Man, but cannot understand how he could thereby have seen the Father. His adding, And it suffices us, to the prayer, Lord, show us the Father, reveals clearly that it was a mental, not a bodily vision of the Father which he desired. He did not refuse faith to the Lord's words, but asked for such enlightenment to his mind as should enable him to believe; for the fact that the Lord had spoken was conclusive evidence to the Apostle that faith was his duty. The consideration which moved him to ask that the Father might be shown, was that the Son had said that He had been seen, and should be known because He had been seen. There was no presumption in this prayer that He, Who had already been seen, should now be made manifest.

The Lord therefore answered Philip: Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known Me, Philip? He rebukes the Apostle for his incomplete knowledge of Himself, since He had previously said that when He was known, the Father was also known. But what does this complaint mean—that for so long they had not known Him? It means this: if they had known Him, they would have recognized in Him the Godhead that belongs to His Father's nature. For His works were the distinctive works of God. He walked on the waves, commanded the winds, changed water into wine in a way no one could explain, multiplied the loaves, drove out demons, healed diseases, restored damaged limbs and repaired the defects of nature, forgave sins, and raised the dead to life. And He did all this while wearing flesh, and He accompanied these works with the declaration that He was the Son of God. This is why He rightly complains that they did not recognize in His mysterious human birth and life the action of the nature of God, performing these deeds through the Manhood which He had assumed.

36. And therefore the Lord answered Philip thus — Have I been so long time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He rebukes the Apostle for defective knowledge of Himself; for previously He had said that when He was known the Father was known also. But what is the meaning of this complaint that for so long they had not known Him? It means this; that if they had known Him, they must have recognised in Him the Godhead which belongs to His Father's nature. For His works were the peculiar works of God. He walked upon the waves, commanded the winds, manifestly, though none could tell how, changed the water into wine and multiplied the loaves, put devils to flight, healed diseases, restored injured limbs and repaired the defects of nature, forgave sins and raised the dead to life. And all this He did while wearing flesh; and He accompanied the works with the assertion that He was the Son of God. Hence it is that He justly complains that they did not recognise in His mysterious human birth and life the action of the nature of God, performing these deeds through the Manhood which He had assumed.

The Lord reproached them for not knowing Him despite the long time He had spent doing these works. He answered their request to show them the Father by saying, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also." He was not talking about a physical appearance or what the physical eye could see, but about the kind of seeing He once spoke of: "Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields; for they are white to harvest." The time of year and the fields white for harvest were references that could not fit with an earthly, visible scene. He was telling them to lift the eyes of their understanding to contemplate the blessedness of the final harvest. The same is true of His present words, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also." It was not the physical body He had received at birth from the Virgin that could show them the image and likeness of God. The human appearance He wore could not help them mentally see the incorporeal God. But God was recognized in Christ by those who recognized Christ as the Son through the evidence of His Divine nature's powers. Recognizing God the Son leads to recognizing God the Father. For the Son is the Image in such a way that He is one in kind with the Father, while still indicating that the Father is His source. Other images made of metals or colors or other materials by various arts reproduce the appearance of the objects they represent. Yet can lifeless copies be considered equal to their living originals? Can painted or carved or molten figures match the nature they imitate? The Son is not the Image of the Father in that way. He is the living Image of the Living. The Son who is born of the Father has a nature that is in no way different from His. Because His nature is not different, He possesses the power of that nature which is the same as His own. The fact that He is the Image proves that God the Father is the source of the Only-begotten's birth, and the Only-begotten is Himself revealed as the Likeness and Image of the invisible God. Therefore the likeness, which is united with the Divine nature, is permanently His, because the powers of that nature are unchangeably His own.

37. And therefore the Lord reproached them that they had not known Him, though He had so long been doing these works, and answered their prayer that He would show them the Father by saying, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. He was not speaking of a bodily manifestation, of perception by the eye of flesh, but by that eye of which He had once spoken — Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields; for they are white to harvest. John 4:35 The season of the year, the fields white to harvest are allusions equally incompatible with an earthly and visible prospect. He was bidding them lift the eyes of their understanding to contemplate the bliss of the final harvest. And so it is with His present words, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. It was not the carnal body, which He had received by birth from the Virgin, that could manifest to them the image and likeness of God. The human aspect which He wore could be no aid towards the mental vision of the incorporeal God. But God was recognised in Christ, by such as recognised Christ as the Son on the evidence of the powers of His Divine nature; and a recognition of God the Son produces a recognition of God the Father. For the Son is in such a sense the Image, as to be One in kind with the Father, and yet to indicate that the Father is His Origin. Other images, made of metals or colors or other materials by various arts, reproduce the appearance of the objects which they represent. Yet can lifeless copies be put on a level with their living originals? Painted or carved or molten effigies with the nature which they imitate? The Son is not the Image of the Father after such a fashion as this; He is the living Image of the Living. The Son that is born of the Father has a nature in no wise different from His; and, because His nature is not different, He possesses the power of that nature which is the same as His own. The fact that He is the Image proves that God the Father is the Author of the birth of the Only-begotten, Who is Himself revealed as the Likeness and Image of the invisible God. And hence the likeness, which is joined in union with the Divine nature, is indelibly His, because the powers of that nature are inalienably His own.

The meaning of this passage is: Have I been so long time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. How do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? When we human beings discuss divine matters, we can only reason properly using the Word of God. Everything else that belongs to the Godhead is dark, difficult, dangerous, and obscure. If anyone tries to express what is known using words other than those God has supplied, he will inevitably either show his own ignorance or leave his readers' minds completely confused. When the Lord was asked to show the Father, He said, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. Anyone who would change this is an antichrist, anyone who would deny it is a Jew, anyone who is ignorant of it is a pagan. If we find ourselves struggling to understand, we should blame our own reasoning; if God's declaration seems obscure, we should assume that our lack of faith is the cause. These words state precisely that God is not solitary, and yet that there are no differences within the divine nature. For the Father is seen in the Son, and this could not be true if He were a solitary being, nor if He were unlike the Son. It is through the Son that the Father is seen, and this mystery which the Son reveals is that they are one God, but not one Person. What other meaning can you attach to this saying of the Lord's, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also? This is not a case of identity; the use of the word also shows that the Father is named in addition to the Son. These words, The Father also, are incompatible with the idea of an isolated and single Person. The only possible conclusion is that the Father was made visible through the Son because they are one and are alike in nature. And, lest our faith in this matter should be left in any doubt, the Lord continued, How do you say, Show us the Father? The Father had been seen in the Son; how then could people be ignorant of the Father? What need could there be for Him to be shown?

38. Such is the meaning of this passage, Have I been so long time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. How do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? It is only the Word of God, of Whom we men are enabled, in our discourse concerning Divine things, to reason. All else that belongs to the Godhead is dark and difficult, dangerous and obscure. If any man propose to express what is known in other words than those supplied by God, he must inevitably either display his own ignorance, or else leave his readers' minds in utter perplexity. The Lord, when He was asked to show the Father, said, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. He that would alter this is an antichrist, he that would deny it is a Jew, he that is ignorant a Pagan. If we find ourselves in difficulty, let us lay the fault to our own reason; if God's declaration seem involved in obscurity, let us assume that our want of faith is the cause. These words state with precision that God is not solitary, and yet that there are no differences within the Divine nature. For the Father is seen in the Son, and this could be the case neither if He were a lonely Being, nor yet if He were unlike the Son. It is through the Son that the Father is seen: and this mystery which the Son reveals is that They are One God, but not one Person. What other meaning can you attach to this saying of the Lord's, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also? This is no case of identity; the use of the conjunction also shows that the Father is named in addition to the Son. These words, The Father also, are incompatible with the notion of an isolated and single Person. No conclusion is possible but that the Father was made visible through the Son, because They are One and are alike in nature. And, lest our faith in this regard should be left in any doubt, the Lord proceeded, How do you say, Show us the Father? The Father had been seen in the Son; how then could men be ignorant of the Father? What need could there be for Him to be shown?

The unity of the one who begets and the one who is begotten, shown in their sameness of nature and true oneness of kind, proves that the Father was seen in His true nature. This is demonstrated by the Lord's next words: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" There are no other words than these, which the Son has used, that can state the fact that Father and Son, being alike in nature, are inseparable. The Son, who is the Way and the Truth and the Life, is not deceiving us by some theatrical transformation of names and appearances when He, while wearing manhood, calls Himself the Son of God. He is not falsely hiding the fact that He is God the Father. He is not a single person who hides His features behind a mask so that we imagine two are present. He is not a solitary being, now posing as His own Son and then calling Himself the Father, dressing up one unchanging nature with different names. The plain honesty of these words is far removed from this. The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. But these names, and the realities they represent, contain no change to the Divine nature, nothing inconsistent, nothing foreign. For the Divine nature, being true to itself, continues to be itself. What is from God is God. The Divine birth brings neither diminution nor difference into the Godhead, for the Son is born into and exists with a nature that is within the Divine nature and is like it. The Father did not seek out any foreign element to be mixed into the nature of His Only-begotten Son, but gave Him all things that are His own, and this without loss to the Giver. Thus the Son is not lacking the Divine nature, for, being God, He is from God and from no one else. He is not different from God, but is indeed nothing other than God, for what is begotten from God is the Son, and the Son only, and the Divine nature, in receiving birth as a Son, has not lost its Divinity. Thus the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, God is in God. This is not by the combination of two harmonious but different kinds of being, nor by the incorporating power of a larger substance exercised upon a smaller one, for the properties of matter make it impossible for things that enclose others to also be enclosed by them. It is by the birth of living nature from living nature. The substance remains the same; birth causes no deterioration in the Divine nature. God is not born from God to be anything other than God. In this there is no change, no estrangement, no division. It is sin to believe that Father and Son are two Gods, sacrilege to claim that Father and Son are one solitary God, blasphemy to deny the unity, consisting in sameness of kind, of God from God.

39. Again, the unity of Begetter and Begotten, manifested in sameness of nature and true oneness of kind, proves that the Father was seen in His true nature. And this is shown by the Lord's next words, Believe ye not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? In no other words than these, which the Son has used, can the fact be stated that Father and Son, being alike in nature, are inseparable. The Son, Who is the Way and the Truth and the Life, is not deceiving us by some theatrical transformation of names and aspects, when He, while wearing Manhood, styles Himself the Son of God. He is not falsely concealing the fact that He is God the Father; He is not a single Person Who hides His features under a mask, that we may imagine that Two are present. He is not a solitary Being, now posing as His own Son, and again calling Himself the Father; tricking out one unchanging nature with varying names. Far removed from this is the plain honesty of the words. The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. But these names, and the realities which they represent, contain no innovation upon the Divine nature, nothing inconsistent, nothing alien. For the Divine nature, being true to itself, persists in being itself; that which is from God is God. The Divine birth imports neither diminution nor difference into the Godhead, for the Son is born into, and subsists with, a nature that is within the Divine nature and is like to it, and the Father sought out no alien element to be mingled in the nature of His Only-begotten Son, but endowed Him with all things that are His own, and this without loss to the Giver. And thus the Son is not destitute of the Divine nature, for, being God, He is from God and from none other; and He is not different from God, but is indeed nothing else than God, for that which is begotten from God is the Son, and the Son only, and the Divine nature, in receiving birth as a Son, has not forfeited its Divinity. Thus the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, God is in God. And this is not by the combination of two harmonious, though different, kinds of being, nor by the incorporating power of an ampler substance exercised upon a lesser; for the properties of matter make it impossible that things which enclose others should also be enclosed by them. It is by the birth of living nature from living nature. The substance remains the same, birth causes no deterioration in the Divine nature; God is not born from God to be ought else than God. Herein is no innovation, no estrangement, no division. It is sin to believe that Father and Son are two Gods, sacrilege to assert that Father and Son are one solitary God, blasphemy to deny the unity, consisting in sameness of kind, of God from God.

To prevent those whose faith follows the Gospel from thinking this mystery is unclear or hard to grasp, the Lord explained it in this sequence: "Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works." What other words could express—or can now express—that Father and Son possess the Divine nature together, while still giving proper recognition to the Son's birth? When He says, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself," He does not erase His own personhood, deny His Sonship, or hide the fact that His Father's Divine nature is present in Him. While speaking of Himself—and the pronoun "I" proves that He does—He speaks as one who exists in the Divine substance. Yet in speaking not of Himself, He testifies to His birth as God from God His Father. He is inseparable and indistinguishable from the Father in unity of nature, for He speaks even though He speaks not of Himself. The One who speaks, though He speaks not of Himself, must exist because He is speaking; and because He speaks not of Himself, He reveals that His words are not His own. For He added, "But the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works." That the Father dwells in the Son proves the Father is not isolated and alone; that the Father works through the Son proves the Son is not foreign or estranged. There cannot be only one Person, since He speaks not of Himself; yet conversely, They cannot be separate and divided when One speaks through the voice of the Other. These words reveal the mystery of Their unity. Furthermore, the Two are not different from each other, since by Their inherent nature Each exists in the Other; and They are One, since He who speaks does not speak of Himself, and He who speaks not of Himself nevertheless does speak. Then, having taught that the Father both spoke and worked in Him, the Son establishes this perfect unity as the standard for our faith: "But the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works' sake." The Father works in the Son; but the Son also works the works of His Father.

40. Lest they, whose faith conforms to the Gospel, should regard this mystery as something vague and obscure, the Lord has expounded it in this order — Do you not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works. In what other words than these could, or can, the possession of the Divine nature by Father and Son be declared, consistently with prominence for the Son's birth? When He says, The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, He neither suppresses His personality, nor denies His Sonship, nor conceals the presence in Himself of His Father's Divine nature. While speaking of Himself — and that He does so speak is proved by the pronoun I — He speaks as abiding in the Divine substance; while speaking not of Himself, He bears witness to the birth which took place in Him of God from God His Father. And He is inseparable and indistinguishable in unity of nature from the Father; for He speaks, though He speaks not of Himself. He Who speaks, though He speak not of Himself, necessarily exists, inasmuch as He speaks; and, inasmuch as He speaks not of Himself, He makes it manifest that His words are not His own. For He has added, But the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works. That the Father dwells in the Son proves that the Father is not isolated and alone; that the Father works through the Son proves that the Son is not an alien or a stranger. There cannot be one Person only, for He speaks not of Himself; and, conversely, They cannot be separate and divided when the One speaks through the voice of the Other. These words are the revelation of the mystery of Their unity. And again, They Two are not different One from the Other, seeing that by Their inherent nature Each is in the Other; and They are One, seeing that He, Who speaks, speaks not of Himself, and He, Who speaks not of Himself, yet does speak. And then, having taught that the Father both spoke and wrought in Him, the Son establishes this perfect unity as the rule of our faith — But the Father that dwells in Me, He does His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works' sake. The Father works in the Son; but the Son also works the works of His Father.

So that we don't believe and say that the Father works in the Son through His own all-powerful energy rather than through the Son's possession of the Divine nature as His birthright, Christ says, "Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." What does "Believe Me" mean? Clearly it refers back to the earlier "Show us the Father." Their faith—the faith that had asked to see the Father—is confirmed by this command to believe. He wasn't satisfied with just saying, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also." He goes further and expands our knowledge so we can contemplate the Father in the Son, while remembering that the Son is in the Father. By doing this, He saves us from the error of imagining a reciprocal flowing of One into the Other. Instead, He teaches their unity in one nature through birth given and received. The Lord wants us to take Him at His word, so our hold on the faith won't be shaken by His condescension in taking on humanity. If His flesh, His body, His suffering seem to make His Godhead doubtful, let us at least believe, based on the evidence of the works, that God is in God and God is from God, and that They are One. For by the power of Their nature, Each is in the Other. The Father loses nothing that is His because it is in the Son, and the Son receives His whole Sonship from the Father. Physical bodies are not created in such a way that they mutually contain each other or possess the perfect unity of one abiding nature. In their case, it would be impossible for an Only-begotten Son to exist eternally, inseparable from the true Divine nature of His Father. Yet this is the unique property of God the Only-begotten, this is the faith revealed in the mystery of His true birth, this is the work of the Spirit's power: that for Christ, to be and to be in God are the same thing. And this being in God is not the presence of one thing within another, like a body inside another body, but rather Christ's life and subsistence are such that He is within the subsisting God, and within Him, yet having a subsistence of His own. For Each subsists in such a way as not to exist apart from the Other, since They are Two through birth given and received, and therefore only one Divine nature exists. This is the meaning of the words, "I and the Father are One," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me." They tell us that the Son Who is born is not different or inferior to the Father; that His possession, by right of birth, of the Divine nature as Son of God—and therefore nothing other than God—is the supreme truth conveyed in the mysterious revelation of the One Godhead in Father and Son. And therefore the doctrine of the generation of the Only-begotten is free from the charge of ditheism, for the Son of God, in being born into the Godhead, manifested in Himself the nature of God His Begetter.

41. And so, lest we should believe and say that the Father works in the Son through His own omnipotent energy, and not through the Son's possession, as His birthright, of the Divine nature, Christ says, Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. What means this, Believe Me? Clearly it refers back to the previous, Show us the Father. Their faith — that faith which had demanded that the Father should be shown — is confirmed by this command to believe. He was not satisfied with saying, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. He goes further, and expands our knowledge, so that we can contemplate the Father in the Son, remembering meanwhile that the Son is in the Father. Thus He would save us from the error of imagining a reciprocal emanation of the One into the Other, by teaching Their unity in the One nature through birth given and received. The Lord would have us take Him at His word, lest our hold upon the faith be shaken by His condescension in assuming Humanity. If His flesh, His body, His passion seem to make His Godhead doubtful, let us at least believe, on the evidence of the works, that God is in God and God is from God, and that They are One. For by the power of Their nature Each is in the Other. The Father loses nothing that is His because it is in the Son, and the Son receives His whole Sonship from the Father. Bodily natures are not created after such a fashion that they mutually contain each other, or possess the perfect unity of one abiding nature. In their case it would be impossible that an Only-begotten Son could exist eternally, inseparable from the true Divine nature of His Father. Yet this is the peculiar property of God the Only-begotten, this the faith revealed in the mystery of His true birth, this the work of the Spirit's power, that to be, and to be in God, is for Christ the same thing; and that this being in God is not the presence of one thing within another, as a body inside another body, but that the life and subsistence of Christ is such that He is within the subsisting God, and within Him, yet having a subsistence of His own. For Each subsists in such wise as not to exist apart from the Other, since They are Two through birth given and received, and therefore only one Divine nature exists. This is the meaning of the words, I and the Father are One, and He that has seen Me has seen the Father also, and I in the Father and the Father in Me. They tell us that the Son Who is born is not different or inferior to the Father; that His possession, by right of birth, of the Divine nature as Son of God, and therefore nothing else than God, is the supreme truth conveyed in the mysterious revelation of the One Godhead in Father and Son. And therefore the doctrine of the generation of the Only-begotten is guiltless of ditheism, for the Son of God, in being born into the Godhead, manifested in Himself the nature of God His Begetter.

I have written this knowing full well the dangers and intense emotions of our time, as I set out to confront this reckless and ungodly heresy that claims the Son of God is a creature. Churches in nearly every province of the Roman Empire have already been infected by this deadly teaching. Error, repeatedly taught and falsely presented as truth, has taken root in minds that mistakenly believe they are holding to the faith. I understand how difficult it is to persuade people to change their minds completely when enthusiasm for a wrong belief is reinforced by the sheer number of others who share it and by the approval of the majority. A crowd caught up in error can only be reached with great difficulty and risk. When many people have gone astray, even if they know they are wrong, they are too ashamed to turn back. The crowd demands respect simply because of its size, and it has the boldness to insist that its foolishness be regarded as wisdom. It assumes that its large numbers prove the correctness of its views, and so a lie that has gained widespread acceptance is brazenly declared to have proven itself true.

1. It is with a full knowledge of the dangers and passions of the time that I have ventured to attack this wild and godless heresy, which asserts that the Son of God is a creature. Multitudes of Churches, in almost every province of the Roman Empire, have already caught the plague of this deadly doctrine; error, persistently inculcated and falsely claiming to be the truth, has become ingrained in minds which vainly imagine that they are loyal to the faith. I know how hardly the will is moved to a thorough recantation, when zeal for a mistaken cause is encouraged by the sense of numbers and confirmed by the sanction of general approval. A multitude under delusion can only be approached with difficulty and danger. When the crowd has gone astray, even though it know that it is in the wrong, it is ashamed to return. It claims consideration for its numbers, and has the assurance to command that its folly shall be accounted wisdom. It assumes that its size is evidence of the correctness of its opinions; and thus a falsehood which has found general credence is boldly asserted to have established its truth.

For my own part, it was not only the duty that comes with my calling—the responsibility of diligently preaching the Gospel which, as a bishop, I owe to the Church—that has driven me forward. My eagerness to write has grown as the number of people endangered and trapped by this heretical theory has increased. There was a rich promise of joy in the thought of the many who might be saved if they could know the mysteries of the right faith in God and abandon the blasphemous principles of human folly, leave the heretics and surrender themselves to God. If they would forsake the bait with which the fowler snares his prey and soar upward in freedom and safety, following Christ as Leader, prophets as instructors, apostles as guides, and accepting the perfect faith and sure salvation in the confession of Father and Son—then they would, in obedience to the words of the Lord, "He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which has sent Him" (John 5:23), be setting themselves to honor the Father through honor paid to the Son.

2. For my own part, it was not only the claim which my vocation has upon me, the duty of diligently preaching the Gospel which, as a bishop, I owe to the Church, that has led me on. My eagerness to write has increased with the increasing numbers endangered and enthralled by this heretical theory. There was a rich prospect of joy in the thought of multitudes who might be saved, if they could know the mysteries of the right faith in God, and abandon the blasphemous principles of human folly, desert the heretics and surrender themselves to God; if they would forsake the bait with which the fowler snares his prey, and soar aloft in freedom and safety, following Christ as Leader, prophets as instructors, apostles as guides, and accepting the perfect faith and sure salvation in the confession of Father and of Son. So would they, in obedience to the words of the Lord, He that honours not the Son honours not the Father which has sent Him John 5:23, be setting themselves to honour the Father, through honour paid to the Son.

Recently, the infection of a deadly evil has spread among humanity, and its ravages have brought destruction and death everywhere. The sudden devastation of cities struck down by earthquakes, burying their inhabitants, the terrible slaughter of repeated wars, and the widespread deaths from an unstoppable plague have never caused such fatal harm as the spread of this heresy throughout the world. For God, to whom all the dead are alive, destroys only those who destroy themselves. From Him who will be the Judge of all, whose Majesty will temper with mercy the punishment assigned to the mistakes of ignorance, those who deny Him can expect not even judgment, but only denial.

3. For of late the infection of a mortal evil has gone abroad among mankind, whose ravages have dealt destruction and death on every hand. The sudden desolation of cities smitten, with their people in them, by earthquake to the ground, the terrible slaughter of recurring wars, the widespread mortality of an irresistible pestilence, have never wrought such fatal mischief as the progress of this heresy throughout the world. For God, unto Whom all the dead live, destroys those only who are self-destroyed. From Him Who is to be the Judge of all, Whose Majesty will temper with mercy the punishment allotted to the mistakes of ignorance, they who deny Him can expect not even judgment, but only denial.

For this insane heresy does deny—it denies the mystery of the true faith by using statements borrowed from our confession, which it twists for its own godless purposes. The confession of their false belief, which I have already quoted in an earlier book, begins like this: We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty. They parade the opening words of our own confession, which says, One God, alone unmade and alone unoriginate, so that this appearance of truth may serve as an introduction to their blasphemous additions. For, after many words in which an equally insincere devotion to the Son is expressed, their confession continues, God's perfect creature, but not as one of His other creatures, His Handiwork, but not as His other works. And again, after an interval in which true statements are occasionally mixed in to hide their wicked purpose of claiming, as they try to prove through trickery, that He came into existence out of nothing, they add, He, created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born. And finally, as though every point of their false doctrine—that He is to be regarded neither as Son nor as God—were safely protected against attack, they continue: As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they are understood to mean that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of that one ousia, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter. But, since we are now about to cover the whole subject once more, using this time the language of the Gospels as our weapon against this most godless heresy, it has seemed best to repeat here, in the sixth book, the whole heretical document, though we have already given a complete copy of it in the fourth, so that our opponents may read it again, and compare it, point by point, with our reply, and so be forced, however unwilling and argumentative, by the clear teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles, to recognize the truth. The heretical confession is as follows:

4. For this mad heresy does deny; it denies the mystery of the true faith by means of statements borrowed from our confession, which it employs for its own godless ends. The confession of their misbelief, which I have already cited in an earlier book, begins thus:– We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty. Thus they parade the opening words of our own confession, which runs, One God, alone unmade and alone un-originate, that this semblance of truth may serve as introduction to their blasphemous additions. For, after a multitude of words in which an equally insincere devotion to the Son is expressed, their confession continues, God's perfect creature, but not as one of His other creatures, His Handiwork, but not as His other works. And again, after an interval in which true statements are occasionally interspersed in order to veil their impious purpose of alleging, as by sophistry they try to prove, that He came into existence out of nothing, they add, He, created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born. And lastly, as though every point of their false doctrine, that He is to be regarded neither as Son nor as God, were guarded impregnably against assault, they continue:– As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they be understood to denote that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of that one substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter. But, as we are now about to cover the whole ground once more, employing this time the language of the Gospels as our weapon against this most godless heresy, it has seemed best to repeat here, in the sixth book, the whole heretical document, though we have already given a full copy of it in the fourth, in order that our opponents may read it again, and compare it, point by point, with our reply, and so be forced, however reluctant and argumentative, by the clear teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles, to recognise the truth. The heretical confession is as follows:–

We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through whom he made the world and all things. He gave birth to him not in appearance but in truth, according to his own will, so that the Son is unchangeable and unalterable, God's perfect creature but not like his other creatures, his handiwork but not like his other works. The Son is not, as Valentinus claimed, a development of the Father, nor, as Manichaeus declared, a consubstantial part of the Father, nor, as Sabellius taught when he makes two out of one—Son and Father at once—nor, as Hieracas said, a light from a light or a lamp with two flames, nor, as if he previously existed and was then afterward born or created anew to be a Son, an idea you yourself, blessed Pope, have often publicly condemned in the church and in the assembly of the brethren. Rather, as we have stated, we believe that he was created by the will of God before times and worlds, and has his life and existence from the Father, who gave him to share his own glorious perfections. For when the Father gave to him the inheritance of all things, he did not thereby deprive himself of attributes which are his without origination, he being the source of all things.

5. We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through Whom He made the world and all things, that He gave birth to Him not in semblance, but in truth, following His own will, so that He is unchangeable and unalterable, God's perfect Creature, but not as one of His other creatures, His Handiwork, but not as His other works; not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father, nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a consubstantial part of the Father, nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out of One, Son and Father at once, nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames, nor, as if He was previously in being and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son, a notion often condemned by yourself, blessed Pope, publicly in the Church, and in the assembly of the brethren. But, as we have affirmed, we believe that He was created by the will of God before times and worlds, and has His life and existence from the Father, Who gave Him to share His own glorious perfections. For, when the Father gave to Him the inheritance of all things, He did not thereby deprive Himself of attributes which are His without origination, He being the source of all things.

6. So there are three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God, for His part, is the Cause of all things, utterly unoriginate and separate from all. The Son was put forth by the Father outside time, and created and established before the worlds. He did not exist before He was born, but being born outside time before the worlds, He came into being as the Only Son of the Only Father. For He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-unoriginate with the Father, nor does He have an existence alongside the Father, as some say who claim there are two unborn first principles. But God is before all things, as being indivisible and the beginning of all. Therefore He is before the Son also, as we have indeed learned from you in your public preaching. Since the Son has His being from God, and His glorious perfections, and His life, and is entrusted with all things, for this reason God is His Source. For He rules over Him, as being His God, since He is before Him. As for such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they are understood to mean that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of that one ousia, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them. And thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter.

6. So there are three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God, for His part, is the Cause of all things, utterly unoriginate and separate from all; while the Son, put forth by the Father outside time, and created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born, but, being born outside time before the worlds, came into being as the Only Son of the Only Father. For He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-uncreate with the Father, nor has He an existence collateral with the Father, as some say who postulate two unborn principles. But God is before all things, as being indivisible and the beginning of all. Wherefore He is before the Son also, as indeed we have learned from you in your public preaching. Inasmuch then as He has His being from God, and His glorious perfections, and His life, and is entrusted with all things, for this reason God is His Source. For He rules over Him, as being His God, since He is before Him. As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they be understood to denote that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of that one Substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter.

Who can fail to see here the slimy windings of the serpent's track: the coiled adder, with forces concentrated for the spring, concealing the deadly weapon of its poisonous fangs within its folds? Soon we shall stretch it out and examine it, and expose the venom of this hidden head. For their plan is first to impress with certain sound statements, and then to inject the poison of their heresy. They speak to us kindly in order to harm us secretly. Yet amid all their appealing claims, I nowhere hear God's Son called God; I never hear sonship attributed to the Son. They say much about His having the name of Son, but nothing about His having the physis. That is kept out of sight, so that He may seem to have no right even to the name. They make a show of exposing other heresies to conceal the fact that they are heretics themselves. They strenuously assert that there is One only, One true God, so that they may strip the Son of God of His true and personal Divinity.

7. Who can fail to see here the slimy windings of the serpent's track: the coiled adder, with forces concentrated for the spring, concealing the deadly weapon of its poisonous fangs within its folds? Presently we shall stretch it out and examine it, and expose the venom of this hidden head. For their plan is first to impress with certain sound statements, and then to infuse the poison of their heresy. They speak us fair, in order to work us secret harm. Yet, amid all their specious professions, I nowhere hear God's Son entitled God; I never hear sonship attributed to the Son. They say much about His having the name of Son, but nothing about His having the nature. That is kept out of sight, that He may seem to have no right even to the name. They make a show of unmasking other heresies to conceal the fact that they are heretics themselves. They strenuously assert that there is One only, One true God, to the end that they may strip the Son of God of His true and personal Divinity.

And so, although in the last two books I have proven from the teaching of the Law and Prophets that God and God, true God and true God, true God the Father and true God the Son, must be confessed as one true God through unity of nature and not through confusion of the Persons, still, for a complete presentation of the faith, I must also bring forward the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles. I must show from them that true God, the Son of God, is not of a different or alien nature from that of the Father, but possesses the same divinity while having a distinct existence through a true birth. And really, I cannot believe that any soul exists so senseless as to imagine that, although we know God's self-revelations, we cannot understand them; that if they can be understood, we would not want to understand them, or would think that human reasoning can devise improvements upon them. But before I begin to discuss the facts contained in these saving mysteries, I must first humble the pride with which these heretics condemn the names of other heresies. I will hold up to the light this clever disguise for their own impiety. I will show that this very means of hiding the deadliness of their teaching actually serves to reveal and expose it, and is a widely effective warning of the true character of this sweet-tasting poison.

8. And therefore, although in the two last books I have proved from the teaching of the Law and Prophets that God and God, true God and true God, true God the Father and true God the Son, must be confessed as One true God, by unity of nature and not by confusion of Persons, yet, for the complete presentation of the faith, I must also adduce the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles. I must show from them that true God, the Son of God, is not of a different, an alien nature from that of the Father, but possesses the same Divinity while having a distinct existence through a true birth. And, indeed, I cannot think that any soul exists so witless as to fancy that, although we know God's self-revelations, yet we cannot understand them; that, if they can be understood, would not wish to understand, or would dream that human reason can devise improvements upon them. But before I begin to discuss the facts contained in these saving mysteries, I must first humble the pride with which these heretics rebuke the names of other heresies. I shall hold up to the light this ingenious cloak for their own impiety. I shall show that this very means of concealing the deadliness of their teaching serves rather to reveal and betray it, and is a widely effectual warning of the true character of this honeyed poison.

For example, these heretics claim that the Son of God is not from God, and that God was not born from God out of and in the nature of God. To this end, when they solemnly confess One God, alone true, they deliberately leave out "the Father." Then, in order to avoid confessing one true Godhead of Father and Son by denying the true birth, they continue: "Not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father." In this way they think they can discredit the birth of God from God by calling it a development, as if it were a form of the Valentinian heresy. For Valentinus was the author of corrupt and foolish ideas. Besides the chief God, he invented a whole household of deities and countless powers called aeons, and taught that our Lord Jesus Christ was a development mysteriously brought about by a secret act of will. The faith of the Church, the faith of the Evangelists and Apostles, knows nothing of this imaginary development, which sprang from the mind of a reckless and senseless dreamer. It knows nothing of the Depth and Silence and the thirty aeons of Valentinus. It knows only One God the Father, from whom are all things, and One Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom are all things, who is God born from God. But it occurred to them that when he was born as God from God, he neither took anything away from the divinity of his Father nor was himself born as anything other than God. He became God not by a new beginning of deity but by birth from the existing God. And every birth appears, as far as human abilities can judge, to be a development, so that even this birth might be regarded as a development. These considerations have led them to attack the Valentinian heresy of development as a way of destroying faith in the true birth of the Son. For the experience of everyday life leads worldly wisdom to assume that there is no great difference between a birth and a development. The mind of man, dull and slow to grasp the things of God, needs to be constantly reminded of the principle I have stated more than once: that comparisons drawn from human experience do not perfectly apply to the mysteries of Divine power. Their only value is that this comparison with material objects gives the spirit some notion of heavenly things, so that we may rise, as if by a ladder of nature, to an understanding of the majesty of God. But the birth of God must not be judged by the kind of development that takes place in human births. When One is born from One, God born from God, the circumstances of human birth enable us to grasp the fact, but a birth that requires intercourse and conception and time and labor can give us no insight into the Divine method. When we are told that God was born from God, we must accept it as true that he was born, and be content with that. However, in the proper place we will discuss the truth of the Divine birth as the Gospels and the Apostles present it. Our present duty has been to expose this device of heretical cleverness, this attack upon the true birth of Christ concealed under the form of an attack upon a so-called development.

9. For instance, these heretics would have it that the Son of God is not from God; that God was not born from God out of, and in, the nature of God. To this end, when they have solemnly borne witness to One God, alone true, they refrain from adding The Father. And then, in order to escape from confessing one true Godhead of Father and of Son by a denial of the true birth, they proceed, Not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father. Thus they think to cast discredit upon the birth of God from God by calling it a development, as though it were a form of the Valentinian heresy. For Valentinus was the author of foul and foolish imaginations; beside the chief God, he invented a whole household of deities and countless powers called æons, and taught that our Lord Jesus Christ was a development mysteriously brought about by a secret action of will. The faith of the Church, the faith of the Evangelists and Apostles, knows nothing of this imaginary development, sprung from the brain of a reckless and senseless dreamer. It knows nothing of the Depth and Silence and the thrice ten æons of Valentinus. It knows none but One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and One Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things, Who is God born from God. But it occurred to them that He, in being born as God from God, neither withdrew anything from the Divinity of His Author nor was Himself born other than God; that He became God not by a new beginning of Deity but by birth from the existing God; and that every birth appears, as far as human faculties can judge, to be a development, so that even that birth might be regarded as a development. And these considerations have induced them to make an attack upon the Valentinian heresy of development as a means of destroying faith in the true birth of the Son. For the experience of common life leads worldly wisdom to suppose that there is no great difference between a birth and a development. The mind of man, dull and slow to grasp the things of God, needs to be constantly reminded of the principle, which I have stated more than once, that analogies drawn from human experience are not of perfect application to the mysteries of Divine power; that their only value is that this comparison with material objects imparts to the spirit such a notion of heavenly things that we may rise, as by a ladder of nature, to an apprehension of the majesty of God. But the birth of God must not be judged by such development as takes place in human births. When One is born from One, God born from God, the circumstances of human birth enable us to apprehend the fact; but a birth which presupposes intercourse and conception and time and travail can give us no clue to the Divine method. When we are told that God was born from God, we must accept it as true that He was born, and be content with that. We shall, however, in the proper place discourse of the truth of the Divine birth, as the Gospels and the Apostles set it forth. Our present duty has been to expose this device of heretical ingenuity, this attack upon the true birth of Christ, concealed under the form of an attack upon a so-called development.

Continuing this same deceptive attack on the faith, their confession goes on: "Nor, as Manichaeus has declared of the Son, a consubstantial part of the Father." They have already denied that He is a development, so they can avoid admitting His birth. Now they bring up the doctrine that the Son is a portion of the one divine substance—labeling it with the name of Manichaeus—and deny it, in order to undermine belief in God from God. For Manichaeus, the fierce opponent of the Law and Prophets, the passionate advocate of the devil's cause and blind worshiper of the sun, taught that what was in the Virgin's womb was a portion of the one divine substance, and that by the Son we must understand a certain piece of God's substance that was cut off and appeared in the flesh. So they exploit this heresy—that in the birth of the Son there was a division of the one substance—and use it as a way to evade the doctrine of the birth of the Only-begotten and the very name of the unity of substance. Because it is complete blasphemy to speak of a birth resulting from division of the one substance, they deny any birth at all. They condemn all forms of birth along with the Manichaean idea of birth by severance. And again, they abolish the unity of substance, both name and reality, because the heretics claim that the unity is divisible. They deny that the Son is God from God by refusing to believe that He truly possesses the divine nature. Why does this insane heresy put on a false show of reverence, a senseless concern? The faith of the Church does, as these deranged teachers of error remind us, condemn Manichaeus, for she knows nothing of the Son as a portion. She knows Him as whole God from whole God, as One from One, not severed but born. She is certain that the birth of God involves neither impoverishment of the Begetter nor inferiority of the Begotten. If this is the Church's own invention, accuse her of the foolishness of falsely claimed wisdom. But if she has learned it from her Lord, confess that the Begotten knows the manner of His begetting. She has learned from God the Only-begotten these truths: that Father and Son are One, and that in the Son the fullness of the Godhead dwells. Therefore she rejects this attribution to the Son of a portion of the one substance. And because she knows that He was truly born of God, she worships the Son as rightful Possessor of true Divinity. But for now, let us postpone our full answer to these various accusations and move quickly through the rest of their denunciations.

10. And then, in continuation of this same fraudulent assault upon the faith, their confession proceeds thus:– Nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a consubstantial part of the Father. They have already denied that He is a development, in order to escape from the admission of His birth; now they introduce, labelled with the name of Manichæus, the doctrine that the Son is a portion of the one Divine substance, and deny it, in order to subvert the belief in God from God. For Manichæus, the furious adversary of the Law and Prophets, the strenuous champion of the devil's cause and blind worshipper of the sun, taught that That which was in the Virgin's womb was a portion of the one Divine substance, and that by the Son we must understand a certain piece of God's substance which was cut off, and made its appearance in the flesh. And so they make the most of this heresy that in the birth of the Son there was a division of the one substance and use it as a means of evading the doctrine of the birth of the Only-begotten, and the very name of the unity of substance. Because it is sheer blasphemy to speak of a birth resulting from division of the one substance they deny any birth; all forms of birth are joined in the condemnation which they pass upon the Manichæan notion of birth by severance. And again, they abolish the unity of substance, both name and thing, because the heretics hold that the unity is divisible; and deny that the Son is God from God, by refusing to believe that He is truly possessed of the Divine nature. Why does this mad heresy profess a fictitious reverence, a senseless anxiety? The faith of the Church does, as these insane propounders of error remind us, condemn Manichæus, for she knows nothing of the Son as a portion. She knows Him as whole God from whole God, as One from One, not severed but born. She is assured that the birth of God involves neither impoverishment of the Begetter nor inferiority of the Begotten. If this be the Church's own imagining, reproach her with the follies of a wisdom falsely claimed; but if she have learned it from her Lord, confess that the Begotten knows the manner of His begetting. She has learned from God the Only-begotten these truths, that Father and Son are One, and that in the Son the fullness of the Godhead dwells. And therefore she loathes this attribution to the Son of a portion of the one substance; and, because she knows that He was truly born of God, she worships the Son as rightful Possessor of true Divinity. But, for the present, let us defer our full answer to these several allegations, and hasten through the rest of their denunciations.

What follows is this: "Nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out of One, Son and Father at once." Sabellius holds this position in willful blindness to the revelation of the Evangelists and Apostles. But what we see here is not one heretic honestly denouncing another. It is the wish to leave no point of union between Father and Son that prompts them to reproach Sabellius with his division of an indivisible Person. This is a division that does not result in the birth of a second Person, but cuts the One Person into two parts, one of which enters the Virgin's womb. But we confess a birth. We reject this confusion of two Persons in One, while yet we hold fast to the divine unity. That is, we maintain that God from God means unity of nature, for that Being who, by a true birth from God, became God, can draw His substance from no other source than the divine. And since He continues to draw His being, as He drew it at first, from God, He must remain true God forever. Therefore, these Two are One, for He who is God from God has no other than the divine nature and no other than the divine origin. But the reason why this blasphemous Sabellian confusion of two Persons into One is condemned here is that they wish to rob the Church of her true faith in Two Persons in One God. But now I must examine the remaining instances of this perverted ingenuity, to save myself from the reputation of a censorious judge of sincere enquirers, moved rather by dislike than genuine fear. I shall show, by the terms with which they wind up their confession, what is the deadly conclusion which they have skillfully contrived shall be its inevitable result.

11. What follows is this:– Nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out of One, Son and Father at once. Sabellius holds this in wilful blindness to the revelation of the Evangelists and Apostles. But what we see here is not one heretic honestly denouncing another. It is the wish to leave no point of union between Father and Son that prompts them to reproach Sabellius with his division of an indivisible Person; a division which does not result in the birth of a second Person, but cuts the One Person into two parts, one of which enters the Virgin's womb. But we confess a birth; we reject this confusion of two Persons in One, while yet we cleave to the Divine unity. That is, we hold that God from God means unity of nature; for that Being, Who, by a true birth from God, became God, can draw His substance from no other source than the Divine. And since He continues to draw His being, as He drew it at first, from God, He must remain true God for ever; and hence They Two are One, for He, Who is God from God, has no other than the Divine nature, and no other than the Divine origin. But the reason why this blasphemous Sabellian confusion of two Persons into One is here condemned is that they wish to rob the Church of her true faith in Two Persons in One God. But now I must examine the remaining instances of this perverted ingenuity, to save myself from the reputation of a censorious judge of sincere enquirers, moved rather by dislike than genuine fear. I shall show, by the terms with which they wind up their confession, what is the deadly conclusion which they have skilfully contrived shall be its inevitable issue.

Their next clause is: "Nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames, nor as if He was previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son." Hieracas ignores the birth of the Only-begotten, and in complete ignorance of the meaning of the Gospel revelations, talks about two flames from one lamp. This matching pair of flames, fed by the supply of oil contained in one bowl, is his illustration of the substance of Father and Son. It is as though that substance were something separate from each Person, like the oil in the lamp, which is distinct from the two flames even though they depend on it for their existence; or like the wick, made of one material throughout and burning at both ends, which is distinct from the flames yet provides them and connects them together. All this is merely a delusion of human foolishness, which has trusted in itself rather than in God for knowledge. But the true faith asserts that God is born from God, as light from light, which pours itself out without diminishing itself, giving what it has yet still having what it gave. It asserts that by his birth he was what he is, for as he is so was he born; that his birth was the gift of the existing Life, a gift which did not lessen the store from which it was taken; and that the Two are One, for he from whom he is born is as himself, and he who was born has neither another source nor another nature, for he is Light from Light. It is in order to draw people's faith away from this, the true doctrine, that this lantern or lamp of Hieracas is thrown in the teeth of those who confess Light from Light. Because the phrase has been used in a heretical sense and condemned both now and in earlier times, they want to persuade us that there is no true sense in which it can be used. Let heresy immediately abandon these groundless fears and stop claiming to be the protector of the Church's faith on the basis of a reputation for zeal earned so dishonestly. For we allow nothing bodily, nothing lifeless, to have a place among the attributes of God; whatever is God is perfect God. In him is nothing but power, life, light, blessedness, Spirit. That nature contains no dull, material elements; being immutable, it has no inconsistencies within it. God, because he is God, is unchangeable; and the unchangeable God begot God. Their bond of union is not, like that of two flames or two wicks of one lamp, something outside themselves. The birth of the Only-begotten Son from God is not an extension in space, but a begetting; not a stretching out, but Light from Light. For the unity of light with light is a unity of nature, not unbroken continuation.

12. Their next clause is:– Nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames, nor as if He was previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son. Hieracas ignores the birth of the Only-begotten, and, in complete unconsciousness of the meaning of the Gospel revelations, talks of two flames from one lamp. This symmetrical pair of flames, fed by the supply of oil contained in one bowl, is His illustration of the substance of Father and Son. It is as though that substance were something separate from Either Person, like the oil in the lamp, which is distinct from the two flames, though they depend upon it for their existence; or like the wick, of one material throughout and burning at both ends, which is distinct from the flames, yet provides them and connects them together. All this is a mere delusion of human folly, which has trusted to itself, and not to God, for knowledge. But the true faith asserts that God is born from God, as light from light, which pours itself forth without self-diminution, giving what it has yet having what it gave. It asserts that by His birth He was what He is, for as He is so was He born; that His birth was the gift of the existing Life, a gift which did not lessen the store from which it was taken; and that They Two are One, for He, from Whom He is born, is as Himself, and He that was born has neither another source nor another nature, for He is Light from Light. It is in order to draw men's faith away from this, the true doctrine, that this lantern or lamp of Hieracas is cast in the teeth of those who confess Light from Light. Because the phrase has been used in an heretical sense, and condemned both now and in earlier days, they want to persuade us that there is no true sense in which it can be employed. Let heresy immediately abandon these groundless fears, and refrain from claiming to be the protector of the Church's faith on the score of a reputation for zeal earned so dishonestly. For we allow nothing bodily, nothing lifeless, to have a place among the attributes of God; whatever is God is perfect God. In Him is nothing but power, life, light, blessedness, Spirit. That nature contains no dull, material elements; being immutable, it has no incongruities within it. God, because He is God, is unchangeable; and the unchangeable God begot God. Their bond of union is not, like that of two flames, two wicks of one lamp, something outside Themselves. The birth of the Only-begotten Son from God is not a prolongation in space, but a begetting; not an extension, but Light from Light. For the unity of light with light is a unity of nature, not unbroken continuation.

And again, what a remarkable example of heretical cleverness is this: "Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born or created afresh, to be a Son." God, since He was born from God, was certainly not born from nothing or from things that do not exist. His birth was that of the eternally living nature. Yet, though He is God, He is not identical with the pre-existing God; God was born from God Who existed before Him; in and by His birth He partook of the nature of His Source. If we are speaking our own words, all this is mere irreverence; but if, as we will prove, God Himself has taught us how to speak, then we are under obligation to confess the Divine birth in the sense revealed by God. And it is this unity of nature in Father and in Son, this ineffable mystery of the living birth, which the madness of heresy is struggling to banish from belief when it says, "Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son." Now who is senseless enough to suppose that the Father ceased to be Himself; that the same Person Who had previously existed was afterwards born, or created afresh, to be the Son? That God disappeared, and that His disappearance was followed by an emergence in birth, when, in fact, that birth is evidence of the continuous existence of its Author? Or who is so insane as to suppose that a Son can come into existence otherwise than through birth? Who is so void of reason as to say that the birth of God resulted in anything other than God being born? The abiding God was not born, but God was born from the abiding God; the nature bestowed in that birth was the very nature of the Begetter. And God by His birth, which was from God into God, received, because His was a true birth, not things newly created but things which were and are the permanent possession of God. Thus it is not the pre-existent God that was born; yet God was born, and began to exist, out of and with the properties of God. And thus we see how heresy, throughout this long prelude, has been treacherously leading up to this most blasphemous doctrine. Its goal being to deny God the Only-begotten, it starts with what appears to be a defense of truth, only to go on to the assertion that Christ is born not from God but out of nothing, and that His birth is due to the Divine counsel of creation from the non-existent.

13. And again, what a wonderful example of heretical ingenuity is this:– Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born or created afresh, to be a Son. God, since He was born from God, was assuredly not born from nothing, nor from things non-existent. His birth was that of the eternally living nature. Yet, though He is God, He is not identical with the pre-existing God; God was born from God Who existed before Him; in, and by, His birth He partook of the nature of His Source. If we are speaking words of our own, all this is mere irreverence; but if, as we shall prove, God Himself has taught us how to speak, then the necessity is laid upon us of confessing the Divine birth in the sense revealed by God. And it is this unity of nature in Father and in Son, this ineffable mystery of the living birth, which the madness of heresy is struggling to banish from belief, when it says, Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son. Now who is senseless enough to suppose that the Father ceased to be Himself; that the same Person Who had previously existed was afterwards born, or created afresh, to be the Son? That God disappeared, and that His disappearance was followed by an emergence in birth, when, in fact, that birth is evidence of the continuous existence of its Author? Or who is so insane as to suppose that a Son can come into existence otherwise than through birth? Who so void of reason as to say that the birth of God resulted in anything else than in God being born? The abiding God was not born, but God was born from the abiding God; the nature bestowed in that birth was the very nature of the Begetter. And God by His birth, which was from God into God, received, because His was a true birth, not things new-created but things which were and are the permanent possession of God. Thus it is not the pre-existent God that was born; yet God was born, and began to exist, out of and with the properties of God. And thus we see how heresy, throughout this long prelude, has been treacherously leading up to this most blasphemous doctrine. Its object being to deny God the Only-begotten, it starts with what purports to be a defense of truth, to go on to the assertion that Christ is born not from God but out of nothing, and that His birth is due to the Divine counsel of creation from the non-existent.

After a deliberate pause designed to prepare us for what follows, their heresy launches this attack: "While the Son, brought forth outside of time and created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born." This phrase "He did not exist before He was born" is a formula by which the heresy flatters itself that it achieves two goals: support for its blasphemy and a defense if its teaching is challenged. Support for its blasphemy, because if He did not exist before He was born, He cannot be of one nature with His eternal Origin. He must have His beginning from nothing, if He possesses no powers except those that began at His birth. And a defense for its heresy, because if this statement is condemned, it provides a ready answer. It will be said that He who already existed could not be born; already being in existence, He could not possibly come into being by undergoing the process of birth, since the very meaning of birth is the entry into existence of the one who is born. Fool and blasphemer! Who imagines birth in the case of Him who is unborn and eternal? How can we think of God, who is "I AM," being born, when being born implies the process of birth? It is the birth of God the Only-begotten from God His Father that you are trying to disprove, and it was your intention to escape the confession of that truth by means of this "He did not exist before He was born"—the confession that God, from whom the Son of God was born, existed eternally, and that it is from His abiding nature that God the Son draws His existence through birth. If, then, the Son is born from God, you must confess that His is a birth from that abiding nature—not a birth of the pre-existing God, but a birth of God from God the pre-existent.

14. And then again, after an interval designed to prepare us for what is coming, their heresy delivers this assault — While the Son, put forth outside time, and created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born. This He did not exist before He was born is a form of words by which the heresy flatters itself that it gains two ends; support for its blasphemy, and a screen for itself if its doctrine be arraigned. A support for its blasphemy, because, if He did not exist before He was born, He cannot be of one nature with His eternal Origin. He must have His beginning out of nothing, if He have no powers but such as are coeval with His birth. And a screen for its heresy, for if this statement be condemned, it furnishes a ready answer. He that did exist, it will be said, could not be born; being in existence already, He could not possibly come into being by passing through the process of birth, for the very meaning of birth is the entry into existence of the being that is born. Fool and blasphemer! Who dreams of birth in the case of Him Who is the unborn and eternal? How can we think of God, Who is Exodus 3:14, being born, when being born implies the process of birth? It is the birth of God the Only-begotten from God His Father that you are striving to disprove, and it was your purpose to escape the confession of that truth by means of this He did not exist before He was born; the confession that God, from Whom the Son of God was born, did exist eternally, and that it is from His abiding nature that God the Son draws His existence through birth. If, then, the Son is born from God, you must confess that His is a birth of that abiding nature; not a birth of the pre-existing God, but a birth of God from God the pre-existent.

The passionate intensity of this heresy is so great that it cannot hold back from emotional outbursts. In trying to prove—in keeping with its claim that He did not exist before He was born—that the Son was born from the non-existent (that is, that He was not born from God the Father to be God the Son through a true and perfect birth), it concludes its confession by erupting in fury and hostility to the highest possible level of blasphemy: "As for phrases like 'from Him,' and 'from the womb,' and 'I went out from the Father and have come,' if they are taken to mean that the Father extends a part, and something like an extension of that one ousia, then the Father will be composite in nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter." Defending the true faith against the lies of heresy would certainly be a laborious and difficult task if we had to follow their reasoning as far as they have descended into godlessness. Fortunately for our purposes, it is shallow thinking that has produced their eagerness to blaspheme. And so, while it is easy to refute the foolishness, it is hard to correct the fool, for he will neither work out correct conclusions for himself nor accept them when someone else offers them. Yet I trust that those who are trapped in error through pious ignorance rather than through deliberate foolishness born of arrogance will welcome correction. For our demonstration of the truth will provide convincing proof that heresy is nothing other than foolishness.

15. But the fiery zeal of this heresy is such that it cannot restrain itself from passionate outbreak. In its effort to prove, in conformity with its assertion that He did not exist before He was born, that the Son was born from the non-existent, that is, that He was not born from God the Father to be God the Son by a true and perfect birth, it winds up its confession by rising in rage and hatred to the highest pitch of possible blasphemy:– As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they be understood to denote that the Father extends a part, and, as it were, a development of that one substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter. The defense of the true faith against the falsehoods of heresy would indeed be a task of toil and difficulty, if it were needful for us to follow the processes of thought as far as they have plunged into the depths of godlessness. Happily for our purpose it is shallowness of thought that has engendered their eagerness to blaspheme. And hence, while it is easy to refute the folly, it is difficult to amend the fool, for he will neither think out right conclusions for himself, nor accept them when offered by another. Yet I trust that they who in pious ignorance, not in wilful folly bred of self-conceit, are enchained by error, will welcome correction. For our demonstration of the truth will afford convincing proof that heresy is nothing else than folly.

You said in your unreason, and you are still repeating today, ignorant that your wisdom is a defiance of God: As to such phrases as "from Him," and "from the womb," and "I went out from the Father and have come," I ask you, Are these phrases, or are they not, words of God? They certainly are His. And since they are spoken by God about Himself, we are bound to accept them exactly as they were spoken. We shall speak about the phrases themselves and the precise force of each in the proper place. For now I will only put this question to the intelligence of every reader: When we see "From Himself," are we to take it as equivalent to "From some one else," or to "From nothing," or are we to accept it as the truth? It is not "From some one else," for it is "From Himself"—that is, His Godhead has no other source than God. It is not "From nothing," for it is "From Himself"—a declaration of the nature from which His birth is. It is not "Himself," but "From Himself"—a statement that They are related as Father and Son. And next, when the revelation "From the womb" is made, I ask whether we can possibly believe that He is born from nothing, when the truth of His birth is clearly indicated in terms borrowed from bodily functions. It is not because He has bodily members that God records the generation of the Son in the words, "I bore You from the womb before the morning star." He uses language which assists our understanding to assure us that His Only-begotten Son was ineffably born of His own true Godhead. His purpose is to educate human faculties up to the knowledge of the faith by clothing divine verities in words descriptive of human circumstances. Thus, when He says, "From the womb," He is teaching us that His Only-begotten was, in the divine sense, born, and did not come into existence by means of creation out of nothing. And lastly, when the Son said, "I went forth from the Father and have come," did He leave it doubtful whether His Divinity were, or were not, derived from the Father? He went out from the Father—that is, He had a birth, and the Father, and no other, gave Him that birth. He bears witness that He from Whom He declares that He came forth is the Author of His being. The proof and interpretation of all this shall be given hereafter.

16. You said in your unreason, and you are still repeating today, ignorant that your wisdom is a defiance of God, As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, I ask you, Are these phrases, or are they not, words of God? They certainly are His; and, since they are spoken by God about Himself, we are bound to accept them exactly as they were spoken. Concerning the phrases themselves, and the precise force of each, we shall speak in the proper place. For the present I will only put this question to the intelligence of every reader; When we see From Himself, are we to take it as equivalent to From some one else, or to From nothing, or are we to accept it as the truth? It is not From some one else, for it is From Himself; that is, His Godhead has no other source than God. It is not From nothing, for it is From Himself; a declaration of the nature from which His birth is. It is not Himself, but From Himself; a statement that They are related as Father and Son. And next, when the revelation From the womb is made, I ask whether we can possibly believe that He is born from nothing, when the truth of His birth is clearly indicated in terms borrowed from bodily functions. It is not because He has bodily members, that God records the generation of the Son in the words, I bore You from the womb before the morning star. He uses language which assists our understanding to assure us that His Only-begotten Son was ineffably born of His own true Godhead. His purpose is to educate the faculties of men up to the knowledge of the faith, by clothing Divine verities in words descriptive of human circumstances. Thus, when He says, From the womb, He is teaching us that His Only-begotten was, in the Divine sense, born, and did not come into existence by means of creation out of nothing. And lastly, when the Son said, I went forth from the Father and have come, did He leave it doubtful whether His Divinity were, or were not, derived from the Father? He went out from the Father; that is, He had a birth, and the Father, and no other, gave Him that birth. He bears witness that He, from Whom He declares that He came forth, is the Author of His being. The proof and interpretation of all this shall be given hereafter.

You spoke in your foolishness, and you are still saying today—unaware that your wisdom defies God—regarding phrases like "from Him," "from the womb," and "I went out from the Father and have come," I ask you: Are these phrases words of God or not? They certainly are His, and since they are spoken by God about Himself, we must accept them exactly as they were spoken.

But let us see what basis these people have for the confidence with which they forbid us to accept as true God's own statements about Himself—statements whose authenticity they do not deny. What worse insult could human foolishness and arrogance throw at God's self-revelation than condemning it by correcting it? Even doubt and criticism are not enough for them. What could be worse than this irreverent tampering with and disputing of God's nature and power? What could be worse than the arrogance of saying that if the Son is from God, then God must be changeable and corporeal, since He has extended or developed a part of Himself to be His Son? Where does this anxiety to prove God's immutability come from? We confess the birth, we proclaim the Only-begotten, because God has taught us this. You, in order to remove the birth and the Only-begotten from the Church's faith, confront us with an unchangeable God who by His physis is incapable of extension or development. I could present examples of birth, even in natures belonging to this world, that would refute this miserable delusion that every birth must be an extension. And I could save you from the error that a being can come into existence only at the cost of loss to what begets it, for there are many examples of life transmitted from one living creature to another without bodily intercourse. But it would be wrong to deal in evidence when God has spoken, and it would be the ultimate madness to deny His authority to give us a faith, when our worship is a confession that He alone can give us life. For if life comes through Him alone, must He not be the Author of the faith that is the condition of that life? And if we consider Him an untrustworthy witness concerning Himself, how can we be sure of the life that is His gift?

17. But meanwhile let us see what ground these men have for the confidence with which they forbid us to accept as true the utterances of God concerning Himself; utterances, the authenticity of which they do not deny. What more grievous insult could be flung by human folly and insolence at God's self-revelation, than a condemnation of it, shown in correction? For not even doubt and criticism will satisfy them. What more grievous than this profane handling and disputing of the nature and power of God? Than the presumption of saying that, if the Son is from God, then God is changeable and corporeal, since He has extended or developed a part of Himself to be His Son? Whence this anxiety to prove the immutability of God? We confess the birth, we proclaim the Only-begotten, for so God has taught us. You, in order to banish the birth and the Only-begotten from the faith of the Church, confront us with an unchangeable God, incapable, by His nature, of extension or development. I could bring forward instances of birth, even in natures belonging to this world, which would refute this wretched delusion that every birth must be an extension. And I could save you from the error that a being can come into existence only at the cost of loss to that which begets it, for there are many examples of life transmitted, without bodily intercourse, from one living creature to another. But it would be impious to deal in evidences, when God has spoken; and the utmost excess of madness to deny His authority to give us a faith, when our worship is a confession that He alone can give us life. For if life comes through Him alone, must not He be the Author of the faith which is the condition of that life? And if we hold Him an untrustworthy witness concerning Himself, how can we be sure of the life which is His gift?

You attribute the birth of the Son to an act of creative will, most godless of heretics. You say that He is not born from God, but that He was created and came into existence by the Creator's choice. And the unity of the Godhead, as you interpret it, will not allow Him to be God, because since God remains One, the Son cannot keep His original nature in the state into which He has been born. You say He has been given, through creation, a substance different from the Divine, although as the Only-begotten in some sense, He is superior to God's other creatures and works. You say that He was raised up so that He in turn might perform the task assigned to Him of raising up the created world, but that His birth did not give Him the Divine nature. According to you, He was born in the sense that He came into existence out of nothing. You call Him a Son, not because He was born from God, but because He was created by God. For you recall that God has considered even holy men worthy of this title, and you think it is assigned to the Son in exactly the same sense as the words, "I have said, You are Gods, and all of you sons of the Most High," were spoken—that is, that He bears the name through the Giver's condescension, and not by right of nature. Thus, in your view, He is Son by adoption, God by gift of the title, Only-begotten by favor, First-born in date, in every sense a creature, in no sense God. For you hold that His generation was not a birth from God in the natural sense, but the beginning of the life of a created substance.

18. For you attribute, most godless of heretics, the birth of the Son to an act of creative will; you say that He is not born from God, but that He was created and came into existence by the choice of the Creator. And the unity of the Godhead, as you interpret it, will not allow Him to be God, for, since God remains One, the Son cannot retain His original nature in that state into which He has been born. He has been endowed, through creation, you say, with a substance different from the Divine, although, being in a sense the Only-begotten, He is superior to God's other creatures and works. You say that He was raised up, that He in His turn might perform the task committed to Him of raising up the created world; but that His birth did not confer upon Him the Divine nature. He was born, according to you, in the sense that He came into existence out of nothing. You call Him a Son, not because He was born from God, but because He was created by God. For you call to mind that God has deemed even holy men worthy of this title, and you consider that it is assigned to the Son in exactly the same sense in which the words, I have said, You are Gods, and all of you sons of the Most High, were spoken; that is, that He bears the name through the Giver's condescension, and not by right of nature. Thus, in your eyes, He is Son by adoption, God by gift of the title, Only-begotten by favour, First-born in date, in every sense a creature, in no sense God. For you hold that His generation was not a birth from God, in the natural sense, but the beginning of the life of a created substance.

Almighty God, I must first ask You to forgive my excessive anger and allow me to speak to You. Next, I ask You to grant me—dust and ashes though I am, yet bound to You in loyal devotion—freedom to speak in this debate. There was a time when I, poor wretch, did not exist, before my life and awareness and identity began. I owe my life to Your mercy, and I have no doubt that You in Your goodness gave me birth for my benefit, since You, who have no need of me, would never have made the beginning of my life the beginning of evil. Then, when You breathed into me the breath of life and gave me the power of thought, You instructed me in the knowledge of Yourself through the sacred books given to us by Your servants Moses and the prophets. From them I learned Your revelation that we must not worship You as a solitary God. Their pages taught me about God, not different from You in nature but one with You in mysterious unity of substance. I learned that You are God in God, not by any mixing or confusion but by Your very nature, since the Divinity which is Yourself dwells in Him who is from You. But the true doctrine of the perfect birth revealed that You, the Indwelt, and You, the Indweller, are not one prosopon, yet You dwell in Him who is from You. The voices of the Evangelists and Apostles repeat this teaching, and the very words that came from the holy mouth of Your Only-begotten are recorded, telling how Your Son, God the Only-begotten from You the Unbegotten God, was born of the Virgin as man to fulfill the mystery of my salvation—how You dwell in Him by virtue of His true generation from Yourself, and He in You because of the nature given in His abiding birth from You.

19. And now, Almighty God, I first must pray You to forgive my excess of indignation, and permit me to address You; and next to grant me, dust and ashes as I am, yet bound in loyal devotion to Yourself, freedom of utterance in this debate. There was a time when I, poor wretch, was not; before my life and consciousness and personality began to exist. It is to Your mercy that I owe my life; and I doubt not that Thou, in Your goodness, gave me my birth for my good, for Thou, Who hast no need of me, would never have made the beginning of my life the beginning of evil. And then, when You had breathed into me the breath of life and endowed me with the power of thought, You instructed me in the knowledge of Yourself, by means of the sacred volumes given us through Your servants Moses and the prophets. From them I learned Your revelation, that we must not worship You as a lonely God. For their pages taught me of God, not different from You in nature but One with You in mysterious unity of substance. I learned that You are God in God, by no mingling or confusion but by Your very nature, since the Divinity which is Yourself dwells in Him Who is from You. But the true doctrine of the perfect birth revealed that Thou, the Indwelt, and Thou, the Indweller, are not One Person, yet that You dwell in Him Who is from You. And the voices of Evangelists and Apostles repeat the lesson, and the very words which fell from the holy mouth of Your Only-begotten are recorded, telling how Your Son, God the Only-begotten from You the Unbegotten God, was born of the Virgin as man to fulfil the mystery of my salvation; how You dwell in Him, by virtue of His true generation from Yourself, and He in You, because of the nature given in His abiding birth from You.

What is this hopeless quagmire of error into which You have plunged me? I have learned all this and come to believe it. This faith is so deeply ingrained in my mind that I have neither the power nor the desire to change it. Why this deception of an unhappy man, this ruin of a poor wretch in body and soul, by deluding him with falsehoods concerning Yourself? After the Red Sea was divided, the radiance on the face of Moses descending from the mountain deceived me. He had gazed upon all the mysteries of heaven in Your presence, and I believed his words about You, which were dictated by You. And David, the man found after Your own heart, has betrayed me to destruction, and Solomon, who was deemed worthy of the gift of divine wisdom, and Isaiah, who saw the Lord of Sabaoth and prophesied, and Jeremiah, consecrated in the womb before he was formed to be the prophet of nations to be rooted out and planted in, and Ezekiel, the witness of the mystery of the Resurrection, and Daniel, the beloved man who had knowledge of times, and all the sacred company of the prophets; and Matthew also, chosen to proclaim the whole mystery of the Gospel, first a tax collector, then an apostle, and John, the Lord's close friend, and therefore worthy to reveal the deepest secrets of heaven, and blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was appointed to be the foundation stone of the Church and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and all his companions who spoke by the Holy Spirit, and Paul, the chosen vessel, changed from persecutor into apostle, who as a living man endured under the deep sea and ascended into the third heaven, who was in Paradise before his martyrdom, whose martyrdom was the perfect offering of a flawless faith; all have deceived me.

20. What is this hopeless quagmire of error into which You have plunged me? For I have learned all this and have come to believe it; this faith is so ingrained into my mind that I have neither the power nor the wish to change it. Why this deception of an unhappy man, this ruin of a poor wretch in body and soul, by deluding him with falsehoods concerning Yourself? After the Red Sea had been divided, the splendour on the face of Moses, descending from the Mount, deceived me. He had gazed, in Your presence, upon all the mysteries of heaven, and I believed his words, dictated by You, concerning Yourself. And David, the man that was found after Your own heart, has betrayed me to destruction, and Solomon, who was thought worthy of the gift of Divine Wisdom, and Isaiah, who saw the Lord of Sabaoth and prophesied, and Jeremiah consecrated in the womb, before he was fashioned, to be the prophet of nations to be rooted out and planted in, and Ezekiel, the witness of the mystery of the Resurrection, and Daniel, the man beloved, who had knowledge of times, and all the hallowed band of the Prophets; and Matthew also, chosen to proclaim the whole mystery of the Gospel, first a publican, then an Apostle, and John, the Lord's familiar friend, and therefore worthy to reveal the deepest secrets of heaven, and blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and all his companions who spoke by the Holy Ghost, and Paul, the chosen vessel, changed from persecutor into Apostle, who, as a living man abode under the deep sea 2 Corinthians 11:25 and ascended into the third heaven, who was in Paradise before his martyrdom, whose martyrdom was the perfect offering of a flawless faith; all have deceived me.

21. These are the people who taught me the beliefs I hold, and their teaching has penetrated so deeply into me that no remedy can free me from their influence. Forgive me, almighty God, for my inability to change, for my willingness to die holding this faith. These spreaders of blasphemy, as they appear to me, are a product of these recent times, too modern to help me. It is too late for them to correct the faith I received from You. Before I had even heard their names, I had placed my trust in You, had received regeneration from You and become Yours, as I still am. I know that You are omnipotent; I do not expect You to reveal to me the mystery of that ineffable birth which is secret between Yourself and Your Only-begotten. Nothing is impossible with You, and I do not doubt that in begetting Your Son You exerted Your full omnipotence. To doubt it would be to deny that You are omnipotent. For my own birth teaches me that You are good, and therefore I am certain that in the birth of Your Only-begotten You withheld from Him no good gift. I believe that all that is Yours is His, and all that is His is Yours. The creation of the world is sufficient evidence to me that You are wise; and I am certain that Your Wisdom, Who is like You, must have been begotten from Yourself. And You are one God, in very truth, in my eyes; I will never believe that in Him, Who is God from You, there is anything that is not Yours. Judge me in Him, if it is a sin in me that, through Your Son, I have trusted too well in Law and Prophets and Apostles.

21. These are the men who have taught me the doctrines which I hold, and so deeply am I impregnated with their teaching that no antidote can release me from their influence. Forgive me, O God Almighty, my powerlessness to change, my willingness to die in this belief. These propagators of blasphemy, for so they seem to me, are a product of these last times, too modern to avail me. It is too late for them to correct the faith which I received from You. Before I had ever heard their names, I had put my trust in You, had received regeneration from You and become Yours, as still I am. I know that You are omnipotent; I look not that Thou should reveal to me the mystery of that ineffable birth which is secret between Yourself and Your Only-begotten. Nothing is impossible with You, and I doubt not that in begetting Your Son You exerted Your full omnipotence. To doubt it would be to deny that You are omnipotent. For my own birth teaches me that You are good, and therefore I am sure that in the birth of Your Only-begotten Thou grudged Him no good gift. I believe that all that is Yours is His, and all that is His is Yours. The creation of the world is sufficient evidence to me that You are wise; and I am sure that Your Wisdom, Who is like You, must have been begotten from Yourself. And You are One God, in very truth, in my eyes; I will never believe that in Him, Who is God from You, there is ought that is not Yours. Judge me in Him, if it be sin in me that, through Your Son, I have trusted too well in Law and Prophets and Apostles.

But this wild talk must cease; the rhetoric of exposing heretical folly must give way to the hard work of constructing arguments. So I trust that those among them who are capable of being saved will turn their faces toward the true faith taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and recognize Him who is the true Son of God, not by adoption but by physis. For the plan of our response must be to first prove that He is the Son of God, and therefore fully endowed with that Divine nature—the very possession of which constitutes His Sonship. For the chief aim of the heresy we are considering is to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and truly the Son of God. Many evidences assure us that our Lord Jesus Christ is, and is revealed to be, God the Only-begotten, truly the Son of God. His Father bears witness to it, He Himself asserts it, the Apostles proclaim it, the faithful believe it, devils confess it, Jews deny it, the heathen at His passion recognized it. The name of God is given Him by right of absolute ownership, not because He has been admitted to joint use with others of the title. Every work and word of Christ transcends the power of those who bear the title of sons; the foremost lesson that we learn from all that is most prominent in His life is that He is the Son of God, and that He does not hold the name of Son as a title shared with a widespread company of friends.

22. But this wild talk must cease; the rhetoric of exposing heretical folly must give place to the drudgery of framing arguments. So, I trust, those among them who are capable of being saved will set their faces towards the true faith taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and recognise Him Who is the true Son of God, not by adoption but by nature. For the plan of our reply must be that of first proving that He is the Son of God, and therefore fully endowed with that Divine nature in the possession of which His Sonship consists. For the chief aim of the heresy, which we are considering, is to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and truly the Son of God. Many evidences assure us that our Lord Jesus Christ is, and is revealed to be, God the Only-begotten, truly the Son of God. His Father bears witness to it, He Himself asserts it, the Apostles proclaim it, the faithful believe it, devils confess it, Jews deny it, the heathen at His passion recognised it. The name of God is given Him in the right of absolute ownership, not because He has been admitted to joint use with others of the title. Every work and word of Christ transcends the power of those who bear the title of sons; the foremost lesson that we learn from all that is most prominent in His life is that He is the Son of God, and that He does not hold the name of Son as a title shared with a widespread company of friends.

I will not weaken the evidence for this truth by mixing in my own words. Let us hear the Father speaking about His Only-begotten at Jesus Christ's baptism, as He often does, to prevent us from being misled by Christ's visible body and failing to recognize Him as the Son. His words are: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Is the truth presented here unclear? Is the proclamation made uncertainly? The promise of the Virgin birth brought by the angel from the Holy Spirit, the guiding star of the Magi, the reverence paid to Him in His cradle, the majesty attested by the Baptist of the One who condescended to be baptized—all these are considered insufficient witness to His glory. The Father Himself speaks from heaven, and His words are "This is My Son." What is the significance of this evidence, not of titles but of pronouns? Titles can be attached to names at will, but pronouns clearly indicate the persons to whom they refer. And here we have, in "This" and "My," the clearest possible indications. Notice the true meaning and purpose of these words. You have read "I have begotten sons, and have raised them up," but you did not read there "My sons," for He had begotten those sons for Himself by division among the Gentiles and from the people of His inheritance. And to prevent us from supposing that the name "Son" was given as an additional title to God the Only-begotten to signify His share by adoption in some joint inheritance, His true nature is expressed by the pronoun that gives the unmistakable sense of ownership. I will allow you to interpret the word "Son," if you wish, as meaning that Christ is one among many, if you can provide an instance where it is said of another in that group "This is My Son." If, on the other hand, "This is My Son" is His unique designation, why accuse the Father of making an unfounded claim when He asserts His ownership? When He says "This is My Son," may we not paraphrase His meaning this way: He has given the title of sons to others, but He Himself is My own Son; I have given the name to multitudes by adoption, but this Son is My very own. Do not seek another, or you will lose your faith that This is He. By gesture and by voice, by "This" and "My" and "Son," I declare Him to you. And now what reasonable excuse remains for lack of faith? This, and nothing less than this, is what the Father's voice proclaimed. He wanted us not to remain ignorant of the nature of the One who came to be baptized so that He might fulfill all righteousness—that by God's voice we might recognize as the Son of God the One who was visible as Man, to accomplish the mystery of our salvation.

23. I will not weaken the evidence for this truth by intermixing words of my own. Let us hear the Father, when the baptism of Jesus Christ was accomplished, speaking, as often, concerning His Only-begotten, in order to save us from being misled by His visible body into a failure to recognise Him as the Son. His words are:– This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17 Is the truth presented here with dim outlines? Is the proclamation made in uncertain tones? The promise of the Virgin birth brought by the angel from the Holy Ghost, the guiding star of the Magi, the reverence paid Him in His cradle, the majesty, attested by the Baptist, of Him Who condescended to be baptized; all these are deemed an insufficient witness to His glory. The Father Himself speaks from heaven, and His words are, This is My Son. What means this evidence, not of titles, but of pronouns? Titles may be appended to names at will; pronouns are a sure indication of the persons to whom they refer. And here we have, in This and My, the clearest of indications. Mark the true meaning and the purpose of the words. You have read, I have begotten sons, and have raised them up Isaiah 1:2; but you did not read there My sons, for He had begotten Himself those sons by division among the Gentiles, and from the people of His inheritance. And lest we should suppose that the name Son was given as an additional title to God the Only-begotten, to signify His share by adoption in some joint heritage, His true nature is expressed by the pronoun which gives the indubitable sense of ownership. I will allow you to interpret the word Son, if you will, as signifying that Christ is one of a number, if you can furnish an instance where it is said of another of that number, This is My Son. If, on the other hand, This is My Son be His peculiar designation, why accuse the Father, when He asserts His ownership, of making an unfounded claim? When He says This is My Son, may we not paraphrase His meaning thus:– He has given to others the title of sons, but He Himself is My own Son; I have given the name to multitudes by adoption, but this Son is My very own. Seek not for another lest you lose your faith that This is He. By gesture and by voice, by This, and My, and Son, I declare Him to you. And now what reasonable excuse remains for lack of faith? This, and nothing less than this, it was that the Father's voice proclaimed. He willed that we should not be left in ignorance of the nature of Him Who came to be baptized, that He might fulfil all righteousness; that by the voice of God we might recognise as the Son of God Him Who was visible as Man, to accomplish the mystery of our salvation.

Once again, because the eternal life of believers depends on confessing this faith—for there is no other path to eternal life except believing that Jesus Christ, God the Only-begotten, is the Son of God—the Apostles heard the voice from heaven repeating the same message, to strengthen this life-giving belief, the denial of which means death. When the Lord stood on the mountain clothed in glory, with Moses and Elijah beside him, and with the three pillars of the churches who had been chosen as witnesses to the truth of what they would see and hear, the Father spoke from heaven: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased; hear Him." The glory they witnessed was not enough by itself to prove his majesty; the voice declares, "This is My Son." The Apostles cannot endure the glory of God; human eyes grow weak in its presence. The courage of Peter, James, and John fails them, and they fall to the ground in fear. But this solemn declaration, spoken from the Father's knowledge, comes to help them; he is revealed as the Father's own true Son. And beyond the testimony of "This" and "My" confirming his true Sonship, the words are spoken, "Hear Him." This is the Father's witness from heaven, confirming the witness the Son bears on earth; for we are commanded to hear him. Though the Father's acknowledgment of the Son removes all doubt, we are also commanded to accept the Son's own testimony about himself. When the Father's voice commands us to demonstrate our obedience by hearing him, we are ordered to place absolute confidence in the Son's words. Therefore, since the Father has made his will known in this command to us to hear the Son, let us hear what the Son has told us about himself.

24. And again, because the life of believers was involved in the confession of this faith — for there is no other way to eternal life than the assurance that Jesus Christ, God the Only-begotten, is the Son of God — the Apostles heard once more the voice from heaven repeating the same message, in order to strengthen this life-giving belief, in negation of which is death. When the Lord, apparelled in splendour, was standing upon the Mountain, with Moses and Elias at His side, and the three Pillars of the churches who had been chosen as witnesses to the truth of the vision and the voice, the Father spoke thus from heaven: — This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased; hear Him. Matthew 17:5 The glory which they saw was not sufficient attestation of His majesty; the voice proclaims, This is My Son. The Apostles cannot face the glory of God; mortal eyes grow dim in its presence. The trust of Peter and James and John fails them, and they are prostrate in fear. But this solemn declaration, spoken from the Father's knowledge, comes to their relief; He is revealed as His Father's own true Son. And over and above the witness of This and My to His true Sonship, the words are uttered, Hear Him. It is the witness of the Father from heaven, in confirmation of the witness borne by the Son on earth; for we are bidden to hear Him. Though this recognition by the Father of the Son removes all doubt, yet we are bidden also to accept the Son's self-revelation. When the Father's voice commands us to show our obedience by hearing Him, we are ordered to repose an absolute confidence in the words of the Son. Since, therefore, the Father has manifested His will in this message to us to hear the Son, let us hear what it is that the Son has told us concerning Himself.

I cannot imagine anyone so lacking in basic reason that they would recognize in each of the Gospels the Son's confessions of the humiliation He underwent in taking on a body—such as His often-repeated words, Father, glorify Me, and You shall see the Son of Man, and The Father is greater than I, and even more strongly, Now is My soul troubled exceedingly, and also, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me, along with many others I will discuss at the proper time—and yet, despite these constant expressions of His humility, accuse Him of arrogance because He calls God His Father, as when He says, Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up, or, You have made my Father's house a house of merchandise. I cannot imagine anyone foolish enough to treat His consistent assertion that God is His Father not as simple truth sincerely stated from certain knowledge, but as a bold and groundless claim. We cannot condemn this constantly professed humility as an insolent demand for the rights of another, a seizure of what is not His own, an appropriation of powers that only God can exercise. Nor, when He calls Himself the Son, as in, For God sent not His Son into this world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved, and in, Do you believe in the Son of God?, can we accuse Him of the same kind of arrogance as calling God His Father would be. But what else is it but such an accusation if we allow Jesus Christ the name of Son by adoption only? Are we not charging Him, when He calls God His Father, with daring to make a groundless claim? The Father's voice from heaven says Hear Him. I hear Him saying, Father, I thank You, and Say ye that I blasphemed, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I may not believe these names and accept that they mean what they say, how am I to trust and understand? No hint is given of any alternative meaning. The Father testifies from heaven, This is My Son; the Son for His part speaks of My Father's house and My Father. The confession of that name gives salvation, when faith is demanded in the question, Do you believe in the Son of God? The pronoun My indicates that the noun following it belongs to the speaker. What right, I ask, do you heretics have to suppose otherwise? You contradict the Father's word, the Son's assertion; you drain language of its meaning and twist the words of God into a sense they cannot bear. On you alone rests the guilt of this shameless blasphemy, that God has lied concerning Himself.

25. I can conceive of no man so destitute of ordinary reason as to recognise in each of the Gospels confessions by the Son of the humiliation to which He has submitted in taking a body upon Him — as for instance His words, often repeated, Father, glorify Me, and You shall see the Son of Man Matthew 26:64, and The Father is greater than I John 14:28, and, more strongly, Now is My soul troubled exceedingly, and even this, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me Matthew 27:46? and many more, of which I shall speak in due time — and yet, in the face of these constant expressions of His humility, to charge Him with presumption because He calls God His Father, as when He says, Every plant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up, or, You have made my Father's house a house of merchandise. John 2:16 I can conceive of no one foolish enough to regard His assertion, consistently made, that God is His Father, not as the simple truth sincerely stated from certain knowledge, but as a bold and baseless claim. We cannot denounce this constantly professed humility as an insolent demand for the rights of another, a laying of hands on what is not His own, an appropriation of powers which only God can wield. Nor, when He calls Himself the Son, as in, For God sent not His Son into this world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved, and in, Do you believe in the Son of God? can we accuse Him of what would be an equal presumption with that of calling God His Father. But what else is it than such an accusation, if we allow to Jesus Christ the name of Son by adoption only? Do we not charge Him, when He calls God His Father, with daring to make a baseless claim? The Father's voice from heaven says Hear Him. I hear Him saying, Father, I thank You John 11:41, and Say ye that I blasphemed, because l said, I am the Son of God? If I may not believe these names, and assume that they mean what they assert, how am I to trust and to understand? No hint is given of an alternative meaning. The Father bears witness from heaven, This is My Son; the Son on His part speaks of My Father's house, and My Father. The confession of that name gives salvation, when faith is demanded in the question, Do you believe in the Son of God? The pronoun My indicates that the noun which follows belongs to the speaker. What right, I demand, have you heretics to suppose it otherwise? You contradict the Father's word, the Son's assertion; you empty language of its meaning, and distort the words of God into a sense they cannot bear. On you alone rests the guilt of this shameless blasphemy, that God has lied concerning Himself.

26. So even though these names can only be understood if we genuinely believe they are truly significant—that when we read "This is My Son" and "My Father," the words really indicate the Persons of whom and to whom they were spoken—let us still examine what attributes the Son Himself attaches to His name of Son, in case anyone supposes that "Son" and "Father" are merely titles of adoption or dignity. He says, "All things are delivered Me of My Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." Are the words we are discussing, "This is My Son" and "My Father," consistent or not with "No one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son"? For only through mutual witness can the Son be known through the Father and the Father through the Son. We hear the voice from heaven; we also hear the words of the Son. We have as little excuse for not knowing the Son as we have for not knowing the Father. All things are delivered unto Him—from this "All" there is no exception. If They possess equal might, if They share equal mutual knowledge that is hidden from us, if these names of Father and Son express the relation between Them, then I ask: are They not in truth what They are in name—wielders of the same omnipotence, shrouded in the same impenetrable mystery? God does not speak in order to deceive. The Fatherhood of the Father, the Sonship of the Son, are literal truths. And now learn how facts bear out the truths which these names reveal.

26. And thus, although nothing but a sincere belief that these names are truly significant — that, when we read, This is My Son and My Father, the words really indicate Persons of Whom, and to Whom, they were spoken — can make them intelligible, yet, lest it be supposed that Son and Father are titles the one merely of adoption, the other merely of dignity, let us see what are the attributes attached, by the Son Himself, to His name of Son. He says, All things are delivered Me of My Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son, and he to Whom the Son will reveal Him. Matthew 11:27 Are the words of which we are speaking, This is My Son and My Father, consistent, or are they not, with No one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son? For it is only by witness mutually borne that the Son can be known through the Father, and the Father through the Son. We hear the voice from heaven; we hear also the words of the Son. We have as little excuse for not knowing the Son, as we have for not knowing the Father. All things are delivered unto Him; from this All there is no exception. If They possess an equal might; if They share an equal mutual knowledge, hidden from us; if these names of Father and Son express the relation between Them, then, I demand, are They not in truth what They are in name, wielders of the same omnipotence, shrouded in the same impenetrable mystery? God does not speak in order to deceive. The Fatherhood of the Father, the Sonship of the Son, are literal truths. And now learn how facts bear out the verities which these names reveal.

The Son speaks this way: "For the works which the Father has given Me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of Me that the Father has sent Me; and the Father Himself which has sent Me has borne witness of Me." God the Only-begotten proves His Sonship by appealing not only to the name, but to the power. The works He does are evidence that He has been sent by the Father. What, I ask, do these works prove? That He was sent. The fact that He was sent is used as proof of His sonlike obedience and of His Father's authority, because the works He does could not possibly be done by anyone other than Him Who is sent by the Father. Yet the evidence of His works fails to convince the unbelieving that the Father sent Him. For He continues, "And the Father Himself which has sent Me has borne witness of Me; and you have neither heard His voice nor seen His shape." What was this witness of the Father concerning Him? Turn through the pages of the Gospels and review their contents. Read us other attestations given by the Father besides those we have already heard: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," and "You are My Son." John, who heard these words, did not need them because he already knew the truth. It was for our instruction that the Father spoke. But this is not all. John in the wilderness was honored with this revelation, and the Apostles were not to be denied the same assurance. It came to them in the very same words, but with an addition that John did not receive. He had been a prophet from the womb and did not need the commandment, "Hear Him." Yes, I will hear Him, and will hear none but Him and His Apostle, who heard for my instruction. Even though the books contained no further witness borne by the Father to the Son than that He is the Son, I have, for confirmation of the truth, the evidence of His Father's works which He does. What is this modern slander that His name is a gift by adoption, His Godhead a lie, His titles a pretense? We have the Father's witness to His Sonship. By works equal to the Father's, the Son bears witness to His own equality with the Father. Why such blindness to His obvious possession of the true Sonship which He both claims and displays? It is not through condescending kindness on the part of God the Father that Christ bears the name of Son, nor by holiness that He has earned the title, as many have won it by enduring hardship in confession of the faith. Such sonship is not of right—it is by a favor, worthy of Himself, that God bestows the title. But that which is indicated by "This," and "My," and "Hear Him" is different in kind from the other. It is the true and real and genuine Sonship.

27. The Son speaks thus:– For the works which the Father has given Me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of Me that the Father has sent Me; and the Father Himself which has sent Me has borne witness of Me. John 5:36-37 God the Only-begotten proves His Sonship by an appeal not only to the name, but to the power; the works which He does are evidence that He has been sent by the Father. What, I ask, is the fact which these works prove? That He was sent. That He was sent, is used as a proof of His sonlike obedience and of His Father's authority: for the works which He does could not possibly be done by any other than Him Who is sent by the Father. Yet the evidence of His works fails to convince the unbelieving that the Father sent Him. For He proceeds, And the Father Himself which has sent Me has borne witness of Me; and you have neither heard His voice nor seen His shape. What was this witness of the Father concerning Him? Turn over the pages of the Gospels and review their contents. Read us other of the attestations given by the Father beside those which we have heard already; This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased, and You are My Son. John, who heard these words, needed them not, for He knew the truth already. It was for our instruction that the Father spoke. But this is not all. John in the wilderness was honoured with this revelation; the Apostles were not to be denied the same assurance. It came to them in the very same words, but with an addition which John did not receive. He had been a prophet from the womb, and needed not the commandment, Hear Him. Yes; I will hear Him, and will hear none but Him and His Apostle, who heard for my instruction. Even though the books contained no further witness, borne by the Father to the Son, than that He is the Son, I have, for confirmation of the truth, the evidence of His Father's works which He does. What is this modern slander that His name is a gift by adoption, His Godhead a lie, His titles a pretence? We have the Father's witness to His Sonship; by works, equal to the Father's, the Son bears witness to His own equality with the Father. Why such blindness to His obvious possession of the true Sonship which He both claims and displays. It is not through condescending kindness on the part of God the Father that Christ bears the name of Son; not by holiness that He has earned the title, as many have won it by enduring hardness in confession of the faith. Such sonship is not of right; it is by a favour, worthy of Himself, that God bestows the title. But that which is indicated by This, and My, and Hear Him, is different in kind from the other. It is the true and real and genuine Sonship.

28. The Son never claims anything less for Himself than what is contained in this title given Him by His Father. When the Father says, "This is My Son," He reveals the Son's nature. When He adds, "Hear Him," He calls us to listen to the mystery and faith that the Son brought down from heaven—to learn that if we want to be saved, we must confess what He teaches. Similarly, the Son Himself teaches us in His own words that He was truly born and truly came: "You neither know Me, nor know where I am from, for I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom you know not, but I know Him, for I am from Him, and He has sent Me." No one knows the Father—the Son often assures us of this. The reason He says that no one knows Him except Himself is that He is from the Father. I ask: Is He from the Father as the result of an act of creation, or through a genuine birth? If it is an act of creation, then all created things are from God. How then is it that none of them know the Father, when the Son says the reason He has this knowledge is that He is from Him? If He is created, not born, we should see in Him a resemblance to other beings who are from God. Since all, on this supposition, are from God, why is He not as ignorant of the Father as the others are? But if this knowledge of the Father is unique to Him, Who is from the Father, must not this fact also—that He is from the Father—be unique to Him? That is, must He not be the true Son born from the physis (nature) of God? For the reason He alone knows God is that He alone is from God. You see, then, a knowledge that is unique to Him, resulting from a birth that is also unique to Him. You recognize that it is not by an act of creative power, but through a true birth, that He is from the Father, and that this is why He alone knows the Father, Who is unknown to all other beings that are from Him.

28. And indeed the Son never makes for Himself a lower claim than is contained in this designation, given Him by His Father. The Father's words, This is My Son, reveal His nature; those which follow, Hear Him, are a summons to us to listen to the mystery and the faith which He came down from heaven to bring; to learn that, if we would be saved, our confession must be a copy of His teaching. And in like manner the Son Himself teaches us, in words of His own, that He was truly born and truly came — You neither know Me, nor know ye whence I am, for I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not, but I know Him, for I am from Him, and He has sent Me. John 7:28-29 No man knows the Father; the Son often assures us of this. The reason why He says that none knows Him but Himself, is that He is from the Father. Is it, I ask, as the result of an act of creation, or of a genuine birth, that He is from Him? If it be an act of creation, then all created things are from God. How then is it that none of them know the Father, when the Son says that the reason why He has this knowledge is that He is from Him? If He be created, not born, we shall observe in Him a resemblance to other beings who are from God. Since all, on this supposition, are from God, why is He not as ignorant of the Father as are the others? But if this knowledge of the Father be peculiar to Him, Who is from the Father, must not this circumstance also, that He is from the Father, be peculiar to Him? That is, must He not be the true Son born from the nature of God? For the reason why He alone knows God is that He alone is from God. You observe, then, a knowledge, which is peculiar to Himself, resulting from a birth which also is peculiar to Himself. You recognise that it is not by an act of creative power, but through a true birth, that He is from the Father; and that this is why He alone knows the Father, Who is unknown to all other beings which are from Him.

But Christ immediately adds these words—"For I am from Him, and He has sent Me"—to prevent heresy from wrongly claiming that His being from God began only at the time of His coming to earth. The Gospel's revelation of the mystery follows a logical order: first He is born, then He is sent. Likewise, in the previous statement, we were told about ignorance in two stages—first about who He is, and then about where He is from. The words "I am from Him, and He has sent Me" contain two separate statements, just as the words "You neither know Me, nor know where I am from" do. Every person is born in the flesh, yet does not everyone's awareness recognize that every person comes from God? How then can Christ claim that either He or the source of His being is unknown? He can only do this by tracing His immediate origin to the ultimate Source of all existence. Once He has done this, He can prove their ignorance of God by showing their ignorance of the fact that He is the Son of God. Let those trapped in this miserable error consider the words "You neither know Me, nor know where I am from." They argue that all things come from nothing and allow no exception. They even dare to falsely claim that God the Only-begotten came from nothing. How can we explain this ignorance about Christ and about Christ's origin on the part of these blasphemers? The very fact that, as Scripture says, they do not know where He is from points to that unknowable origin from which He comes. If we can say that something came into existence out of nothing, then we are not ignorant of its origin—we know it was made out of nothing, and this is definite knowledge. Now the One who came is not the Author of His own being, but the One who sent Him is true, and the blasphemers do not know Him. It was He who sent Him, and they do not know that He was the Sender. So the One sent is from the Sender—from the One they do not know as His Author. The reason they do not know who Christ is is that they do not know from whom He is. No one can confess the Son who denies that He was born. No one can understand that He was born who has formed the opinion that He came from nothing. And indeed, He is so far from being made out of nothing that the heretics cannot tell where He is from.

29. But He immediately adds, For I am from Him, and He has sent Me, to debar heresy from the violent assumption that His being from God dates from the time of His Advent. The Gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a logical sequence; first He is born, then He is sent. Similarly, in the previous declaration, we were told of ignorance, first as to Who He is, and then as to whence He is. For the words, I am from Him, and He has sent Me, contain two separate statements, as also do the words, You neither know Me, nor know ye whence I am. Every man is born in the flesh; yet does not universal consciousness make every man spring from God? How then can Christ assert that either He, or the source of His being, is unknown? He can only do so by assigning His immediate parentage to the ultimate Author of existence; and, when He has done this, He can demonstrate their ignorance of God by their ignorance of the fact that He is the Son of God. Let the victims of this wretched delusion reflect upon the words, You neither know Me, nor know ye whence I am. All things, they argue, are from nothing; they allow of no exception. They even dare to misrepresent God the Only-begotten as sprung from nothing. How can we explain this ignorance of Christ, and of the origin of Christ, on the part of the blasphemers? The very fact that, as the Scripture says, they know not whence He is, is an indication of that unknowable origin from which He springs. If we can say of a thing that it came into existence out of nothing, then we are not ignorant of its origin; we know that it was made out of nothing, and this is a piece of definite knowledge. Now He Who came is not the Author of His own being; but He Who sent Him is true, Whom the blasphemers know not. He it was Who sent Him; and they know not that He was the Sender. Thus the Sent is from the Sender; from Him Whom they know not as His Author. The reason why they know not Who Christ is, is that they know not from Whom He is. None can confess the Son who denies that He was born; none can understand that He was born who has formed the opinion that He is from nothing. And indeed He is so far from being made out of nothing, that the heretics cannot tell whence He is.

Those who separate the Divine name from the Divine nature are completely ignorant—ignorant and content to remain so. But let them listen to the rebuke that the Son directed at unbelievers for their lack of this knowledge, when the Jews said that God was their Father: "If God were your Father, you would surely love Me; for I went forth from God, and have come; neither am I come of Myself, but He sent Me" (John 8:42). The Son of God does not blame the devout confidence of those who combine the confession that He is true God, the Son of God, with their own claim to be God's sons. What He is blaming is the arrogance of the Jews in daring to claim God as their Father while they did not love Him, the Son: "If God were your Father, you would surely love Me; for I went forth from God." All who have God for their Father through faith have Him as Father through that same faith by which we confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But to confess that He is the Son in a sense that includes the whole company of saints—to say, in effect, that He is one of the sons of God—what kind of faith is that? Are not all the rest, weak created beings though they are, sons in that sense? Where is the excellence of a faith that has confessed Jesus Christ is the Son of God, if He, as one among many sons, has only the name and not the nature of the Son? This unbelief has no love for Christ; it is a mockery of the faith for these perverters of the truth to claim God as their Father. If He were their Father, they would love Christ because He had gone forth from God. And now I must ask what this going forth from God means. His going forth is clearly different from His coming, for the two are mentioned side by side in this passage: "I went forth from God and have come." To clarify the separate meanings of "I went forth from God" and "I have come," He immediately adds, "Neither am I come of Myself, but He sent Me." He tells us that He is not the source of His own existence in the words "Neither am I come of Myself." In them He tells us that He has proceeded forth a second time from God, and has been sent by Him. But when He tells us that those who call God their Father must love Himself because He has gone forth from God, He makes His birth the reason for their love. "Went forth" carries our thoughts back to the incorporeal birth, for it is by love of Christ, Who was born from Him, that we must gain the right to devoutly claim God as our Father. For when the Son says, "He that hates Me hates My Father also" (John 15:23), this "My" asserts a relation to the Father which is shared by no one else. On the other hand, He condemns the person who claims God as his Father yet does not love the Son, as wrongfully using the Father's name; since he who hates Him, the Son, must hate the Father also, and no one can be devoted to the Father except those who love the Son. For the one and only reason He gives for loving the Son is His origin from the Father. The Son, therefore, is from the Father, not by His Advent, but by His birth; and love for the Father is only possible for those who believe that the Son is from Him.

30. They are blankly ignorant who separate the Divine name from the Divine nature; ignorant, and content to be ignorant. But let them listen to the reproof which the Son inflicts upon unbelievers for their want of this knowledge, when the Jews said that God was their Father:– If God were your Father, you would surely love Me; for I went forth from God, and have come; neither am I come of Myself, but He sent Me. John 8:42 The Son of God has here no word of blame for the devout confidence of those who combine the confession that He is true God, the Son of God, with their own claim to be God's sons. What He is blaming is the insolence of the Jews in daring to claim God as their Father, when meanwhile they did not love Him, the Son: — If God were your Father, you would surely love Me; for I went forth from God. All, who have God for their Father through faith, have Him for Father through that same faith whereby we confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But to confess that He is the Son in a sense which covers the whole company of saints; to say, in effect, that He is one of the sons of God — what faith is there in that? Are not all the rest, feeble created beings though they be, in that sense sons? In what does the eminence of a faith, which has confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, consist, if He, as one of a multitude of sons, have the name only, and not the nature, of the Son? This unbelief has no love for Christ; it is a mockery of the faith for these perverters of the truth to claim God as their Father. If He were their Father, they would love Christ because He had gone forth from God. And now I must enquire the meaning of this going forth from God. His going forth is obviously different from His coming, for the two are mentioned side by side in this passage, I went forth from God and have come. In order to elucidate the separate meanings of I went forth from God and I have come, He immediately subjoins, Neither am I come of Myself, but He sent Me. He tells us that He is not the source of His own existence in the words, Neither am I come of Myself. In them He tells us that He has proceeded forth a second time from God, and has been sent by Him. But when He tells us that they who call God their Father must love Himself because He has gone forth from God, He makes His birth the reason for their love. Went forth carries back our thoughts to the incorporeal birth, for it is by love of Christ, Who was born from Him, that we must gain the right of devoutly claiming God for our Father. For when the Son says, He that hates Me hates My Father also John 15:23, this My is the assertion of a relation to the Father which is shared by none. On the other hand, He condemns the man who claims God as his Father, and loves not the Son, as using a wrongful liberty with the Father's name; since he who hates Him, the Son, must hate the Father also, and none can be devoted to the Father save those who love the Son. For the one and only reason which He gives for loving the Son is His origin from the Father. The Son, therefore, is from the Father, not by His Advent, but by His birth; and love for the Father is only possible to those who believe that the Son is from Him.

Jesus' words testify to this: "I will not say unto you that I will pray the Father for you, for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and believe that I went forth from God, and have come from the Father into this world." A complete faith about the Son—which accepts and loves the truth that He went forth from God—has direct access to the Father without needing His intervention. Confessing that the Son was born and sent from God wins for believers direct audience and love from Him. Therefore, the account of His birth and coming must be understood in the strictest and most literal sense. "I went forth from God," He says, showing that His nature is exactly what was given Him by His birth—for what being except God could go forth from God, that is, could come into existence by being born from Him? Then He continues, "And have come from the Father into this world." To assure us that this going forth from God means birth from the Father, He tells us that He came from the Father into this world. The latter statement refers to His incarnation, the former to His physis. Moreover, His recording first the fact of His going forth from God, and then His coming from the Father, forbids us to treat the going and the coming as identical. Coming from the Father and going forth from God are not the same thing; they might be paraphrased as "Birth" and "Presence," and are as different in meaning as those two concepts. It is one thing to have gone forth from God and entered by birth into real existence; it is another to have come from the Father into this world to accomplish the mysteries of our salvation.

31. To this the Lord's words bear witness — I will not say unto you that I will pray the Father for you, for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and believe that I went forth from God, and have come from the Father into this world. John 16:26-28 A complete faith concerning the Son, which accepts and loves the truth that He went forth from God, has access to the Father without need of His intervention. The confession that the Son was born and sent from God wins for it direct audience and love from Him. Thus the narrative of His birth and coming must be taken in the strictest and most literal sense. I went forth from God, He says, conveying that His nature is exactly that which was given Him by His birth; for what being but God could go forth from God, that is, could enter upon existence by birth from Him? Then He continues, And have come from the Father into this world. To assure us that this going forth from God means birth from the Father, He tells us that He came from the Father into this world. The latter statement refers to His incarnation, the former to His nature. And again, His putting on record first the fact of His going forth from God, and then His coming from the Father, forbids us to identify the going with the coming. Coming from the Father, and going forth from God, are not synonymous; they might be paraphrased as 'Birth' and 'Presence,' and are as different in meaning as these. It is one thing to have gone forth from God, and entered by birth upon a substantial existence; another to have come from the Father into this world to accomplish the mysteries of our salvation.

In the order of my defense, as I have planned it, this seemed the best place to prove, third, that the Apostles believed our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God not merely in name but in physis, not by adoption but by birth. Many important words of God the Only-begotten about Himself remain unmentioned—words in which the truth of His Divine birth is set forth so clearly that they silence any objection. However, since it would be unwise to overload the reader's mind with too much evidence, and since we have already given sufficient proof of the genuineness of His birth, I will save the rest of His statements for later parts of our investigation. For we have arranged our argument so that now, after hearing the Father's witness and the Son's self-revelation, we are to be instructed by the Apostles' faith in the true and, we must confess, the truly born Son of God. We must see whether they could find in the Lord's words, "I went forth from God," any other meaning than this: that there was in Him a birth of the Divine physis.

32. In the order of our defense, as I have arranged it in my mind, this has seemed the most convenient place for proving that, thirdly, the Apostles believed our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, not merely in name but in nature, not by adoption but by birth. It is true that there remain unmentioned many and most weighty words of God the Only-begotten concerning Himself, in which the truth of His Divine birth is set so clearly forth as to silence any whisper of objection. Yet since it would be unwise to burden the reader's mind with an accumulation of evidence, and ample proof has been already given of the genuineness of His birth, I will hold back the remainder of His utterances till later stages of our enquiry. For we have so arranged the course of our argument that now, after hearing the Father's witness and the Son's self-revelation, we are to be instructed by the Apostles' faith in the true and, as we must confess, the truly born Son of God. We must see whether they could find in the words of the Lord, I went forth from God, any other meaning than this, that there was in Him a birth of the Divine nature.

After many mysterious sayings spoken in parables by Him whom they already knew as the Christ foretold by Moses and the Prophets, whom Nathanael had confessed as the Son of God and King of Israel, who had Himself rebuked Philip when he questioned about the Father for not understanding from the works He did that the Father was in Him and He in the Father; after He had already often taught them that He was sent from the Father; still, it was not until they heard Him declare that He had gone forth from God that they confessed, in the words that immediately follow in the Gospel—His disciples said to Him, Now You speak plainly, and speak no proverb. Now therefore we are sure that You know all things, and need not that any man should ask You; by this we believe that You went forth from God. What was so remarkable about this phrase, Went forth from God, which He had used? Had you seen, O holy and blessed men, who as the reward for your faith have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and to loose in heaven and earth, works so great, so truly divine, accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and yet you still claim that it was not until He first told you that He had gone forth from God that you reached knowledge of the truth? And yet you had seen water at the wedding turned into wine; one physis becoming another physis, whether by change, or by development, or by creation. And your hands had broken up the five loaves into a meal for that great crowd, and when everyone was satisfied you found that twelve baskets were needed to contain the leftover pieces; a small quantity of matter, in the process of relieving hunger, had multiplied into a great quantity of matter of the same physis. And you had seen withered hands recover their flexibility, the tongues of mute men loosened into speech, the feet of the lame made swift to run, the eyes of the blind given sight, and life restored to the dead. Lazarus, who already stank, had risen to his feet at a word. He was summoned from the tomb and immediately came forth, without a pause between the word and its fulfillment. He was standing before you, a living man, while the air was still carrying the smell of death to your nostrils. I do not even mention other displays of His mighty, His divine powers. And is it that, in spite of all this, only after you heard Him say, I went forth from God, that you understood who He is that had been sent from heaven? Is this the first time that the truth had been told to you without a proverb? The first time that the powers of His physis made it clear to you that He went forth from God? And this despite His silent examination of the purposes of your will, His not needing to ask you about anything as though He were ignorant, His universal knowledge? For all these things, done in the power and in the physis of God, are evidence that He must have gone forth from God.

33. After many dark sayings, spoken in parables by Him Whom they already knew as the Christ foretold by Moses and the Prophets, Whom Nathanael had confessed as the Son of God and King of Israel, Who had Himself reproached Philip, in his question about the Father, for not perceiving, by the works which He did, that the Father was in Him and He in the Father; after He had already often taught them that He was sent from the Father; still, it was not till they had heard Him assert that He had gone forth from God that they confessed, in the words which immediately follow in the Gospel — His disciples said to Him, Now You speak plainly, and speak no proverb. Now therefore we are sure that You know all things, and need not that any man should ask You; by this we believe that You went forth from God. John 16:29-30 What was there so marvellous in this form of words, Went forth from God, which He had used? Had ye seen, O holy and blessed men, who for the reward of your faith have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and to loose in heaven and earth, works so great, so truly Divine, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and do ye yet profess that it was not until He had first told you that He had gone forth from God that you attained the knowledge of the truth? And yet ye had seen water at the marriage turned into the marriage wine; one nature becoming another nature, whether it were by change, or by development, or by creation. And your hands had broken up the five loaves into a meal for that great multitude, and when all were satisfied ye had found that twelve baskets were needed to contain the fragments of the loaves; a small quantity of matter, in the process of relieving hunger, had multiplied into a great quantity of matter of the same nature. And ye had seen withered hands recover their suppleness, the tongues of dumb men loosened into speech, the feet of the lame made swift to run, the eyes of the blind endowed with vision, and life restored to the dead. Lazarus, who stank already, had risen to his feet at a word. He was summoned from the tomb and instantly came forth, without a pause between the word and its fulfilment. He was standing before you, a living man, while yet the air was carrying the odour of death to your nostrils. I speak not of other exertions of His mighty, His Divine powers. And is it, in spite of all this, only after ye heard Him say, I went forth from God, that you understood Who He is that had been sent from heaven? Is this the first time that the truth had been told you without a proverb? The first time that the powers of His nature made it manifest to you that He went forth from God? And this in spite of His silent scrutiny of the purposes of your will, of His needing not to ask you concerning anything as though He were ignorant, of His universal knowledge? For all these things, done in the power and in the nature of God, are evidence that He must have gone forth from God.

The holy Apostles did not understand by this that He had gone forth in the sense of having been sent from God. They had often heard Him say in His earlier teaching that He was sent, but what they hear now is the clear statement that He had gone forth from God. This opens their eyes to recognize His divine nature from His works. The fact that He had gone forth from God makes His true divinity clear to them, and so they say, "Now therefore we are sure that You know all things, and need not that any man should ask You; by this we believe that You went forth from God." The reason they believe that He went forth from God is that He both can and does perform the works of God. Their complete assurance of His divine nature comes from their knowledge not that He has come from God, but that He went forth from God. We find, then, that it is this truth, now heard for the first time, which confirms their faith. The Lord had made two statements: "I went forth from God" and "I have come from the Father into this world." One of these—"I have come from the Father into this world"—they had often heard, and it awakens no surprise. But their reply makes it clear that they now believe and understand the other statement: "I went forth from God." Their answer, "By this we believe that You went forth from God," is a response to that statement and to that one alone; they do not add, "and has come from the Father into this world." The one statement is welcomed with a declaration of faith; the other is passed over in silence. The confession was drawn from them by the sudden presentation of a new truth, which convinced their reason and compelled them to declare their certainty. They already knew that He, like God, could do all things, but His birth, which explained that omnipotence, had not been revealed. They knew that He had been sent from God, but they did not know that He had gone forth from God. Now at last, taught by this statement to understand the ineffable and perfect birth of the Son, they confess that He had spoken to them without a proverb.

34. By this the holy Apostles did not understand that He had gone forth, in the sense of having been sent, from God. For they had often heard Him confess, in His earlier discourses, that He was sent; but what they hear now is the express statement that He had gone forth from God. This opens their eyes to perceive from His works His Divine nature. The fact that He had gone forth from God makes clear to them His true Divinity, and so they say, Now therefore we are sure that You know all things, and need not that any man should ask You; by this we believe that You went forth from God. The reason why they believe that He went forth from God is that He both can, and does, perform the works of God. Their perfect assurance of His Divine nature is the result of their knowledge, not that He has come from God, but that He did go forth from God. Accordingly we find that it is this truth, now heard for the first time, which clenches their faith. The Lord had made two statements; I went forth from God, and I have come from the Father into this world. One of these, I have come from the Father into this world, they had often heard, and it awakens no surprise. But their reply makes it manifest that they now believe and understand the other, that is, I went forth from God. Their answer, By this we believe that You went forth from God, is a response to it, and to it only; they do not add, 'And has come from the Father into this world.' The one statement is welcomed with a declaration of faith; the other is passed over in silence. The confession was wrung from them by the sudden presentation of a new truth, which convinced their reason and constrained them to avow their certainty. They knew already that He, like God, could do all things; but His birth, which accounted for that omnipotence, had not been revealed. They knew that He had been sent from God, but they knew not that He had gone forth from God. Now at last, taught by this utterance to understand the ineffable and perfect birth of the Son, they confess that He had spoken to them without a proverb.

For God is not born from God through the ordinary process of human childbirth. This is not a case of one being coming from another through the exercise of natural forces. That birth is pure, perfect, and stainless. In fact, we should call it a proceeding forth rather than a birth. It is One from One—no division, withdrawal, diminishment, outflow, extension, or change, but the birth of living nature from living nature. It is God going forth from God, not a creature selected to bear the name of God. His existence did not begin from nothing but went forth from the Eternal. This going forth is rightly called a birth, though it would be wrong to call it a beginning. The proceeding forth of God from God is entirely different from the coming into existence of a new substance. Though our understanding of this truth, which cannot be fully expressed, cannot be defined in words, the teaching of the Son—as He reveals to us that He went forth from God—gives it the certainty of assured faith.

35. For God is not born from God by the ordinary process of a human childbirth; this is no case of one being issuing from another by the exertion of natural forces. That birth is pure and perfect and stainless; indeed, we must call it rather a proceeding forth than a birth. For it is One from One; no partition, or withdrawing, or lessening, or efflux, or extension, or suffering of change, but the birth of living nature from living nature. It is God going forth from God, not a creature picked out to bear the name of God. His existence did not take its beginning out of nothing, but went forth from the Eternal; and this going forth is rightly entitled a birth, though it would be false to call it a beginning. For the proceeding forth of God from God is a thing entirely different from the coming into existence of a new substance. And though our apprehension of this truth, which is ineffable, cannot be defined in words, yet the teaching of the Son, as He reveals to us that He went forth from God, imparts to it the certainty of an assured faith.

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature is not the faith of the Gospels and the Apostles. If this is merely a title that He claims only through adoption, if He is not the Son by virtue of having proceeded forth from God, then I ask: why did blessed Simon Bar-Jona confess to Him, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"? Was it because Christ shared with all humanity the power to be born as sons of God through the sacrament of regeneration? If Christ is the Son of God only in this titular way, what was the revelation made to Peter, not by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven? What praise could he deserve for making a statement that applied to everyone? What credit was due to him for stating a commonly known fact? If Christ is Son by adoption, where is the blessedness of Peter's confession, which offered tribute to the Son that—in that case—He would have no more right to than any member of the company of saints? The Apostle's faith penetrates into a region closed to human reasoning. He had undoubtedly often heard, "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." So he knew well that Christ had been sent. He had heard Christ, whom he knew to have been sent, declare, "All things are delivered to Me by the Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son." What then is this truth that the Father now reveals to Peter, which receives the praise of a blessed confession? It cannot have been that the names 'Father' and 'Son' were new to him; he had heard them often. Yet he speaks words that human tongue had never formed before: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." For though Christ, while dwelling in the body, had declared Himself to be the Son of God, now for the first time the Apostle's faith had recognized in Him the presence of the Divine physis. Peter is praised not merely for his tribute of worship, but for his recognition of the mysterious truth—for confessing not Christ only, but Christ the Son of God. It clearly would have been enough for a payment of reverence if he had said, "You are the Christ," and nothing more. But it would have been an empty confession if Peter had only hailed Him as Christ without confessing Him the Son of God. And so his words "You are" declare that what is asserted of Him is strictly and exactly true to His nature. Next, the Father's statement, "This is My Son," had revealed to Peter that he must confess "You are the Son of God," for in the words "This is," God the Revealer points Him out, and the response "You are" is the believer's welcome to the truth. And this is the rock of confession on which the Church is built. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot reach the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. Was it only the Divine name, and not rather the Divine physis, that was revealed to Peter? If it were the name, he had heard it often from the Lord proclaiming Himself the Son of God. What honor, then, did he deserve for announcing the name? No, it was not the name; it was the physis, for the name had been repeatedly proclaimed.

36. A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles. If this be a mere title, to which adoption is His only claim; if He be not the Son in virtue of having proceeded forth from God, whence, I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God Matthew 16:16? Because He shared with all mankind the power of being born as one of the sons of God through the sacrament of regeneration? If Christ be the Son of God only in this titular way, what was the revelation made to Peter, not by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven? What praise could he deserve for making a declaration which was universally applicable? What credit was due to Him for stating a fact of general knowledge? If He be Son by adoption, wherein lay the blessedness of Peter's confession, which offered a tribute to the Son to which, in that case, He had no more title than any member of the company of saints? The Apostle's faith penetrates into a region closed to human reasoning. He had, no doubt, often heard, He that receives you receives Me, and He that receives Me receives Him that sent Me. Matthew 10:40 Hence he knew well that Christ had been sent; he had heard Him, Whom he knew to have been sent, making the declaration, All things are delivered unto Me of the Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any one the Father save the Son. What then is this truth, which the Father now reveals to Peter, which receives the praise of a blessed confession? It cannot have been that the names of 'Father' and 'Son' were novel to him; he had heard them often. Yet he speaks words which the tongue of man had never framed before:– You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. For though Christ, while dwelling in the body, had avowed Himself to be the Son of God, yet now for the first time the Apostle's faith had recognised in Him the presence of the Divine nature. Peter is praised not merely for his tribute of adoration, but for his recognition of the mysterious truth; for confessing not Christ only, but Christ the Son of God. It would clearly have sufficed for a payment of reverence, had he said, You are the Christ, and nothing more. But it would have been a hollow confession, had Peter only hailed Him as Christ, without confessing Him the Son of God. And so his words You are declare that what is asserted of Him is strictly and exactly true to His nature. Next, the Father's utterance, This is My Son, had revealed to Peter that he must confess You are the Son of God, for in the words This is, God the Revealer points Him out, and the response, You are, is the believer's welcome to the truth. And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot attain to the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, Divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. Was it only the Divine name; was it not rather the Divine nature that was revealed to Peter? If it were the name, he had heard it often from the Lord, proclaiming Himself the Son of God. What honour, then, did he deserve for announcing the name? No; it was not the name; it was the nature, for the name had been repeatedly proclaimed.

This faith is the foundation of the Church. Through this faith, the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith that has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever this faith binds or loosens on earth will be bound or loosened in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift, given by revelation—the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made from nothing, but must confess Him as the Son of God, truly possessing the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful foolishness it is to ignore the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was asked in prayer that his faith might not fail when tested. He twice repeated his declaration of love for God when asked, and was grieved when tested a third time, as though his devotion were doubtful and uncertain. But because this third test cleansed him of his weaknesses, he received the reward of hearing the Lord's command, "Feed My sheep," repeated three times. When all the other apostles were silent, he alone recognized the Son of God through the Father's revelation, and by confessing this blessed faith, he gained a glory beyond what human weakness could achieve. What conclusions must we draw from studying his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God. You, lying bishop of this new apostolate, force upon us your modern idea that Christ is a creature made from nothing. What violence this is, twisting such glorious words! The very reason he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the guarantee of her lasting endurance. From this she has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, from this comes judgment in heaven and judgment on earth. Through revelation, Peter learned the mystery hidden from the beginning of the world, proclaimed the faith, declared the Divine nature, and confessed the Son of God. Anyone who would deny all this truth and confess Christ as a creature must first deny Peter's apostleship, his faith, his blessedness, his office as bishop, and his martyrdom. And when he has done all this, he must understand that he has separated himself from Christ, for it was by confessing Him that Peter won these glories.

37. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful folly is it, that will not heed the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was prayed that his faith might not fail in temptation; who twice repeated the declaration of love for God that was demanded of him, and was grieved that he was tested by a third renewal of the question, as though it were a doubtful and wavering devotion, and then, because this third trial had cleansed him of his infirmities, had the reward of hearing the Lord's commission, Feed My sheep, a third time repeated; who, when all the Apostles were silent, alone recognised by the Father's revelation the Son of God, and won the pre-eminence of a glory beyond the reach of human frailty by his confession of his blissful faith! What are the conclusions forced upon us by the study of his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God; you, lying bishop of the new apostolate, thrust upon us your modern notion that Christ is a creature, made out of nothing. What violence is this, that so distorts the glorious words? The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth. Through revelation Peter learned the mystery hidden from the beginning of the world, proclaimed the faith, published the Divine nature, confessed the Son of God. He who would deny all this truth and confess Christ a creature, must first deny the apostleship of Peter, his faith, his blessedness, his episcopate, his martyrdom. And when he has done all this, he must learn that he has severed himself from Christ; for it was by confessing Him that Peter won these glories.

Do you think, wretched heretic of today, that Peter would have been more blessed now if he had said, "You are Christ, God's perfect creature, His handiwork, though surpassing all His other works. Your beginning was from nothing, and through the goodness of God, who alone is good, the name of Son has been given to You by adoption, although in fact You were not born from God"? What answer do you think would have been given to such words, when this same Peter's reply to the announcement of the Passion—"Be it far from You, Lord; this shall not be"—was rebuked with "Get behind Me, Satan, you are an offense to Me"? Yet Peter could appeal to his human ignorance to lessen his guilt, for the Father had not yet revealed to him the full mystery of the Passion. Still, a mere lack of faith received this stern condemnation. Now, why did the Father not reveal to Peter your true confession, this faith in an adopted creature? I suppose God must have begrudged him the knowledge of the truth, that He wanted to postpone it to a later age and keep it as a novelty for your modern preachers. Yes, you may have a change of faith if the keys of heaven are changed. You may have a change of faith if there is a change in that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. You may have a change of faith if there shall be a fresh apostolate, binding and loosing in heaven what it has bound and loosed on earth. You may have a change of faith if another Christ the Son of God, besides the true Christ, shall be preached. But if that faith which confesses Christ as the Son of God, and that faith only, received in Peter's person every accumulated blessing, then necessarily the faith which proclaims Him a creature made out of nothing does not hold the keys of the Church and is a stranger to the apostolic faith and power. It is neither the Church's faith, nor is it Christ's.

38. Do you think, wretched heretic of today, that Peter would have been the more blessed now, if he had said, 'You are Christ, God's perfect creature, His handiwork, though excelling all His other works. Your beginning was from nothing, and through the goodness of God, Who alone is good, the name of Son has been given You by adoption, although in fact You were not born from God.' What answer, think you, would have been given to such words as these, when this same Peter's reply to the announcement of the Passion, Be it far from You, Lord; this shall not be, was rebuked with, Get behind Me, Satan, you are an offense unto Me Matthew 16:22-23? Yet Peter could plead his human ignorance in extenuation of his guilt, for as yet the Father had not revealed all the mystery of the Passion; still, mere defect of faith was visited with this stern condemnation. Now, why was it that the Father did not reveal to Peter your true confession, this faith in an adopted creature? I fancy that God must have grudged him the knowledge of the truth; that He wanted to postpone it to a later age, and keep it as a novelty for your modern preachers. Yes; you may have a change of faith, if the keys of heaven are changed. You may have a change of faith, if there is a change in that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. You may have a change of faith, if there shall be a fresh apostolate, binding and loosing in heaven what it has bound and loosed on earth. You may have a change of faith, if another Christ the Son of God, beside the true Christ, shall be preached. But if that faith which confesses Christ as the Son of God, and that faith only, received in Peter's person every accumulated blessing, then perforce the faith which proclaims Him a creature, made out of nothing, holds not the keys of the Church and is a stranger to the apostolic faith and power. It is neither the Church's faith, nor is it Christ's.

39. Let us therefore look at every example of a statement of faith made by an Apostle. All of them, when they confess the Son of God, confess Him not as a Son in name only or by adoption, but as Son by possessing the Divine nature. They never reduce Him to the level of a creature, but attribute to Him the glory of a true birth from God. Let John speak to us while he is waiting, just as he is, for the coming of the Lord; John, who was left behind and assigned to a destiny hidden in God's plan, for he is not told that he will not die, but only that he will remain. Let him speak to us in his own familiar voice: "No one has seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18). It seemed to him that the name of Son did not express His true Divinity clearly enough, unless he gave additional support to Christ's unique majesty by indicating the difference between Him and all others. Therefore he not only calls Him the Son, but adds the further designation of the Only-begotten, and so removes the last support from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that He is Only-begotten is clear proof of His right to the name of Son.

39. Let us therefore cite every example of a statement of the faith made by an Apostle. All of them, when they confess the Son of God, confess Him not as a nominal and adoptive Son, but as Son by possession of the Divine nature. They never degrade Him to the level of a creature, but assign Him the splendour of a true birth from God. Let John speak to us, while he is waiting, just as he is, for the coming of the Lord; John, who was left behind and appointed to a destiny hidden in the counsel of God, for he is not told that he shall not die, but only that he shall tarry. Let him speak to us in his own familiar voice:– No one has seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, Which is in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 It seemed to him that the name of Son did not set forth with sufficient distinctness His true Divinity, unless he gave an external support to the peculiar majesty of Christ by indicating the difference between Him and all others. Hence he not only calls Him the Son, but adds the further designation of the Only-begotten, and so cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that He is Only-begotten is proof positive of His right to the name of Son.

I will set aside for now the phrase "which is in the bosom of the Father" and address it at a more suitable point. My current focus is on the meaning of "Only-begotten" and what that meaning requires us to acknowledge. First, let us examine whether this word means, as you claim, a perfect creature of God—with "Only-begotten" equivalent to "perfect" and "Son" simply another word for "creature." But John described the Only-begotten Son as God, not as a perfect creature. His words "which is in the bosom of the Father" show that he anticipated these blasphemous interpretations. Indeed, he had heard his Lord say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God, who loved the world, gave His Only-begotten Son as a clear sign of His love. If the proof of His love is this—that He gave a creature to other creatures, gave a worldly being for the world's sake, granted someone raised up from nothing for the redemption of others equally raised up from nothing—then this cheap and insignificant sacrifice is poor evidence of His favor toward us. Valuable gifts are the proof of affection: the greatness of what is given up reveals the greatness of the love. God, who loved the world, did not give an adopted son, but His own, His Only-begotten. Here is personal connection, true Sonship, genuine relationship—not creation, or adoption, or pretense. This is the proof of His love and affection: that He gave His own, His Only-begotten Son.

40. I defer the consideration of the words, which is in the bosom of the Father, to a more appropriate place. My present enquiry is into the sense of Only-begotten, and the claim upon us which that sense may make. And first let us see whether the word mean, as you assert, a perfect creature of God; Only-begotten being equivalent to perfect, and Son a synonym for creature. But John described the Only-begotten Son as God, not as a perfect creature. His words, Which is in the bosom of the Father, show that he anticipated these blasphemous designations; and, indeed, he had heard his Lord say, For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God, Who loved the world, gave His Only-begotten Son as a manifest token of His love. If the evidence of His love be this, that He bestowed a creature upon creatures, gave a worldly being on the world's behalf, granted one raised up from nothing for the redemption of objects equally raised up from nothing, this cheap and petty sacrifice is a poor assurance of His favour towards us. Gifts of price are the evidence of affection: the greatness of the surrender of the greatness of the love. God, Who loved the world, gave not an adopted Son, but His own, His Only-begotten. Here is personal interest, true Sonship, sincerity; not creation, or adoption, or pretence. Herein is the proof of His love and affection, that He gave His own, His Only-begotten Son.

I'm not appealing right now to any of the titles given to the Son. There's no harm in delaying when the delay comes from having too many choices. My current argument is this: a successful outcome requires an adequate cause. Every effective action must have some clear and compelling reason behind it. The Evangelist has been forced to reveal his reason for writing. Let's look at the purpose he admits to: "But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." The one reason he gives for writing his Gospel is so that everyone may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If it's enough for salvation to believe that He is the Christ, why does he add "the Son of God"? But if true faith is nothing less than believing that Christ is not just Christ, but Christ the Son of God, then clearly the name "Son" is not attached to Christ as a routine addition due to adoption, since it is essential to salvation. If salvation depends on confessing the name, doesn't the name have to express the truth? If the name expresses the truth, by what authority can He be called a creature? It is not the confession of a creature, but the confession of the Son, that will give us salvation.

41. I appeal not now to any of the titles which are given to the Son; there is no loss in delay when it is the result of an embarrassing abundance of choice. My present argument is that a successful result implies a sufficient cause; some clear and cogent motive must underlie every effectual performance. And so the Evangelist has been obliged to reveal his motive in writing. Let us see what is the purpose which he confesses;– But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. John 20:31 The one reason which he alleges for writing his Gospel is that all may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If it be sufficient for salvation to believe that He is the Christ, why does he add The Son of God? But if the true faith be nothing less than the belief that Christ is not merely Christ, but Christ the Son of God, then assuredly the name of Son is not attached to Christ as a customary appendage due to adoption, seeing that it is essential to salvation. If then salvation consists in the confession of the name, must not the name express the truth? If the name express the truth, by what authority can He be called a creature? It is not the confession of a creature, but the confession of the Son, which shall give us salvation.

Therefore, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is true salvation and the acceptable worship of genuine faith. We have no love within us toward God the Father except through faith in the Son. Let us hear Him speaking to us in the words of the Epistle: "Every one that loves the Father loves Him that is born from Him." What, I ask, does being born from Him mean? Can it possibly mean being created by Him? Does the Evangelist lie in saying that He was born from God, while the heretic more correctly teaches that He was created? Let us all listen to the true character of this heretical teacher. It is written, "He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son." What will you do now, defender of the creature, inventor of a novel Christ out of nothing? Hear the title that awaits you if you persist in your claim. Or do you think that perhaps you may still describe the Father and the Son as Creator and Creature, and yet by a clever ambiguity of language escape being recognized as antichrist? If your confession embraces a Father in the true sense and a Son in the true sense, then I am a slanderer, attacking you with a title of disgrace that you have not deserved. But if in your confession all Christ's attributes are false and merely nominal, and not His own, then learn from the Apostle the correct description of such a faith as yours, and hear what the true faith is that believes in the Son. The words that follow are these: "He that denies the Son, the same has not the Father: he that confesses the Son has both the Son and the Father." He who denies the Son is without the Father; he who confesses and has the Son has the Father also. What room is there here for adopted names? Does not every word speak of the Divine nature? Learn how completely that nature is present.

42. To believe, therefore, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is true salvation, is the acceptable service of an unfeigned faith. For we have no love within us towards God the Father except through faith in the Son. Let us hear Him speaking to us in the words of the Epistle;– Every one that loves the Father loves Him that is born from Him. 1 John 5:1 What, I ask, is the meaning of being born from Him? Can it mean, perchance, being created by Him? Does the Evangelist lie in saying that He was born from God, while the heretic more correctly teaches that He was created? Let us all listen to the true character of this teacher of heresy. It is written, He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. What will you do now, champion of the creature, conjurer up of a novel Christ out of nothing? Hear the title which awaits you, if you persist in your assertion. Or do you think that perhaps you may still describe the Father and the Son as Creator and Creature, and yet by an ingenious ambiguity of language escape being recognised as antichrist? If your confession embraces a Father in the true sense, and a Son in the true sense, then I am a slanderer, assailing you with a title of infamy which you have not deserved. But if in your confession all Christ's attributes are spurious and nominal, and not His own, then learn from the Apostle the right description of such a faith as yours; and hear what is the true faith which believes in the Son. The words which follow are these — He that denies the Son, the same has not the Father: he that confesses the Son has both the Son and the Father. He that denies the Son is destitute of the Father; he that confesses and has the Son has the Father also. What room is there here for adoptive names? Does not every word tell of the Divine nature? Learn how completely that nature is present.

John speaks in this way: "We know that the Son of God has come and was incarnate for us, and suffered, and rose again from the dead and took us for Himself, and gave us a good understanding that we may know Him who is true, and may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. He is true and is life eternal and our resurrection." Wisdom doomed to an evil end, void of the Spirit of God, destined to possess the spirit and the name of Antichrist, blind to the truth that the Son of God came to fulfill the mystery of our salvation, and unworthy in that blindness to perceive the light of that supreme knowledge! For this wisdom claims that Jesus Christ is no true Son of God, but a creature of His, who bears the Divine name by adoption. In what dark oracle of hidden knowledge was this secret learned? To whose research do we owe this, the great discovery of the day? Were you the one who lay upon the bosom of the Lord? Were you the one to whom in the familiar conversation of love He revealed the mystery? Was it you who alone followed Him to the foot of the Cross? And while He was charging you to receive Mary as your Mother, did He teach you this secret as the token of His special love for you? Or did you run to the tomb and reach it sooner even than Peter, and so gain this knowledge there? Or was it among the crowds of angels, and sealed books whose clasps no one can open, and manifold workings of the signs of heaven, and unknown songs of the eternal choirs, that the Lamb, your Guide, revealed to you this godly doctrine—that the Father is no Father, the Son no Son, nor nature, nor truth? For you transform all these into lies. The Apostle, by that most excellent knowledge that was granted him, speaks of the Son of God as true. You assert His creation, proclaim His adoption, deny His birth. While the true Son of God is eternal life and resurrection to us, for the one in whose eyes He is not true, there is neither eternal life nor resurrection. And this is the lesson taught by John, the disciple beloved of the Lord.

43. John speaks thus — For we know that the Son of God has come, and was incarnate for us, and suffered, and rose again from the dead and took us for Himself, and gave us a good understanding that we may know Him that is true, and may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. He is true and is life eternal and our resurrection. Wisdom doomed to an evil end, void of the Spirit of God, destined to possess the spirit and the name of Antichrist, blind to the truth that the Son of God came to fulfil the mystery of our salvation, and unworthy in that blindness to perceive the light of that sovereign knowledge! For this wisdom asserts that Jesus Christ is no true Son of God, but a creature of His, Who bears the Divine name by adoption. In what dark oracle of hidden knowledge was the secret learned? To whose research do we owe this, the great discovery of the day? Were you he that lay upon the bosom of the Lord? You he to whom in the familiar intercourse of love He revealed the mystery? Was it you that alone followed Him to the foot of the Cross? And while He was charging you to receive Mary as your Mother, did He teach you this secret, as the token of His peculiar love for yourself? Or did you run to the Sepulchre, and reach it sooner even than Peter, and so gain this knowledge there? Or was it amid the throngs of angels, and sealed books whose clasps none can open, and manifold influences of the signs of heaven, and unknown songs of the eternal choirs, that the Lamb, your Guide, revealed to you this godly doctrine, that the Father is no Father, the Son no Son, nor nature, nor truth? For you transform all these into lies. The Apostle, by that most excellent knowledge that was granted him, speaks of the Son of God as true. You assert His creation, proclaim His adoption, deny His birth. While the true Son of God is eternal life and resurrection to us, for him, in whose eyes He is not true, there is neither eternal life nor resurrection. And this is the lesson taught by John, the disciple beloved of the Lord.

44. And the persecutor who was converted to become an Apostle and a chosen vessel delivers the very same message. What discourse of his does not presuppose the confession of the Son? What Epistle of his does not begin with a confession of that mysterious truth? When he says, "We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10), and "God sent His Son to be the likeness of the flesh of sin" (1 John 8:3), and again, "God is faithful, by Whom you were called unto the fellowship of His Son" (1 Corinthians 1:9), is any loophole left for heretical misrepresentation? His Son, Son of God—this is what we read, but nothing is said of His adoption or of God's creature. The name expresses the nature; He is God's Son, and therefore the Sonship is true. The Apostle's confession asserts the genuineness of the relation. I do not see how the Divine nature of the Son could have been more completely stated. That Chosen Vessel has proclaimed in no weak or wavering voice that Christ is the Son of Him Who, as we believe, is the Father. The Teacher of the Gentiles, the Apostle of Christ, has left us no uncertainty, no opening for error in his presentation of the doctrine. He is quite clear on the subject of children by adoption—of those who by faith attain to be and to be named such. In his own words, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (Romans 8:14-15). This is the name granted to us who believe, through the sacrament of regeneration; our confession of the faith wins us this adoption. For our work done in obedience to the Spirit of God gives us the title of sons of God. "Abba, Father" is the cry we raise, not the expression of our essential nature. For that essential nature of ours is untouched by that tribute of the voice. It is one thing for God to be addressed as Father; another thing for Him to be the Father of His Son.

44. And the persecutor, who was converted to be an Apostle and a chosen vessel, delivers the very same message. What discourse is there of his which does not presuppose the confession of the Son? What Epistle of his that does not begin with a confession of that mysterious truth? When he says, We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son Romans 5:10, and, God sent His Son to be the likeness of the flesh of sin 1 John 8:3, and again, God is faithful, by Whom you were called unto the fellowship of His Son 1 Corinthians 1:9, is any loophole left for heretical misrepresentation? His Son, Son of God; so we read, but nothing is said of His adoption, or of God's creature. The name expresses the nature; He is God's Son, and therefore the Sonship is true. The Apostle's confession asserts the genuineness of the relation. I see not how the Divine nature of the Son could have been more completely stated. That Chosen Vessel has proclaimed in no weak or wavering voice that Christ is the Son of Him Who, as we believe, is the Father. The Teacher of the Gentiles, the Apostle of Christ, has left us no uncertainty, no opening for error in his presentation of the doctrine. He is quite clear upon the subject of children by adoption; of those who by faith attain so to be and so to be named. in his own words, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:14-15 This is the name granted to us, who believe, through the sacrament of regeneration; our confession of the faith wins us this adoption. For our work done in obedience to the Spirit of God gives us the title of sons of God. Abba, Father, is the cry which we raise, not the expression of our essential nature. For that essential nature of ours is untouched by that tribute of the voice. It is one thing for God to be addressed as Father; another thing for Him to be the Father of His Son.

But now let us learn what faith the Apostle holds concerning the Son of God. Although there is no single discourse among his many teachings on the Church's doctrine in which he mentions the Father without also confessing the Son, he speaks in the following way to display the truth of the relationship that this name conveys with the greatest precision that human language can achieve: What then? If God be for us, who can be against us? Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us. Can "Son" by any remaining possibility be a title received through adoption when He is expressly called God's own Son? For the Apostle, wishing to reveal God's love toward us, uses a kind of comparison to enable us to measure how great that love is when he says that it was His own Son whom God did not spare. He suggests the thought that this was no sacrifice of an adopted son on behalf of those whom He intended to adopt, of a creature for creatures, but of His Son for strangers, His own Son for those to whom He had willed to give a share in the name of sons. Search out the full meaning of the term so that you may understand the extent of the love. Consider the meaning of "own"; note the genuineness of the Sonship which it implies. For the Apostle now describes Him as God's own Son; previously he had often spoken of Him as God's Son or Son of God. And though many manuscripts, through a failure to understand on the part of the translators, read in this passage "His Son" instead of "His own Son," the original Greek, the language in which the Apostle wrote, is more exactly rendered by "His own" than by "His." And though the casual reader may see no great difference between "His own" and "His," the Apostle, who in all his other statements had spoken of "His Son" (which is in Greek τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν), in this passage uses the words ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, that is, "Who spared not His own Son," expressly and emphatically indicating His true divine nature. Previously he had declared that through the Spirit of adoption there are many sons; now his purpose is to point to God's own Son, God the Only-begotten.

45. But now let us learn what is this faith concerning the Son of God, which the Apostle holds. For though there is no single discourse, among the many which he delivered concerning the Church's doctrine, in which he mentions the Father without also making confession of the Son, yet, in order to display the truth of the relation which that name conveys with the utmost definiteness of which human language is capable, he speaks thus:– What then? If God be for us, who can be against us? Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us. Can Son, by any remaining possibility, be a title received through adoption, when He is expressly called God's own Son? For the Apostle, wishing to make manifest the love of God towards us, uses a kind of comparison, to enable us to estimate how great that love is, when He says that it was His own Son Whom God did not spare. He suggests the thought that this was no sacrifice of an adopted Son, on behalf of those whom He purposed to adopt, of a creature for creatures, but of His Son for strangers, His own Son for those to whom He had willed to give a share in the name of sons. Seek out the full import of the term, that you may understand the extent of the love. Consider the meaning of own; mark the genuineness of the Sonship which it implies. For the Apostle now describes Him as God's own Son; previously he had often spoken of Him as God's Son, or Son of God. And though many manuscripts, through a want of apprehension on the part of the translators, read in this passage His Son, instead of His own Son, yet the original Greek, the tongue in which the Apostle wrote, is more exactly rendered by His own than by His. And though the casual reader may discern no great difference between His own and His, yet the Apostle, who in all his other statements had spoken of His Son, which is, in the Greek, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱ& 231·ν, in this passage uses the words ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, that is, Who spared not His own Son, expressly and emphatically indicating His true Divine nature. Previously he had declared that through the Spirit of adoption there are many sons; now his object is to point to God's own Son, God the Only-begotten.

This is not a universal and unavoidable mistake. Those who deny the Son cannot blame their ignorance, for it is impossible to be ignorant of the truth they deny. They describe the Son of God as a creature who came into being out of nothing. If the Father has never stated this, nor the Son confirmed it, nor the Apostles proclaimed it, then the daring claim they make springs not from ignorance but from hatred of Christ. When the Father says of His Son, "This is," and the Son says of Himself, "It is He that talks with you," and when Peter confesses "You are," and John assures us "This is the true God," and Paul never tires of proclaiming Him as God's own Son, I can think of no other reason for this denial than hatred. They cannot plead unfamiliarity with the subject to excuse their guilt. This is the suggestion of the Evil One, spoken now through these prophets and forerunners of his coming; he will speak it himself later when he comes as Antichrist. He is using this new weapon of attack to shake our saving confession of the faith. His first goal is to tear from our hearts the confident assurance of the divine nature of the Son; next, he would fill our minds with the idea of Christ's adoption and leave no room for remembering His other claims. For those who believe that Christ is merely a creature must regard Christ as Antichrist, since a creature cannot be God's own Son, and therefore He must be lying in calling Himself the Son of God. Therefore, those who deny that Christ is the Son of God must have Antichrist as their Christ.

46. This is no universal and inevitable error; they who deny the Son cannot lay the fault upon their ignorance, for ignorance of the truth which they deny is impossible. They describe the Son of God as a creature who came into being out of nothing. If the Father has never asserted this, nor the Son confirmed it, nor the Apostles proclaimed it, then the dating which prompts their allegation is bred not of ignorance, but of hatred for Christ. When the Father says of His Son, This is, and the Son of Himself, It is He that talks with You John 9:37, and when Peter confesses You are, and John assures us, This is the true God 1 John 5:20, and Paul is never weary of proclaiming Him as God's own Son, I can conceive of no other motive for this denial than hatred. The plea of want of familiarity with the subject cannot be urged in extenuation of their guilt. It is the suggestion of that Evil One, uttered now through these prophets and forerunners of his coming; he will utter it himself hereafter when he comes as Antichrist. He is using this novel engine of assault to shake us in our saving confession of the faith. His first object is to pluck from our hearts the confident assurance of the Divine nature of the Son; next, he would fill our minds with the notion of Christ's adoption, and leave no room for the memory of His other claims. For they who hold that Christ is but a creature, must regard Christ as Antichrist, since a creature cannot be God's own Son, and therefore He must lie in calling Himself the Son of God. Hence also they who deny that Christ is the Son of God must have Antichrist for their Christ.

What hope are you chasing with this empty passion of yours? What assurance of salvation gives you the boldness to speak blasphemously and insist that Christ is a creature and not a Son? You should have learned this mystery from the Gospels and held firmly to that knowledge. For though the Lord can do all things, He determined that everyone who asks for His powerful help must earn it through a true confession of who He is. Not that the petitioner's confession could increase the power of Him who is the Power of God, but the earning was meant to be the reward of faith. When He asked Martha, who was pleading with Him for Lazarus, whether she believed that those who had believed in Him would not die eternally, her answer expressed the trust of her soul: "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who has come into this world." This confession is eternal life; this faith brings immortality. Martha, praying for her brother's life, was asked whether she believed this. She did believe. What life can the denier expect, and from whom does he hope to receive it, when this belief, and this alone, is eternal life? For the mystery of this faith is great, and the blessedness that comes from this confession is complete.

47. What is the hope of which this futile passion of yours is in pursuit? What is the assurance of your salvation which emboldens you with blasphemous licence of tongue to maintain that Christ is a creature, and not a Son? It was your duty to know this mystery, from the Gospels, and to hold the knowledge fast. For though the Lord can do all things, yet He resolved that every one who prays for His effectual help must earn it by a true confession of Himself. Not, indeed, that the suppliant's confession could augment the power of Him, Who is the Power of God; but the earning was to be the reward of faith. So, when He asked Martha, who was entreating Him for Lazarus, whether she believed that they who had believed in Him should not die eternally, her answer expressed the trust of her soul — Yea, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, Who has come into this world. John 11:27 This confession is eternal life; this faith has immortality. Martha, praying for her brother's life, was asked whether she believed this. She did so believe. What life does the denier expect, from whom does he hope to receive it, when this belief, and this only, is eternal life? For great is the mystery of this faith, and perfect the blessedness which is the fruit of this confession.

The Lord had given sight to a man born blind; the Lord of nature had removed a defect of nature. Because this blind man had been born for the glory of God, so that God's work might be made manifest in the work of Christ, the Lord did not wait until the man had given evidence of his faith by confessing it. Although the man did not know at the time who it was that had given him the great gift of eyesight, he later came to a knowledge of the faith. For it was not the healing of his blindness that won him eternal life. And so, when the man was already healed and had been thrown out of the synagogue, the Lord asked him, Do you believe in the Son of God? This was to save him from feeling any sense of loss at being excluded from the synagogue, by making certain that confessing the true faith had restored him to immortality. When the man, his soul still unenlightened, answered, Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? the Lord's reply was, You have both seen Him, and it is He that talks with you. For He wanted to remove the ignorance of the man whose sight He had restored, and whom He was now enriching with the knowledge of so glorious a faith. Does the Lord demand from this man, as He did from others who prayed Him to heal them, a confession of faith as the price of their recovery? Absolutely not. For the blind man could already see when he was addressed in this way. The Lord asked the question in order to receive the answer, Lord, I believe. The faith that spoke in that answer was to receive not sight, but life. And now let us examine carefully the force of the words. The Lord asks the man, Do you believe in the Son of God? Surely, if a simple confession of Christ, leaving His nature unclear, were a complete expression of the faith, the question would have been, Do you believe in Christ? But in days to come almost every heretic was going to parade that name, confessing Christ and yet denying that He is the Son; and therefore He demands, as the condition of faith, that we should believe in what is distinctive to Himself, that is, in His divine Sonship. What is the benefit of faith in the Son of God, if it is faith in a creature, when He requires of us faith in Christ, not the creature, but the Son, of God?

48. The Lord had given sight to a man blind from his birth; the Lord of nature had removed a defect of nature. Because this blind man had been born for the glory of God, that God's work might be made manifest in the work of Christ, the Lord did not delay till the man had given evidence of his faith by a confession of it. But though he knew not at the time Who it was that had bestowed the great gift of eyesight, yet afterwards he earned a knowledge of the faith. For it was not the dispelling of his blindness that won him eternal life. And so, when the man was already healed and had suffered ejection from the synagogue, the Lord put to him the question, Do you believe in the Son of God John 9:35? This was to save him from the thought of loss, in exclusion from the synagogue, by the certainty that confession of the true faith had restored him to immortality. When the man, his soul still unenlightened, made answer, Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? The Lord's reply was, You have both seen Him, and it is He that talks with you. For He was minded to remove the ignorance of the man whose sight he had restored, and whom He was now enriching with the knowledge of so glorious a faith. Does the Lord demand from this man, as from others, who prayed Him to heal them, a confession of faith as the price of their recovery? Emphatically not. For the blind man could already see when he was thus addressed. The Lord asked the question in order to receive the answer, Lord, I believe. The faith which spoke in that answer was to receive not sight, but life. And now let us examine carefully the force of the words. The Lord asks of the man, Do you believe in the Son of God? Surely, if a simple confession of Christ, leaving His nature in obscurity, were a complete expression of the faith, the terms of the question would have been, 'Do you believe in Christ.' But in days to come almost every heretic was to make a parade of that name, confessing Christ and yet denying that He is the Son; and therefore He demands, as the condition of faith, that we should believe in what is peculiar to Himself, that is, in His Divine Sonship. What is the profit of faith in the Son of God, if it be faith in a creature, when He requires of us faith in Christ, not the creature, but the Son, of God.

Did the devils fail to understand the full meaning of this name of Son? For we are treating the heretics as they deserve if we no longer refute them by the teaching of the Apostles, but out of the mouth of devils. The devils cry out, and cry often, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God most High?" Truth forced this confession from them against their will; their unwilling obedience witnesses to the power of the divine physis within Him. When they flee from the bodies they have long possessed, it is His might that conquers them; their confession of His physis is an act of reverence. These events show Christ as the Son of God both in power and in name. Can you hear, amid all these cries of devils confessing Him, Christ ever called a creature, or God's condescension in adopting Him ever mentioned?

49. Did devils fail to understand the full meaning of this name of Son? For we are valuing the heretics at their true worth if we refute them no longer by the teaching of Apostles, but out of the mouth of devils. They cry, and cry often, What have I to do with You, Jesus, Thou Son of God most High Luke 8:28? Truth wrung this confession from them against their will; their reluctant obedience is a witness to the force of the Divine nature within Him. When they fly from the bodies they have long possessed, it is His might that conquers them; their confession of His nature is an act of reverence. These transactions display Christ as the Son of God both in power and in name. Can you hear, amid all these cries of devils confessing Him, Christ once styled a creature, or God's condescension in adopting Him once named?

If you won't learn who Christ is from those who know him, at least learn it from those who don't. Then the confession that their ignorance is forced to make will rebuke your blasphemy. The Jews did not recognize Christ when he came in the body, though they knew that the true Christ must be the Son of God. So when they were using false witnesses against him—witnesses whose testimony contained not one word of truth—their priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" They didn't know that in him the mystery was fulfilled, but they did know that the divine nature was the condition of its fulfillment. They didn't ask whether Christ is the Son of God; they asked whether he is Christ, the Son of God. They were wrong about the person of Christ, not about his Sonship. They didn't doubt that Christ is the Son of God. So while they asked whether he is the Christ, they asked without denying that the Christ is the Son of God. What about your faith, then, which leads you to deny what even they, in their blindness, confessed? Perfect knowledge is this: to be certain that Christ, the Son of God, who existed before the worlds, was also born of the Virgin. Even those who know nothing of his birth from Mary know that he is the Son of God. Notice the fellowship with Jewish wickedness that your denial of the divine Sonship has brought you into! For they have put on record the reason for their condemnation: "And by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." Isn't this the same charge you are blasphemously bringing against him—that while you declare him a creature, he calls himself the Son? He confesses himself the Son, and they declare him guilty of death. You too deny that he is the Son of God. What sentence do you pass upon him? You have the same opposition to his claim as the Jews had. You agree with their verdict. I want to know whether you will quarrel about the sentence. Your offense in denying that he is the Son of God is exactly the same as theirs, though their guilt is less because they sinned in ignorance. They didn't know that Christ was born of Mary, yet they never doubted that Christ must be the Son of God. You are perfectly aware of the fact that Christ was born of Mary, yet you refuse him the name of Son of God. If they come to the faith, an unimperiled salvation awaits them because of their past ignorance. Every gate of safety is shut to you because you persist in denying a truth that is obvious to you. For you are not ignorant that he is the Son of God. You know it so well that you allow him the name as a title of adoption and pretend that he is a creature adorned, like others, with the right to call himself a Son. You rob him, as far as you can, of the divine nature. If you could, you would rob him of the divine name as well. But because you cannot, you divorce the name from the nature: he is called a Son, but he shall not be the true Son of God.

50. If you will not learn Who Christ is from those that know Him, learn it at least from those that know Him not. So shall the confession, which their ignorance is forced to make, rebuke your blasphemy. The Jews did not recognise Christ, come in the body, though they knew that the true Christ must be the Son of God. And so, when they were employing false witnesses, without one word of truth in their testimony, against Him, their priest asked Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed Mark 14:61? They knew not that in Him the mystery was fulfilled; they knew that the Divine nature was the condition of its fulfilment. They did not ask whether Christ be the Son of God; they asked whether He were Christ, the Son of God. They were wrong as to the Person, not as to the Sonship, of Christ. They did not doubt that Christ is the Son of God; and thus, while they asked whether He were the Christ, they asked without denying that the Christ is the Son of God. What, then, of your faith, which leads you to deny what even they, in their blindness, confessed? The perfect knowledge is this, to be assured that Christ, the Son of God, Who existed before the worlds, was also born of the Virgin. Even they, who know nothing of His birth from Mary, know that He is the Son of God. Mark the fellowship with Jewish wickedness in which your denial of the Divine Sonship has involved you! For they have put on record the reason of their condemnation:– And by our Law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. John 19:7 Is not this the same charge which you are blasphemously bringing against Him, that, while you pronounce Him a creature, He calls Himself the Son? He confesses Himself the Son, and they declare Him guilty of death: you too deny that He is the Son of God. What sentence do you pass upon Him? You have the same repugnance to His claim as had the Jews. You agree with their verdict; I want to know whether you will quarrel about the sentence. Your offense, in denying that He is the Son of God, is exactly the same as theirs, though their guilt is less, for they sinned in ignorance. They knew not that Christ was born of Mary, yet they never doubted that Christ must be the Son of God. You are perfectly aware of the fact that Christ was born of Mary, yet you refuse Him the name of Son of God. If they come to the faith, there awaits them an un-imperilled salvation, because of their past ignorance. Every gate of safety is shut to you, because you persist in denying a truth which is obvious to you. For you are not ignorant that He is the Son of God; you know it so well that you allow Him the name as a title of adoption, and feign that He is a creature adorned, like others, with the right to call Himself a Son. You rob Him, as far as you can, of the Divine nature; if you could, you would rob Him of the Divine name as well. But, because you cannot, you divorce the name from the nature; He is called a Son, but He shall not be the true Son of God.

The confession of the apostles—for whom the raging wind and troubled sea were restored to calm by a word of command—was an opportunity for you. You might have confessed, as they did, that He is God's true Son. You might have borrowed their very words: "Truly, this is the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). But an evil spirit of madness is driving you toward the shipwreck of your life. Your reason is distracted and overwhelmed, like the ocean tormented by the fury of the storm.

51. The confession of the Apostles, for whom by a word of command the raging wind and troubled sea were restored to calm, was an opportunity for you. You might have confessed, as they did, that He is God's true Son; you might have borrowed their very words, Of a truth, this is the Son of God. Matthew 14:33 But an evil spirit of madness is driving you on to shipwreck of your life; your reason is distracted and overwhelmed, like the ocean tormented by the fury of the storm.

If the testimony of the voyagers seems inconclusive to you because they were Apostles—though to me it carries greater weight for that very reason, even if it surprises me less—then at least accept the confirmation given by Gentiles. Listen to how the soldier from the Roman cohort, one of the stern guards around the Cross, was brought low to faith. The centurion sees the mighty works of Christ's power, and this is his testimony: "Truly this was the Son of God." The truth was forced upon him, after Christ gave up his spirit, by the torn veil of the Temple, the earth that shook, the rocks that split, the tombs that were opened, and the dead who rose. And this was the confession of an unbeliever. The deeds that were done convinced him that Christ's physis was omnipotent; he names him the Son of God, being assured of his true Divinity. The proof was so compelling, the man's conviction so strong, that the force of truth overcame his will, and even he who had nailed Christ to the Cross was driven to confess that he is the Lord of eternal glory, truly the Son of God.

52. If this witness of the voyagers seem inconclusive to you because they were Apostles, — though to me it comes with the greater weight for the same reason, though it surprises me the less — accept at any rate a corroboration given by the Gentiles. Hear how the soldier of the Roman cohort, one of the stern guard around the Cross, was humbled to the faith. The centurion sees the mighty workings of Christ's power; and this is the witness borne by him:– Truly this was the Son of God. Matthew 27:54 The truth was forced upon him, after Christ had given up the ghost, by the torn veil of the Temple, and the earth that shook, and the rocks that were rent, and the sepulchres that were opened, and the dead that rose. And it was the confession of an unbeliever. The deeds that were done convinced him that Christ's nature was omnipotent; he names Him the Son of God, being assured of His true Divinity. So cogent was the proof, so strong the man's conviction, that the force of truth conquered his will, and even he who had nailed Christ to the Cross was driven to confess that He is the Lord of eternal glory, truly the Son of God.

In our earlier books, we answered the insane and blasphemous teachings of the heretics, and this has brought us face to face with a problem: our readers are in equal danger whether we refute our opponents or stay silent. While unbelief was loudly and irreverently forcing upon us the unity of God—a unity that devout and reasonable faith cannot deny—the careful soul found itself trapped. Whether it affirmed or denied this claim, it faced the same danger of blasphemy. To human reasoning it may seem absurd and illogical to say that asserting a doctrine can be impious and denying the same doctrine can also be impious, since what is godly to maintain must be godless to dispute. If it serves a good purpose to tear down a statement, it would seem foolish to imagine that good can come from supporting it. But human reasoning is false when faced with God's plans, and foolish when it tries to match the wisdom of heaven. Its thoughts are limited by its own boundaries, its philosophy restricted by the weakness of natural reason. Human reasoning must become foolish in its own eyes before it can become wise toward God. That is, it must recognize the poverty of its own abilities and seek divine wisdom. It must become wise not by the standard of human philosophy, but by that which rises to God, before it can enter into his wisdom and see clearly the foolishness of the world. The heretics have cleverly arranged for this foolishness, which passes for wisdom, to serve their purposes. They use the confession of One God, for which they appeal to the witness of the Law and the Gospels in the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One." They are well aware of the risks involved, whether their claim is met with contradiction or passed over in silence. Either way, they see an opportunity to advance their heresy. If sacred truth, pressed with blasphemous intent, is met with silence, that silence is interpreted as agreement—as a confession that because God is One, his Son is therefore not God, and God remains in eternal solitude. If, on the other hand, the heresy involved in their bold argument is met with contradiction, this opposition is branded as a departure from true Gospel faith, which states in clear terms the unity of God, or else they accuse their opponent of falling into the opposite heresy, which allows only one prosopon of Father and Son. This is the deadly trick, wearing the appearance of attractive innocence, that the world's wisdom—which is foolishness with God—has forged to deceive us in this first article of their faith, which we can neither confess nor deny without risking blasphemy. We walk between dangers on both sides. The unity of God may force us into denying the Godhead of his Son, or if we confess that the Father is God and the Son is God, we may be driven into the heresy of interpreting the unity of Father and Son in the Sabellian sense. Thus their strategy of insisting on the One God would either exclude the Second Person from the Godhead, or destroy the unity by admitting him as a second God, or else make the unity merely nominal. For unity, they argue, excludes a Second; the existence of a Second destroys unity; and Two cannot be One.

1. Our reply, in the previous books, to the mad and blasphemous doctrines of the heretics has led us with open eyes into the difficulty that our readers incur an equal danger whether we refute our opponents, or whether we forbear. For while unbelief with boisterous irreverence was thrusting upon us the unity of God, a unity which devout and reasonable faith cannot deny, the scrupulous soul was caught in the dilemma that, whether it asserted or denied the proposition, the danger of blasphemy was equally incurred. To human logic it may seem ridiculous and irrational to say that it can be impious to assert, and impious to deny, the same doctrine, since what it is godly to maintain it must be godless to dispute; if it serve a good purpose to demolish a statement, it may seem folly to dream that good can come from supporting it. But human logic is fallacy in the presence of the counsels of God, and folly when it would cope with the wisdom of heaven; its thoughts are fettered by its limitations, its philosophy confined by the feebleness of natural reason. It must be foolish in its own eyes before it can be wise unto God; that is, it must learn the poverty of its own faculties and seek after Divine wisdom. It must become wise, not by the standard of human philosophy, but of that which mounts to God, before it can enter into His wisdom, and its eyes be opened to the folly of the world. The heretics have ingeniously contrived that this folly, which passes for wisdom, shall be their engine. They employ the confession of One God, for which they appeal to the witness of the Law and the Gospels in the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. They are well aware of the risks involved, whether their assertion be met by contradiction or passed over in silence; and, whichever happens, they see an opening to promote their heresy. If sacred truth, pressed with a blasphemous intent, be met by silence, that silence is construed as consent; as a confession that, because God is One, therefore His Son is not God, and God abides in eternal solitude. If, on the other hand, the heresy involved in their bold argument be met by contradiction, this opposition is branded as a departure from the true Gospel faith, which states in precise terms the unity of God, or else they cast in the opponent's teeth that he has fallen into the contrary heresy, which allows but one Person of Father and of Son. Such is the deadly artifice, wearing the aspect of an attractive innocence, which the world's wisdom, which is folly with God, has forged to beguile us in this first article of their faith, which we can neither confess nor deny without risk of blasphemy. We walk between dangers on either hand; the unity of God may force us into a denial of the Godhead of His Son, or, if we confess that the Father is God and the Son is God, we may be driven into the heresy of interpreting the unity of Father and of Son in the Sabellian sense. Thus their device of insisting upon the One God would either shut out the Second Person from the Godhead, or destroy the Unity by admitting Him as a second God, or else make the unity merely nominal. For unity, they would plead, excludes a Second; the existence of a Second is destructive of unity; and Two cannot be One.

We who have received this wisdom of God—which the world considers foolishness—intend to expose the serpentine deception of their teaching through a sound and saving confession of true faith in the Lord. We have organized our work to establish a strong position for presenting the truth without becoming trapped in the dangers of heretical claims. We carefully avoid both extremes: we do not deny that God is One, yet we clearly demonstrate, based on the evidence of the Lawgiver who proclaims God's unity, the truth that there is God and God. We teach that God is One not through any confusion of the Two. We do not tear Him apart by preaching multiple Gods, nor do we claim the distinction is merely in name. Rather, we present Him as God and God, setting aside for now a fuller discussion of divine unity for later. The Gospels tell us that Moses taught the truth when he proclaimed that God is One, and Moses, by proclaiming One God, confirms the lesson of the Gospels, which speak of God and God. Therefore we do not contradict our authorities but build our teaching upon them, proving that the revelation to Israel of the unity of God does not support denying divinity to the Son of God, since the one who authorizes us to assert that there is One God also authorizes us to confess the Godhead of His Son.

2. But we who have attained this wisdom of God, which is folly to the world, and purpose, by means of the sound and saving profession of true faith in the Lord, to unmask the snake-like treachery of their teaching; we have so laid out the plan of our undertaking as to gain a vantage ground for the display of the truth without entangling ourselves in the dangers of heretical assertion. We carefully avoid either extreme; not denying that God is One, yet setting forth distinctly, on the evidence of the Lawgiver who proclaims the unity of God, the truth that there is God and God. We teach that it is by no confusion of the Two that God is One; we do not rend Him in pieces by preaching a plurality of Gods, nor yet do we profess a distinction only in name. But we present Him as God and God, postponing at present for fuller discussion hereafter the question of the Divine unity. For the Gospels tell us that Moses taught the truth when he proclaimed that God is One; and Moses by his proclamation of One God confirms the lesson of the Gospels, which tell of God and God. Thus we do not contradict our authorities, but base our teaching upon them, proving that the revelation to Israel of the unity of God gives no sanction to the refusal of Divinity to the Son of God; since he who is our authority for asserting that there is One God is our authority also for confessing the Godhead of His Son.

Since the next article of their blasphemous and dishonest confession is "We confess One true God," the whole of this second book is devoted to the question of whether the Son of God is true God. It is clear that the heretics have cleverly arranged this by first naming One God and then One true God, in order to separate the Son from the name and nature of God. They want to suggest that since truth belongs to the One God, it must be strictly limited to Him alone. Therefore, since it is beyond doubt that Moses, when he proclaimed the unity of God, meant to assert the divinity of the Son, let us return to the key passages where his teaching is given and ask whether or not he wants us to believe that the Son, whom he has taught us is God, is also true God. Clearly, the truth or genuineness of a thing is a question of its nature and its powers. For example, true wheat is what grows to a head with the beard bristling around it, is separated from the chaff and ground to flour, made into a loaf and eaten as food, and provides the nature and uses of bread. Natural powers are the evidence of truth. Let us see, by this test, whether He whom Moses calls God is true God. We will postpone for now our discussion about this One God who is also true God, in case eager and anxious souls are troubled by dangerous doubts if I do not immediately take up their challenge and uphold the One True God in the two Persons of Father and of Son.

3. And so the arrangement of our treatise follows closely the order of the objections raised. Since the next article of their blasphemous and dishonest confession is, We confess One true God, the whole of this second book is devoted to the question whether the Son of God be true God. For it is clear that the heretics have ingeniously contrived this arrangement of first naming One God and then One true God, in order to detach the Son from the name and nature of God; since the thought must suggest itself that, truth being inherent in the One God, it must be strictly confined to Him. And therefore, since it is clear beyond a doubt that Moses, when he proclaimed the unity of God, meant therein to assert the Divinity of the Son, let us return to the leading passages in which his teaching is conveyed, and enquire whether or no he wishes us to believe that the Son, Who, as he has taught us, is God, is also true God. It is clear that the truth, or genuineness, of a thing is a question of its nature and its powers. For instance, true wheat is that which grows to a head with the beard bristling round it, which is purged from the chaff and ground to flour, compounded into a loaf and taken for food, and renders the nature and the uses of bread. Thus natural powers are the evidence of truth; and let us see, by this test, whether He, Whom Moses calls God, be true God. We will defer for the present our discourse concerning this One God, Who is also true God, lest, if I fail at once to take up their challenge and uphold the One True God in the two Persons of Father and of Son, eager and anxious souls be oppressed by dangerous doubts.

And now, since we accept as common ground the fact that God recognizes His Son as God, I ask you: how does the creation of the world disprove our assertion that the Son is true God? There is no doubt that all things are through the Son, for, in the Apostle's words, All things are through Him, and in Him. If all things are through Him, and all were made out of nothing, and none otherwise than through Him, in what aspect of true Godhead is He lacking, Who possesses both the nature and the power of God? He had at His disposal the powers of the Divine nature, to bring into being what did not exist and to create at His pleasure. For God saw that they were good.

4. And now, since we accept as common ground the fact that God recognises His Son as God, I ask you: how does the creation of the world disprove our assertion that the Son is true God? There is no doubt that all things are through the Son, for, in the Apostle's words, All things are through Him, and in Him. Colossians 1:16 If all things are through Him, and all were made out of nothing, and none otherwise than through Him, in what element of true Godhead is He defective, Who possesses both the nature and the power of God? He had at His disposal the powers of the Divine nature, to bring into being the non-existent and to create at His pleasure. For God saw that they were good.

When the Law says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament," and then adds, "And God made the firmament," it introduces no distinction other than one of Person. It indicates no difference in power or nature, and makes no change of name. Under the single title of God, it reveals first the thought of the One who spoke, and then the action of the One who created. The narrator's language says nothing to deprive Him of divine nature and power. In fact, how precisely it teaches His true Godhead. The power to carry out the word of creation belongs only to that Nature for whom speaking is the same as fulfilling. How then is He not true God who creates, if He is true God who commands? If the word spoken was truly divine, the deed done was truly divine as well. God spoke, and God created. If it was true God who spoke, then He who created was true God also—unless, while the presence of true Godhead was shown in the speech of the One, its absence was shown in the action of the Other. Thus in the Son of God we see the true divine nature. He is God, He is Creator, He is Son of God, He is omnipotent. It is not merely that He can do whatever He wills, for will always accompanies power. But He can also do whatever is commanded to Him. Absolute power is this: that its possessor can execute as Agent whatever His words as Speaker can express. When unlimited power of expression is combined with unlimited power of execution, then this creative power, equal to the commanding word, possesses the true nature of God. Thus the Son of God is not false God, nor God by adoption, nor God by gift of the name, but true God. Nothing would be gained by stating the arguments by which His true Godhead is opposed. His possession of the name and of the nature of God is conclusive proof. He by whom all things were made is God. This is what the creation of the world tells me about Him. He is God, equal with God in name; true God, equal with true God in power. The might of God is revealed to us in the creative word; the might of God is also shown in the creative act. And now again I ask: by what authority do you deny, in your confession of Father and Son, the true divine nature of Him whose name reveals His power, whose power proves His right to the Name?

5. When the Law says, And God said, Let there be a firmament, and then adds, And God made the firmament, it introduces no other distinction than that of Person. It indicates no difference of power or nature, and makes no change of name. Under the one title of God it reveals, first, the thought of Him Who spoke, and then the action of Him Who created. The language of the narrator says nothing to deprive Him of Divine nature and power; nay rather, how precisely does it inculcate His true Godhead. The power to give effect to the word of creation belongs only to that Nature with Whom to speak is the same as to fulfil. How then is He not true God, Who creates, if He is true God, Who commands? If the word spoken was truly Divine, the deed done was truly Divine also. God spoke, and God created; if it was true God Who spoke, He Who created was true God also; unless indeed, while the presence of true Godhead was displayed in the speech of the One, its absence was manifested in the action of the Other. Thus in the Son of God we behold the true Divine nature. He is God, He is Creator, He is Son of God, He is omnipotent. It is not merely that He can do whatever He will, for will is always the concomitant of power; but He can do also whatever is commanded Him. Absolute power is this, that its possessor can execute as Agent whatever His words as Speaker can express. When unlimited power of expression is combined with unlimited power of execution, then this creative power, commensurate with the commanding word, possesses the true nature of God. Thus the Son of God is not false God, nor God by adoption, nor God by gift of the name, but true God. Nothing would be gained by the statement of the arguments by which His true Godhead is opposed. His possession of the name and of the nature of God is conclusive proof. He, by Whom all things were made, is God. So much the creation of the world tells me about Him. He is God, equal with God in name; true God, equal with true God in power. The might of God is revealed to us in the creative word; the might of God is manifested also in the creative act. And now again I ask by what authority you deny, in your confession of Father and Son, the true Divine nature of Him Whose name reveals His power, Whose power proves His right to the Name.

6. My reader must remember that I am not overlooking current objections out of forgetfulness or lack of confidence in my case. I am fully aware of that frequently quoted text, "The Father is greater than I," and similar passages, and I have an interpretation ready that shows they actually testify to the true divine nature of the Son. However, it serves my purpose better to respond by following the order of their attack, so that our faithful effort can track closely with the progression of their impious scheme. When we see them veer off into godless heresy, we can immediately erase the path of error. For this reason, we will postpone until the end of our work the testimony of the Evangelists and Apostles, and for now will engage these blasphemers on the ground of the Law and the Prophets. We will silence their twisted argument—which is based on misinterpretation and deceit—by using the very texts with which they try to mislead us. The best method for demonstrating truth is to expose the falsehood of the objections raised against it, and the deceiver's disgrace is complete when his own lie is turned into evidence for the truth. Indeed, universal human experience has learned that falsehood and truth are incompatible and cannot be reconciled or made coherent. By their very nature they belong to those opposites that are eternally opposed and can never combine or agree.

6. My reader must bear in mind that I am silent about the current objections through no forgetfulness, and no distrust of my cause. For that constantly cited text, The Father is greater than I, and its cognate passages are perfectly familiar to me, and I have my interpretation of them ready, which makes them witness to the true Divine nature of the Son. But it serves my purpose best to adhere in reply to the order of attack, that our pious effort may follow close upon the progress of their impious scheme, and when we see them diverge into godless heresy we may at once obliterate the track of error. To this end we postpone to the end of our work the testimony of the Evangelists and Apostles, and join battle with the blasphemers for the present on the ground of the Law and the Prophets, silencing their crooked argument, based on misinterpretation and deceit, by the very texts with which they strive to delude us. The sound method of demonstrating a truth is to expose the fallacy of the objections raised against it; and the disgrace of the deceiver is complete if his own lie be converted into an evidence for the truth. And, indeed, the universal experience of mankind has learned that falsehood and truth are incompatible, and cannot be reconciled or made coherent; that by their very nature they are among those opposites which are eternally repugnant, and can never combine or agree.

This being the case, I ask how anyone can distinguish in the words "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness" between a true God and a false one. The words express a meaning, the meaning comes from thought, and the thought is prompted by truth. Let us trace the words back to their meaning, learn the thought from the meaning, and reach the underlying truth from the thought. Your question is whether the One to whom the words "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness" were spoken was not regarded as true by the One who spoke them, since the words clearly express the Speaker's feeling and thought. By saying "Let Us make," He plainly indicates Someone who is not at odds with Himself, not alien or powerless, but rather Someone who possesses the power to do what He speaks of. His own words assure us that this is how we must understand them.

7. This being the case, I ask how a distinction can be made in the words, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness, between a true God and a false. The words express a meaning, the meaning is the outcome of thought; the thought is set in motion by truth. Let us follow the words back to their meaning, and learn from the meaning the thought, and from the thought attain to the underlying truth. Your enquiry is, whether He to Whom the words Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness were spoken, was not thought of as true by Him Who spoke; for they undoubtedly express the feeling and thought of the Speaker. In saying Let Us make, He clearly indicates One in no discord with Himself, no alien or powerless Being, but One endowed with power to do the thing of which He speaks. His own words assure us that this is the sense in which we must understand that they were spoken.

To assure us even more fully of the true Godhead revealed in the nature and work of the Son, He who expressed His meaning in the words I have quoted shows that His thought was prompted by the true Divinity of Him to whom He said, "After Our own image and likeness." How can He be falsely called God, to whom the true God says, "After Our own image and likeness"? The word "Our" is incompatible with isolation, and with any difference either in purpose or in nature. Man is created, taking the words in their strict sense, in Their common image. Now there can be nothing common to the true and to the false. God, the Speaker, is speaking to God; man is being created in the image of both Father and Son. The Two are One in name and One in nature. It is only one image after which man is made. The time has not yet come for me to discuss this matter; later I will explain what this image of God the Father and of God the Son is, into which man was created. For now we will stick to the question: was He true God or not, to whom the true God said, "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness"? Separate, if you can, the true from the false elements in this image common to Both; in your heretical madness divide the indivisible. For the Two are One, of whose one image and likeness man is the one copy.

8. To assure us still more fully of the true Godhead manifested in the nature and work of the Son, He, Who expressed His meaning in the words I have cited, shows that His thought was suggested by the true Divinity of Him to Whom He said, After Our own image and likeness. How is He falsely called God, to Whom the true God says, After Our own image and likeness? Our is inconsistent with isolation, and with difference either in purpose or in nature. Man is created, taking the words in their strict sense, in Their common image. Now there can be nothing common to the true and to the false. God, the Speaker, is speaking to God; man is being created in the image of Father and of Son. The Two are One in name and One in nature. It is only one image after which man is made. The time has not yet come for me to discuss this matter; hereafter I will explain what is this image of God the Father and of God the Son into which man was created. For the present we will stick to the question, was, or was not, He true God, to Whom the true God said, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness? Separate, if you can, the true from the false elements in this image common to Both; in your heretical madness divide the indivisible. For They Two are One, of Whose one image and likeness man is the one copy.

But now let us continue our reading of this Scripture to show how the consistency of truth remains unaffected by these dishonest objections. The next words are, "And God made man; after the image of God made He him." The image is held in common: God made man after the image of God. I would ask anyone who denies that God's Son is true God: in whose image does he suppose that God made man? He must constantly remember that all things exist through the Son. Heretical cleverness must not twist this passage to mean it was the Father alone who acted. Therefore, if man is created through God the Son after the image of God the Father, he is also created after the image of the Son, since everyone admits that the words "After Our image and likeness" were spoken to the Son. Thus His true Godhead is as clearly stated by the divine words as it is revealed in the divine action, so that it is God who shapes man into the image of God, who reveals Himself as God, and moreover as true God. For His shared possession of the divine image proves Him true God, while His creative action displays Him as God the Son.

9. But now let us continue our reading of this Scripture, to show how the consistency of truth is unaffected by these dishonest objections. The next words are, And God made man; after the image of God made He him. The image is in common; God made man after the image of God. I would ask him who denies that God's Son is true God, in what God's image he supposes that God made man? He must bear constantly in mind that all things are through the Son; heretical ingenuity must not, for its own purposes, twist this passage into action on the part of the Father. If, therefore, man is created through God the Son after the image of God the Father, he is created also after the image of the Son; for all admit that the words After Our image and likeness were spoken to the Son. Thus His true Godhead is as explicitly asserted by the Divine words as manifested in the Divine action; so that it is God Who moulds man into the image of God, Who reveals Himself as God, and, moreover, as true God. For His joint possession of the Divine image proves Him true God, while His creative action displays Him as God the Son.

What wild insanity of abandoned souls! What blind audacity of reckless blasphemy! You hear of God and God; you hear of "Our image." Why suggest that one is true God and one is not? Why distinguish between God by nature and God in name only? Why, under the pretense of defending the faith, do you actually destroy the faith? Why struggle to twist the revelation of One God, One true God, into a denial that God is One and true? I will not yet silence your insane efforts with the clear words of the Evangelists and Prophets, in which Father and Son appear not as one Person, but as One in nature, and each as true God. For now the Law alone destroys your position. Does the Law ever speak of One true God and one who is not true? Does it ever speak of either, except by the name of God, which is the true expression of their nature? It speaks of God and God; it also speaks of God as One. In fact, it does more than just describe them this way. It reveals them as true God and true God, by the clear evidence of their joint image. It begins by speaking of them first by their proper name of God; then it attributes true Godhead to both in common. For when man, their creature, is created after the image of both, sound reason requires the conclusion that each of them is true God.

10. What wild insanity of abandoned souls! What blind audacity of reckless blasphemy! You hear of God and God; you hear of Our image. Why suggest that One is, and One is not, true God? Why distinguish between God by nature and God in name? Why, under pretext of defending the faith, do you destroy the faith? Why struggle to pervert the revelation of One God, One true God, into a denial that God is One and true? Not yet will I stifle your insane efforts with the clear words of Evangelists and Prophets, in which Father and Son appear not as one Person, but as One in nature, and Each as true God. For the present the Law, unaided, annihilates you. Does the Law ever speak of One true God, and One not true? Does it ever speak of Either, except by the name of God, which is the true expression of Their nature? It speaks of God and God; it speaks also of God as One. Nay, it does more than so describe Them. It manifests Them as true God and true God, by the sure evidence of Their joint image. It begins by speaking of Them first by their strict name of God; then it attributes true Godhead to Both in common. For when man, Their creature, is created after the image of Both, sound reason forces the conclusion that Each of Them is true God.

But let us go through once more, as part of our teaching, the lessons given in the holy Law of God. The Angel of God speaks to Hagar, and this same Angel is God. But perhaps His being the Angel of God means that He is not true God. This title seems to suggest a lower nature; where the name points to a difference in kind, people think that true equality must be missing. The previous book has already shown how empty this objection is. The title of Angel tells us about His office, not about His nature. I have prophetic evidence for this explanation: Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire. That flaming fire is His ministers; that spirit which comes is His angels. These images show the nature and the power of His messengers, or angels, and of His ministers. This spirit is an angel, that flaming fire a minister, of God. Their nature fits them for the role of messenger or minister. So the Law, or rather God through the Law, wanting to point to God the Son as a Person, yet as bearing the same name with the Father, calls Him the Angel—that is, the Messenger—of God. The title Messenger proves that He has an office of His own. That His nature is truly Divine is proved when He is called God. But this sequence—first Angel, then God—is in the order of revelation, not in Himself. For we confess Them as Father and Son in the strictest sense, in such equality that the Only-begotten Son, by virtue of His birth, possesses true Divinity from the Unbegotten Father. This revelation of Them as Sender and as Sent is simply another way of expressing Father and Son. It does not contradict the true Divine nature of the Son, nor does it cancel His possession of the Godhead as His birthright. For no one can doubt that the Son by His birth shares congenitally in the nature of His Author, in such a way that from the One there comes into being an indivisible Unity, because One is from One.

11. But let us travel once more in our journey of instruction over the lessons taught in the holy Law of God. The Angel of God speaks to Hagar; and this same Angel is God. But perhaps His being the Angel of God means that He is not true God. For this title seems to indicate a lower nature; where the name points to a difference in kind, it is thought that true equality must be absent. The last book has already exposed the hollowness of this objection; the title of Angel informs us of His office, not of His nature. I have prophetic evidence for this explanation; Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire. That flaming fire is His ministers; that spirit which comes, His angels. These figures show the nature and the power of His messengers, or angels, and of His ministers. This spirit is an angel, that flaming fire a minister, of God. Their nature adapts them for the function of messenger or minister. Thus the Law, or rather God through the Law, wishing to indicate God the Son as a Person, yet as bearing the same name with the Father, calls Him the Angel, that is, the Messenger, of God. The title Messenger proves that He has an office of His own; that His nature is truly Divine is proved when He is called God. But this sequence, first Angel, then God, is in the order of revelation, not in Himself. For we confess Them Father and Son in the strictest sense, in such equality that the Only-begotten Son, by virtue of His birth, possesses true Divinity from the Unbegotten Father. This revelation of Them as Sender and as Sent is but another expression for Father and Son; not contradicting the true Divine nature of the Son, nor cancelling His possession of the Godhead as His birthright. For none can doubt that the Son by His birth partakes congenitally of the nature of His Author, in such wise that from the One there comes into being an indivisible Unity, because One is from One.

Faith burns with passionate intensity. The burden of silence is unbearable, and my thoughts urgently demand to be expressed. Already in the preceding book I have departed from the planned method of my argument. I was condemning that blasphemous understanding in which the heretics speak of One God, and explaining the passages in which Moses speaks of God and God. I rushed forward with hasty, though devout, zeal to the true understanding in which we hold the unity of God. And now again, absorbed in pursuing another question, I have let myself wander from the path, and while I was dealing with the true divinity of the Son, the intensity of my conviction has carried me forward ahead of time to confess true God as Father and as Son. But our own faith must wait for its proper place in this work. This preliminary statement of it has been made as a protection for the reader. It will be so developed and explained later as to defeat the plans of the opponent.

12. Faith burns with passionate ardour; the burden of silence is intolerable, and my thoughts imperiously demand an utterance. Already, in the preceding book I have departed from the intended method of my demonstration. I was denouncing that blasphemous sense in which the heretics speak of One God, and expounding the passages in which Moses speaks of God and God. I hastened on with a precipitate, though devout, zeal to the true sense in which we hold the unity of God. And now again, wrapped up in the pursuit of another enquiry, I have suffered myself to wander from the course, and, while I was engaged upon the true Divinity of the Son, the ardour of my soul has hurried me on before the time to make the confession of true God as Father and as Son. But our own faith must wait its proper place in the treatise. This preliminary statement of it has been made as a safeguard for the reader; it shall be so developed and explained hereafter as to frustrate the schemes of the gainsayer.

To resume the argument: this title of office indicates no difference in nature, for He who is the Angel of God is God. The test of His true Godhead shall be whether or not His words and acts were those of God. He increases Ishmael into a great people and promises that many nations shall bear his name. I ask, is this within an angel's power? If not, and this is the power of God, why do you refuse true divinity to Him who, by your own confession, has the true power of God? Thus He possesses the true and perfect powers of the divine physis. True God, in all the types in which He reveals Himself for the world's salvation, is not, nor ever can be, other than true God.

13. To resume the argument; this title of office indicates no difference of nature, for He, Who is the Angel of God, is God. The test of His true Godhead shall be, whether or no His words and acts were those of God. He increases Ishmael into a great people, and promises that many nations shall bear his name. Is this, I ask, within an angel's power? If not, and this is the power of God, why do you refuse true Divinity to Him Who, on your own confession, has the true power of God? Thus He possesses the true and perfect powers of the Divine nature. True God, in all the types in which He reveals Himself for the world's salvation, is not, nor ever can be, other than true God.

Now first, I ask, what do these terms "true God" and "not true God" actually mean? If someone says to me "This is fire, but not true fire; water, but not true water," I cannot attach any intelligible meaning to his words. What difference in kind can there be between one true example and another true example of the same class? If something is fire, it must be true fire. As long as its nature remains the same, it cannot lose this character of being true fire. Take away water's watery nature, and by doing so you destroy it as true water. Let it remain water, and it will inevitably still be true water. The only way an object can lose its nature is by losing its existence. If it continues to exist, it must truly be itself. If the Son of God is God, then He is true God. If He is not true God, then in no possible sense is He God at all. If He does not have the nature, then He has no right to the name. If, on the contrary, the name that indicates the nature is His by inherent right, then it cannot be that He lacks that nature in its truest sense.

14. Now first, I ask, what is the meaning of these terms, ' true God?' and 'not true God?'? If any one says to me 'This is fire, but not true fire; water, but not true water,' I can attach no intelligible meaning to his words. What difference in kind can there be between one true specimen, and another true specimen, of the same class? If a thing be fire, it must be true fire; while its nature remains the same it cannot lose this character of true fire. Deprive water of its watery nature, and by so doing you destroy it as true water; let it remain water, and it will inevitably still be true water. The only way in which an object can lose its nature is by losing its existence; if it continue to exist it must be truly itself. If the Son of God is God, then He is true God; if He is not true God, then in no possible sense is He God at all. If He has not the nature, then He has no right to the name; if, on the contrary, the name which indicates the nature is His by inherent right, then it cannot be that He is destitute of that nature in its truest sense.

But perhaps someone will argue that when the Angel of God is called God, He receives the name as a favor through adoption, and therefore has a nominal, not a true, Godhead. If He gave us an inadequate revelation of His divine nature at the time when He was called the Angel of God, consider whether He has not fully manifested His true Godhead under the name of a nature lower than the angelic. For a Man spoke to Abraham, and Abraham worshiped Him as God. You pestilent heretic! Abraham confessed Him to be God—you deny Him. What hope is there for you, in your blasphemy, of the blessings promised to Abraham? He is Father of the Gentiles, but not for you. You cannot go forth from your regeneration to join the household of his descendants through the blessings given to his faith. You are no son raised up to Abraham from the stones. You are a generation of vipers, an enemy of his belief. You are not the Israel of God, the heir of Abraham, justified by faith, for you have disbelieved God, while Abraham was justified and appointed to be the Father of the Gentiles through that faith in which he worshiped the God whose word he trusted. It was God whom that blessed and faithful Patriarch worshiped then. And notice how truly He was God, to whom, in His own words, all things are possible. Is there anyone but God alone to whom nothing is impossible? And does He to whom all things are possible fall short of true Divinity?

15. But perhaps it will be argued that, when the Angel of God is called God, He receives the name as a favour, through adoption, and has in consequence a nominal, not a true, Godhead. If He gave us an inadequate revelation of His Divine nature at the time when He was styled the Angel of God, judge whether He has not fully manifested His true Godhead under the name of a nature lower than the angelic. For a Man spoke to Abraham, and Abraham worshipped Him as God. Pestilent heretic! Abraham confessed Him, you deny Him, to be God. What hope is there for you, in your blasphemy, of the blessings promised to Abraham? He is Father of the Gentiles, but not for you; you cannot go forth from your regeneration to join the household of his seed, through the blessings given to his faith. You are no son, raised up to Abraham from the stones; you are a generation of vipers, an adversary of his belief. You are not the Israel of God, the heir of Abraham, justified by faith; for you have disbelieved God, while Abraham was justified and appointed to be the Father of the Gentiles through that faith wherein he worshipped the God Whose word he trusted. God it was Whom that blessed and faithful Patriarch worshipped then; and mark how truly He was God, to Whom, in His own words, all things are possible. Is there any, but God alone, to Whom nothing is impossible? And He, to Whom all things are possible, does He fall short of true Divinity?

I ask further, Who is this God who overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah? For the Lord rained from the Lord. Was it not the true Lord from the true Lord? Do you have any alternative to this "Lord, and Lord"? Or any other meaning for these terms, except that in "Lord, and Lord," their distinct identities are shown? Remember that the one you have confessed as alone true, you have also confessed as alone the righteous Judge. Now notice that the Lord who rains from the Lord, and does not kill the just with the unjust, and judges the whole earth, is both Lord and also righteous Judge, and also rains from the Lord. In the face of all this, I ask you which one you describe as alone the righteous Judge. The Lord rains from the Lord. You will not deny that he who rains from the Lord is the righteous Judge, for Abraham, the father of the Gentiles—but not of the unbelieving Gentiles—speaks thus: "In no wise shall you do this thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, for then shall the righteous be as the wicked. In no wise shall you, who judges the earth, execute this judgment." This God, then, the righteous Judge, is clearly also the true God. Blasphemer! Your own falsehood refutes you. I am not yet bringing forward the witness of the Gospels concerning God the Judge; the Law has told me that he is the Judge. You must deprive the Son of his role as Judge before you can deprive him of his true divinity. You have solemnly confessed that he who is the only righteous Judge is also the only true God. Your own statements bind you to the admission that he who is the righteous Judge is also true God. This Judge is the Lord, to whom all things are possible, the Promiser of eternal blessings, Judge of righteous and of wicked. He is the God of Abraham, worshipped by him. Fool and blasphemer that you are, your shameless readiness of tongue must invent some new fallacy if you are to prove that he is not true God.

16. I ask further, Who is this God Who overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha? For the Lord rained from the Lord Genesis 19:24; was it not the true Lord from the true Lord? Have you any alternative to this Lord, and Lord? Or any other meaning for the terms, except that in Lord, and Lord, their Persons are distinguished? Bear in mind that Him Whom you have confessed as Alone true, you have also confessed as Alone the righteous Judge. Now mark that the Lord who rains from the Lord, and slays not the just with the unjust, and judges the whole earth, is both Lord and also righteous Judge, and also rains from the Lord. In the face of all this, I ask you Which it is that you describe as alone the righteous Judge. The Lord rains from the Lord; you will not deny that He Who rains from the Lord is the righteous Judge, for Abraham, the Father of the Gentiles — but not of the unbelieving Gentiles — speaks thus: In no wise shall Thou do this thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, for then shall the righteous be as the wicked. In no wise shall Thou, Who judges the earth, execute this judgment. Genesis 18:25 This God, then, the righteous Judge, is clearly also the true God. Blasphemer! Your own falsehood confutes you. Not yet do I bring forward the witness of the Gospels concerning God the Judge; the Law has told me that He is the Judge. You must deprive the Son of His judgeship before you can deprive Him of His true Divinity. You have solemnly confessed that He Who is the only righteous Judge is also the only true God; your own statements bind you to the admission that He Who is the righteous Judge is also true God. This Judge is the Lord, to Whom all things are possible, the Promiser of eternal blessings, Judge of righteous and of wicked. He is the God of Abraham, worshipped by him. Fool and blasphemer that you are, your shameless readiness of tongue must invent some new fallacy, if you are to prove that He is not true God.

God's merciful and mysterious ways of revealing Himself are completely consistent with His true heavenly nature. His faithful saints always see through whatever form He takes on so that faith can recognize Him. The types in the Law foreshadow the mysteries of the Gospel. They allow the Patriarch to see and believe what the Apostle will later witness and proclaim. Since the Law is a shadow of what is to come, the shadow that was seen was a true outline of the reality that cast it. God was seen, believed, and worshipped as Man—the same Man He would actually be born as when the time was right. He took on an appearance for the Patriarch to see, a form that pointed ahead to the future truth. Back then, God was only seen as Man, not born as Man. Later, He was both born and seen. Seeing Him in human form, which He took so people could look at Him, prepared them for when He would truly be born as Man. That is when the shadow became substance, the appearance became reality, and the vision became life. But God remained the same, whether He was seen in the appearance of manhood or born in the reality of manhood. The likeness was perfect between Himself after His birth and Himself as He had been seen in the vision. He appeared as He was born; He was born as He had appeared. But since this is not yet the time to compare the Gospel account with the prophet Moses' account, let us continue our path through the Law. Later we will prove from the Gospels that it was the true Son of God who was born as Man. For now, we are showing from the Law that it was true God, the Son of God, who appeared to the Patriarchs in human form. When One appeared to Abraham as Man, He was worshipped as God and proclaimed as Judge. And when the Lord rained from the Lord, the Law clearly tells us that the Lord rained from the Lord to reveal to us the Father and the Son. We cannot suppose for a moment that when the Patriarch, with full knowledge, worshipped the Son as God, he failed to realize that it was true God whom he worshipped.

17. His merciful and mysterious self-revelations are in no wise inconsistent with His true heavenly nature; and His faithful saints never fail to penetrate the guise He has assumed in order that faith may see Him. The types of the Law foreshew the mysteries of the Gospel; they enable the Patriarch to see and to believe what hereafter the Apostle is to gaze on and publish. For, since the Law is the shadow of things to come, the shadow that was seen was a true outline of the reality which cast it. God was seen and believed and worshipped as Man, Who was indeed to be born as Man in the fullness of time. He takes upon Him, to meet the Patriarch's eye, a semblance which foreshadows the future truth. In that old day God was only seen, not born, as Man; in due time He was born, as well as seen. Familiarity with the human appearance, which He took that men might behold Him, was to prepare them for the time when He should, in very truth, be born as Man. Then it was that the shadow took substance, the semblance reality, the vision life. But God remained unchanged, whether He were seen in the appearance, or born in the reality, of manhood. The resemblance was perfect between Himself, after His birth, and Himself, as He had been seen in vision. As He was born, so He had appeared; as He had appeared, so was He born. But, since the time has not yet come for us to compare the Gospel account with that of the prophet Moses, let us pursue our chosen course through the pages of the Law. Hereafter we shall prove from the Gospels that it was the true Son of God Who was born as Man; for the present, we are showing from the Law that it was true God, the Son of God, Who appeared to the Patriarchs in human form. For when One appeared to Abraham as Man, He was worshipped as God and proclaimed as Judge; and when the Lord rained from the Lord, beyond a doubt the Law tells us that the Lord rained from the Lord in order to reveal to us the Father and the Son. Nor can we for a moment suppose that when the Patriarch, with full knowledge, worshipped the Son as God, he was blind to the fact that it was true God Whom he worshipped.

But godless unbelief finds it very hard to grasp the true faith. Their capacity for devotion has never been expanded by belief and is too narrow to receive the full truth. So the unbelieving soul cannot understand the great work God accomplished by being born as a human being to bring about humanity's salvation. In the work of their salvation, they fail to see God's power. They think about the labor of His birth, the weakness of infancy, the development of childhood, reaching adulthood, bodily suffering and the Cross that ended it, and death upon the Cross—and all this hides His true Godhead from their eyes. Yet He had brought into being all these human capacities for Himself as additions to His nature—capacities which in His true divine nature He had not possessed. So He acquired them without losing His true divinity, and He did not stop being God when He became human. He, who is God eternally, became human at a specific point in time. They cannot see an exercise of the true God's power in His becoming what He was not before while never ceasing to be His former self. And yet there would have been no taking on of our weak nature if He had not, by the strength of His own omnipotent nature, while remaining what He was, come to be what He previously was not. What blindness of heresy, what foolish wisdom of the world, which cannot see that the reproach of Christ is the power of God, the foolishness of faith the wisdom of God! So in your eyes Christ is not God because He, who was from eternity, was born, because the Unchangeable grew with years, the Impassible suffered, the Living died, the Dead lives—because all His history contradicts the common course of nature! Is not all this simply saying that He, being God, was omnipotent? Not yet, you holy and venerable Gospels, do I turn your pages to prove from them that Christ Jesus, amid these changes and sufferings, is God. For the Law comes before the Gospels, and the Law must teach us that when God clothed Himself in weakness, He did not lose His Godhead. The types of the Law are our convincing assurance of the mysteries of the Gospel faith.

18. But godless unbelief finds it very hard to apprehend the true faith. Their capacity for devotion has never been expanded by belief, and is too narrow to receive a full presentment of the truth. Hence the unbelieving soul cannot grasp the great work done by God in being born as Man to accomplish the salvation of mankind; in the work of its salvation it fails to see the power of God. They think of the travail of His birth, the feebleness of infancy, the growth of childhood, the attainment of maturity, of bodily suffering and of the Cross with which it ended, and of the death upon the Cross; and all this conceals His true Godhead from their eyes. Yet He had called into being all these capacities for Himself, as additions to His nature; capacities which in His true Divine nature He had not possessed. Thus He acquired them without loss of His true Divinity, and ceased not to be God when He became Man; when He, Who is God eternally, became Man at a point in time. They cannot see an exercise of the true God's power in His becoming what He was not before, yet never ceasing to be His former Self. And yet there would have been no acceptance of our feeble nature, had not He by the strength of His own omnipotent nature, while remaining what He was, come to be what previously He was not. What blindness of heresy, what foolish wisdom of the world, which cannot see that the reproach of Christ is the power of God, the folly of faith the wisdom of God! So Christ in your eyes is not God because He, Who was from eternity, was born, because the Unchangeable grew with years, the Impassible suffered, the Living died, the Dead lives; because all His history contradicts the common course of nature! Is not all this simply to say that He, being God, was omnipotent? Not yet, you holy and venerable Gospels, do I turn your pages, to prove from them that Christ Jesus, amid these changes and sufferings, is God. For the Law is the forerunner of the Gospels, and the Law must teach us that, when God clothed Himself in infirmity, He lost not His Godhead. The types of the Law are our convincing assurance of the mysteries of the Gospel faith.

Be with me now in your faithful spirit, holy and blessed Patriarch Jacob, to fight against the poisonous attacks of the serpent of unbelief. Win again in your wrestling with the Man, and being the stronger, ask once more for His blessing. Why pray for something you could demand from your weaker opponent? Your strong arm has defeated the one whose blessing you seek. Your physical victory stands in sharp contrast to your soul's humility, your actions to your attitude. It is a Man whom you hold powerless in your strong grip, but in your understanding this Man is true God, and God not merely in title but in physis. You are not asking for the blessing of a God by adoption, but for the blessing of the true God. You struggle with Man, but face to face you see God. What you see with your physical eyes is very different from what you perceive with the vision of faith. You have felt Him to be weak Man, but your soul has been saved because it saw God in Him. When you were wrestling you were Jacob; you are Israel now, through faith in the blessing you claimed. According to the flesh, the Man is your inferior, as a foreshadowing of His suffering in the flesh, but you can recognize God in that weak flesh, as a sign of His blessing in the Spirit. What your eyes witness does not disturb your faith; His weakness does not mislead you into neglecting His blessing. Though He is Man, His humanity does not prevent Him from being God, nor does His Godhead prevent Him from being true God, for being God, He must truly be so.

19. Be with me now in your faithful spirit, holy and blessed Patriarch Jacob, to combat the poisonous hissings of the serpent of unbelief. Prevail once more in your wrestling with the Man, and, being the stronger, once more entreat His blessing. Why pray for what you might demand from your weaker Opponent? Your strong arm has vanquished Him Whose blessing you pray. Your bodily victory is in broad contrast to your soul's humility, your deeds to your thoughts. It is a Man whom you hold powerless in your strong grasp; but in your eye this Man is true God, and God not in name only, but in nature. It is not the blessing of a God by adoption that you claim, but the true God's blessing. With Man you strive, but face to face you see God. What you see with the bodily eye is different far from what you behold with the vision of faith. You have felt Him to be weak Man; but your soul has been saved because it saw God in Him. When you were wrestling you were Jacob; you are Israel now, through faith in the blessing which you claimed. According to the flesh, the Man is your inferior, for a type of His passion in the flesh; but you can recognise God in that weak flesh, for a sign of His blessing in the Spirit. The witness of the eye does not disturb your faith; His feebleness does not mislead you into neglect of His blessing. Though He is Man, His humanity is no bar to His being God, His Godhead no bar to His being true God; for, being God, He must indeed be true.

The Law continues to follow the pattern of the Gospel mystery, of which it is a shadow; its symbols faithfully anticipate the truths the Apostles taught. In his dream vision, blessed Jacob saw God—this was the revelation of a mystery, not a physical appearance. He saw angels descending and ascending a ladder, and God standing above it. The vision, as interpreted, foretold that his dream would one day become revealed truth. The Patriarch's words, "The house of God and the gate of heaven," show us where his vision occurred. Then, after a long account of his actions, the narrative continues: "And God said to Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place Bethel, and dwell there: and make there a Sacrifice unto God, that appeared unto you when you fled from the face of Esau." If the faith of the Gospel has access through God the Son to God the Father, and if God can only be understood through God, then show us in what sense This is not true God—He who demands reverence for God, who stands above the heavenly ladder. What difference of nature separates the Two, when both share the one name that indicates one nature? It is God who was seen; it is also God who speaks about God who was seen. God cannot be understood except through God, just as God accepts no worship from us except through God. We could not understand that the One must be reverenced unless the Other had taught us to reverence Him; we could not have known that the One is God unless we had known the Godhead of the Other. The revelation of mysteries follows its appointed course: it is by God that we learn to worship God. And when one name, which tells of one nature, unites the Father with the Son, how can the Son fall so far beneath Himself as to be other than true God?

20. The Law in its progress still follows the sequence of the Gospel mystery, of which it is the shadow; its types are a faithful anticipation of the truths taught by the Apostles. In the vision of his dream the blessed Jacob saw God; this was the revelation of a mystery, not a bodily manifestation. For there was shown to him the descent of angels by the ladder, and their ascent to heaven, and God resting above the ladder; and the vision, as it was interpreted, foretold that his dream should some day become a revealed truth. The Patriarch's words, The house of God and the gate of heaven, show us the scene of His vision; and then, after a long account of what he did, the narrative proceeds thus: And God said to Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place Bethel, and dwell there: and make there a Sacrifice unto God, that appeared unto you when you fled from the face of Esau. Genesis 35:1 If the faith of the Gospel has access through God the Son to God the Father, and if it is only through God that God can be apprehended, then show us in what sense This is not true God, Who demands reverence for God, Who rests above the heavenly ladder. What difference of nature separates the Two, when Both bear the one name which indicates the one nature? It is God Who was seen; it is also God Who speaks about God Who was seen. God cannot be apprehended except through God; even as also God accepts no worship from us except through God. We could not understand that the One must be reverenced, unless the Other had taught us reverence for Him; we could not have known that the One is God, unless we had known the Godhead of the Other. The revelation of mysteries holds its appointed course; it is by God that we are initiated into the worship of God. And when one name, which tells of one nature, combines the Father with the Son, how can the Son so fall beneath Himself as to be other than true God?

Human judgment must not pass sentence on God. Our nature is not capable of lifting itself by its own strength to contemplate heavenly things. We must learn from God what we should think about God; we have no other source of knowledge but Him. You may be as thoroughly trained as possible in secular philosophy and may have lived a righteous life. All this will contribute to your intellectual satisfaction, but it will not help you know God. Moses was adopted as the queen's son and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He had also, out of loyalty to his people, avenged the wrong done to the Hebrew by killing the Egyptian, and yet he did not know the God who had blessed his fathers. For when he fled Egypt out of fear that his deed would be discovered and was living as a shepherd in the land of Midian, he saw a fire in the bush, and the bush was not consumed. It was then that he heard the voice of God, asked His name, and learned His nature. He could have known none of this except through God Himself. And we, in the same way, must confine ourselves in whatever we say about God to the terms in which He has spoken to our understanding concerning Himself.

21. Human judgment must not pass its sentence upon God. Our nature is not such that it can lift itself by its own forces to the contemplation of heavenly things. We must learn from God what we are to think of God; we have no source of knowledge but Himself. You may be as carefully trained as you will in secular philosophy; you may have lived a life of righteousness. All this will contribute to your mental satisfaction, but it will not help you to know God. Moses was adopted as the son of the queen, and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; he had, moreover, out of loyalty to his race avenged the wrong of the Hebrew by slaying the Egyptian, and yet he knew not the God Who had blessed his fathers. For when he left Egypt through fear of the discovery of his deed, and was living as a shepherd in the land of Midian, he saw a fire in the bush, and the bush unconsumed. Then it was that he heard the voice of God, and asked His name, and learned His nature. Of all this he could have known nothing except through God Himself. And we, in like manner, must confine ourselves, in whatever we say of God, to the terms in which He has spoken to our understanding concerning Himself.

22. It is the Angel of God who appeared in the fire from the bush, and it is God who spoke from the bush amid the fire. He is manifested as an Angel—that is his role, not his nature. The name that expresses his nature is given to you as God, for the Angel of God is God. But perhaps he is not true God? Then is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob not true God? For the Angel who speaks from the bush is their God eternally. And in case you suggest that the name belongs to him only by adoption, it is the absolute God who speaks to Moses. These are his words: "And the Lord said to Moses, I Am that I Am; and He said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, He that is has sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14). God's discourse began as the speech of the Angel in order to reveal the mystery of human salvation in the Son. Next he appears as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, so that we may know the name which is his by nature. Finally it is the God that is who sends Moses to Israel, so that we may have full assurance that in the absolute sense he is God.

22. It is the Angel of God Who appeared in the fire from the bush; and it is God Who spoke from the bush amid the fire. He is manifested as Angel; that is His office, not His nature. The name which expresses His nature is given you as God; for the Angel of God is God. But perhaps He is not true God. Is the God of Abraham, then, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, not true God? For the Angel Who speaks from the bush is their God eternally. And, lest you insinuate that the name is His only by adoption, it is the absolute God Who speaks to Moses. These are His words:– And the Lord said to Moses, I Am that I Am; and He said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, He that is has sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14 God's discourse began as the speech of the Angel, in order to reveal the mystery of human salvation in the Son. Next He appears as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, that we may know the name which is His by nature. Finally it is the God that is Who sends Moses to Israel, that we may have full assurance that in the absolute sense He is God.

What further lies can the empty foolishness of insane blasphemy invent? Do you still insist on your nighttime sowing of weeds, destined to be burned, among the pure wheat, when the knowledge of all the Patriarchs contradicts you? Even more: if you believed Moses, you would also believe in God, the Son of God—unless perhaps you deny that Moses spoke of Him. If you plan to deny that, you must listen to God's words: "For had you believed Moses, you would have believed Me also, for he wrote of Me." Moses will indeed refute you with the entire volume of the Law, ordained through angels, which he received by the hand of the Mediator. Ask whether He who gave the Law was not true God, for the Mediator was the Giver. And was it not to meet God that Moses led the people out to the Mount? Was it not God who came down onto the Mount? Or was it perhaps only by fiction or adoption, and not by right of nature, that He who did all this bore the name of God? Notice the blast of the trumpets, the flashing of the torches, the clouds of smoke, as from a furnace, rolling over the mountain, the terror of conscious powerlessness on the part of man in the presence of God, the confession of the people when they begged Moses to be their spokesman, saying that at the voice of God they would die. Is He, in your judgment, not true God, when simple dread lest He should speak filled Israel with the fear of death? He whose voice could not be endured by human weakness? In your eyes is He not God, because He addressed you through the weak faculties of a man, so that you might hear and live? Moses entered the Mount; in forty days and nights he gained the knowledge of the mysteries of heaven, and set it all in order according to the vision of the truth that was revealed to him there. From conversation with God, who spoke with him, he received the reflected splendor of that glory on which no one may gaze. His corruptible face was transfigured into the likeness of the unapproachable light of Him with whom he was dwelling. Of this God he bears witness, of this God he speaks; he summons the angels of God to come and worship Him amid the gladness of the Gentiles, and prays that the blessings which please Him may descend upon the head of Joseph. In the face of such evidence as this, dare any man say that He has nothing but the name of God, and deny His true Divinity?

23. What further fictions can the futile folly of insane blasphemy devise? Do you still persist in your nightly sowing of tares, predestined to be burnt, among the pure wheat, when the knowledge of all the Patriarchs contradicts you? Nay more: if you believed Moses, you would believe also in God, the Son of God; unless perchance you deny that it was of Him that Moses spoke. If you propose to deny that, you must listen to the words of God: — For had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me also, for he wrote of Me. John 5:46 Moses, indeed, will refute you with the whole volume of the Law, ordained through angels, which he received by the hand of the Mediator. Enquire whether He, Who gave the Law, were not true God; for the Mediator was the Giver. And was it not to meet God that Moses led out the people to the Mount? Was it not God Who came down into the Mount? Or was it, perhaps, only by a fiction or an adoption, and not by right of nature, that He, Who did all this, bore the name of God? Mark the blare of the trumpets, the flashing of the torches, the clouds of smoke, as from a furnace, rolling over the mountain, the terror of conscious impotence on the part of man in the presence of God, the confession of the people, when they prayed Moses to be their spokesman, that at the voice of God they would die. Is He, in your judgment, not true God, when simple dread lest He should speak filled Israel with the fear of death? He Whose voice could not be borne by human weakness? In your eyes is He not God, because He addressed you through the weak faculties of a man, that you might hear, and live? Moses entered the Mount; in forty days and nights he gained the knowledge of the mysteries of heaven, and set it all in order according to the vision of the truth which was revealed to him there. From intercourse with God, Who spoke with him, he received the reflected splendour of that glory on which none may gaze? His corruptible countenance was transfigured into the likeness of the unapproachable light of Him, with Whom he was dwelling. Of this God he bears witness, of this God he speaks; he summons the angels of God to come and worship Him amid the gladness of the Gentiles, and prays that the blessings which please Him may descend upon the head of Joseph. In face of such evidence as this, dare any man say that He has nothing but the name of God, and deny His true Divinity?

I believe this lengthy discussion has clearly shown that no valid argument has ever been put forward for making a distinction between One who is true God and One who is not, in those passages where the Law speaks of God and God, or of Lord and Lord. I have demonstrated that these terms do not allow for any difference between Them in name or in nature, and that we can use the name to verify the nature, and the nature to clarify the name. I have therefore shown that the character, the power, the attributes, and the name of God belong inherently to the One whom the Law has called God. I have also shown that the Law, gradually revealing the Gospel mystery, discloses the Son as a distinct Person by presenting God as acting in obedience to the words of God in the creation of the world, and in the formation of humanity making what is the shared image of God and of God. Again, in the judgment of the people of Sodom, the Lord is Judge from the Lord. In the giving of blessings and the establishment of the mysteries of the Law, the Angel of God is God. Thus, in support of the saving confession of God as eternally manifested in the Persons of Father and of Son, we have demonstrated how the Law teaches the true Godhead through the use of the proper name of God. For while the Law clearly states that They are Two, it casts no doubt whatsoever upon the true Godhead of either.

24. This long discussion has, I believe, brought out the truth that no sound argument has ever been adduced in favour of a distinction between One Who is, and One Who is not, true God, in those passages where the Law speaks of God and God, of Lord and Lord. I have proved that these terms are inconsistent with difference between Them in name or in nature, and that we can use the name as a test of the nature, and the nature as a clue to the name. Thus I have shown that the character, the power, the attributes, the name of God are inherent in Him Whom the Law has called God. I have shown also that the Law, gradually unfolding the Gospel mystery, reveals the Son as a Person by manifesting God as obedient, in the creation of the world, to the words of God, and in the formation of man making what is the joint image of God, and of God; and again, that in the judgment of the men of Sodom the Lord is Judge from the Lord; that, in the giving of blessings and ordaining of the mysteries of the Law, the Angel of God is God. Thus, in support of the saving confession of God as ever manifested in the Persons of Father and of Son, we have shown how the Law teaches the true Godhead by the use of the strict name of God; for, while the Law states clearly that They are Two, it casts no shadow of doubt upon the true Godhead of either.

25. Now it's time for us to stop that clever trick of heresy, by which they twist the devout and godly teachings of the Law into support for their own godless delusion. They begin their denial of the Son of God with the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One." Then, because their blasphemy would be refuted by the identity of name—since the Law speaks of God and God—they invoke the authority of the prophetic words, "They shall bless You, the true God," to prove that the name is not used in the true sense. They argue that these words teach that God is One, and that God the Son of God has His name only and not His nature, and that therefore we must conclude that the true God is one Person only. But perhaps you imagine, fool, that we will contradict these texts of yours and so deny that there is one true God. We certainly do not contradict them by a confession conceived in your sense. Our faith receives them, our reason accepts them, our words declare them. We recognize One God, and Him true God. The name of God poses no dangers for our confession, which proclaims that in the physis of the Son there is the One true God. Learn the meaning of your own words, recognize the One true God, and then you will be able to make a faithful confession of God, One and true. You are turning the words of our faith into the instrument of your blasphemy, preserving the sound and perverting the sense. Masquerading in a foolish garb of imaginary wisdom, under cover of loyalty to truth you are truth's destroyer. You confess that God is One and true, on purpose to deny the truth which you confess. Your language claims a reputation for piety on the strength of its impiety, for truth on the strength of its falsehood. Your preaching of One true God leads up to a denial of Him. For you deny that the Son is true God, though you admit that He is God, but God in name only, not in nature. If His birth is in name, not in nature, then you are justified in denying His true right to the name; but if He is truly born as God, how then can He fail to be true God by virtue of His birth? Deny the fact, and you may deny the consequence; if you admit the fact, how can He be other than Himself? No being can alter its own essential nature. About His birth I shall speak presently; in the meantime I will refute your blasphemous falsehoods concerning His true Divine nature by the utterances of prophets. But I shall take care that in our assertion of the One true God I give no cover to the Sabellian heresy that the Father is one Person with the Son, and none to that slander against the Son's true Godhead, which you evolve out of the unity of the One true God.

25. And now the time has come for us to put a stop to that cunning artifice of heresy, by which they pervert the devout and godly teachings of the Law into a support for their own godless delusion. They preface their denial of the Son of God with the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One; and then, because their blasphemy would be refuted by the identity of name, since the Law speaks of God and God, they invoke the authority of the prophetic words, They shall bless You, the true God, to prove that the name is not used in the true sense. They argue that these words teach that God is One, and that God, the Son of God, has His name only and not His nature; and that therefore we must conclude that the true God is one Person only. But perhaps you imagine, fool, that we shall contradict these texts of yours, and so deny that there is one true God. Assuredly we do not contradict them by a confession conceived in your sense. Our faith receives them, our reason accepts them, our words declare them. We recognise One God, and Him true God. The name of God has no dangers for our confession, which proclaims that in the nature of the Son there is the One true God. Learn the meaning of your own words, recognise the One true God, and then you will be able to make a faithful confession of God, One and true. It is the words of our faith which you are turning into the instrument of your blasphemy, preserving the sound and perverting the sense. Masquerading in a foolish garb of imaginary wisdom, under cover of loyalty to truth you are the truth's destroyer. You confess that God is One and true, on purpose to deny the truth which you confess. Your language claims a reputation for piety on the strength of its impiety, for truth on the strength of its falsehood. Your preaching of One true God leads up to a denial of Him. For you deny that the Son is true God, though you admit that He is God, but God in name only, not in nature. If His birth be in name, not in nature, then you are justified in denying His true right to the name; but if He be truly born as God, how then can He fail to be true God by virtue of His birth? Deny the fact, and you may deny the consequence; if you admit the fact, how can He be other than Himself? No being can alter its own essential nature. About His birth I shall speak presently; meantime I will refute your blasphemous falsehoods concerning His true Divine nature by the utterances of prophets. But I shall take care that in our assertion of the One true God I give no cover to the Sabellian heresy that the Father is one Person with the Son, and none to that slander against the Son's true Godhead, which you evolve out of the unity of the One true God.

Blasphemy cannot coexist with wisdom. Where the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, is missing, no trace of understanding remains. We see an example of this when heretics quote the prophet's words, "And they shall bless You, the true God," as proof against the Godhead of the Son. First, we notice the foolishness that accompanies unbelief—either in misunderstanding the earlier part of the prophecy or, if they did understand it, in deliberately leaving it out. We also see their dishonest insertion of one small word that isn't found in the text itself. This action is both stupid and dishonest, since no one would trust them enough to accept their version without checking the actual prophetic text. The text doesn't say "They shall bless You, the true God," but rather "They shall bless the true God." There is a significant difference between "You, the true God" and "the true God." If "You" is kept, the second-person pronoun means that someone else is being addressed. If "You" is left out, "true God," the object of the sentence, is the one speaking.

26. Blasphemy is incompatible with wisdom; where the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, is absent, no glimmer of intelligence survives. An instance of this is seen in the heretics' citation of the prophet's words, And they shall bless You, the true God, as evidence against the Godhead of the Son. First, we see here the folly, which clogs unbelief in the misunderstanding or (if it were understood) in the suppression of the earlier part of the prophecy: and again we see it in their fraudulent interpolation of that one little word, not to be found in the book itself. This proceeding is as stupid as it is dishonest, since no one would trust them so far as to accept their reading without referring for corroboration to the prophetic text. For that text does not stand thus: They shall bless You, the true God, but thus: They shall bless the true God. Isaiah 65:16 There is no slight difference between You, the true God and The true God. If You be retained, the pronoun of the second person implies that Another is being addressed; if You be omitted, True God, the object of the sentence, is the Speaker.

To ensure that our explanation of the passage is complete and certain, I cite the words in full: "Therefore thus says the Lord, Behold, they that serve Me shall eat, but you shall be hungry, behold, they that serve Me shall drink, but you shall be thirsty, behold, they that serve Me shall rejoice with gladness, but you shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. For you shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. But My servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth; and they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon the earth shall swear by the true God." There is always a good reason for any departure from the customary ways of expression, but novelty also creates an opportunity for misinterpretation. The question here is: Why, when so many earlier prophecies have been spoken concerning God, and the name God alone and without any additional description has been sufficient until now to indicate the Divine majesty and nature, should the Spirit of prophecy now foretell through Isaiah that the true God was to be blessed, and that people would swear on earth by the true God? First, we must remember that this prophecy was spoken concerning times to come. Now, I ask, was He not, in the mind of the Jews, true God—the One whom people used then to bless and by whom they swore? The Jews, unaware of the symbolic meaning of their mysteries, and therefore ignorant of God the Son, worshipped God simply as God, and not as Father; for if they had worshipped Him as Father, they would have worshipped the Son also. It was God, therefore, whom they blessed and by whom they swore. But the prophet testifies that it is true God who shall be blessed in the future, calling Him true God because the mystery of His Incarnation was going to blind the eyes of some to His true Godhead. When falsehood was to be spread abroad, it was necessary that the truth should be clearly stated. And now let us review this passage, clause by clause.

27. To ensure that our explanation of the passage shall be complete and certain, I cite the words in full:– Therefore thus says the Lord, Behold, they that serve Me shall eat, but you shall be hungry, behold, they that serve Me shall drink, but you shall be thirsty, behold, they that serve Me shall rejoice with gladness, but you shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. For you shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. But My servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth; and they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon the earth shall swear by the true God. There is always a good reason for any departure from the accustomed modes of expression, but novelty is also made an opportunity for misinterpretation. The question here is, Why, when so many earlier prophecies have been uttered concerning God, and the name God, alone and without epithet, has sufficed hitherto to indicate the Divine majesty and nature, the Spirit of prophecy should now foretell through Isaiah that the true God was to be blessed, and that men should swear upon earth by the true God. First, we must bear in mind that this discourse was spoken concerning times to come. Now, I ask, was not He, in the mind of the Jews, true God, Whom men used then to bless, and by whom they swore? The Jews, unaware of the typical meaning of their mysteries, and therefore ignorant of God the Son, worshipped God simply as God, and not as Father; for, if they had worshipped Him as Father, they would have worshipped the Son also. It was God, therefore, Whom they blessed and by Whom they swore. But the prophet testifies that it is true God Who shall be blessed hereafter; calling Him true God, because the mysteriousness of His Incarnation was to blind the eyes of some to His true Godhead. When falsehood was to be published abroad, it was necessary that the truth should be clearly stated. And now let us review this passage, clause by clause.

Therefore thus says the Lord, Behold, they that serve Me shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, they that serve Me shall drink, but you shall be thirsty. Notice that one clause contains two different tenses in order to teach truth about two different times: They that serve Me shall eat. Present faithfulness is rewarded with a future prize, and in the same way present ungodliness will suffer the penalty of future thirst and hunger. Then He adds, Behold, they that serve Me shall rejoice with gladness, but you shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. Here again, as before, there is a revelation about both the future and the present. Those who serve now will rejoice with gladness, while those who do not serve will remain in crying and howling through sorrow of heart and vexation of spirit. He continues, For you shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. These words, dealing with a future time, are addressed to the physical Israel, which is confronted with the prospect of having to surrender its name to the chosen of God. What is this name? Israel, of course, for the prophecy was addressed to Israel. And now I ask, What is Israel today? The Apostle gives the answer: Those who are in the spirit, not in the letter, those who walk in the Law of Christ, are the Israel of God.

28. Therefore thus says the Lord, Behold, they that serve Me shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, they that serve Me shall drink, but you shall be thirsty. Note that one clause contains two different tenses, in order to teach truth concerning two different times; They that serve Me shall eat. Present piety is rewarded with a future prize, and similarly present godlessness shall suffer the penalty of future thirst and hunger. Then He adds, Behold, they that serve Me shall rejoice with gladness, but you shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. Here again, as before, there is a revelation for the future and for the present. They who serve now shall rejoice with gladness, while they who do not serve shall abide in crying and howling through sorrow of heart and vexation of spirit. He proceeds, For you shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. These words, dealing with a future time, are addressed to the carnal Israel, which is taunted with the prospect of having to surrender its name to the chosen of God. What is this name? Israel, of course; for to Israel the prophecy was addressed. And now I ask, What is Israel today? The Apostle gives the answer:– They who are in the spirit, not in the letter, they who walk in the Law of Christ, are the Israel of God Romans 2:29.

Furthermore, we must reach a conclusion about why the words quoted above, "Therefore thus says the Lord," are followed by "But the Lord shall slay you," and what the next sentence means: "But my servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth." There can be no doubt that both "Therefore thus says the Lord" and afterward "But the Lord shall slay you" prove that it was the Lord who both spoke and also intended to slay, who meant to reward his servants with that new name, who was well known to have spoken through the prophets and was to be the judge of the righteous and the wicked. And so the rest of this revelation of the mystery of the Gospel removes all doubt about the Lord as the one speaking and the one slaying. It continues: "But my servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth." Here everything is in the future tense. What then is this new name of a religion—a name that will be blessed upon earth? If there was ever in past ages a blessing upon the name Christian, it is not a new name. But if this sacred name of our devotion toward God is new, then this new title of Christian, given to our faith, is that heavenly blessing which is our reward upon earth.

29. Furthermore, we must form a conclusion why it is that the words cited above, Therefore thus says the Lord, are followed by But the Lord shall slay you, and as to the meaning of the next sentence, But my servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth. There can be no doubt that both Therefore thus says the Lord, and afterwards But the Lord shall slay you, prove that it was the Lord Who both spoke, and also purposed to slay, Who meant to reward His servants with that new name, Who was well known to have spoken through the prophets and was to be the judge of the righteous and of the wicked. And thus the remainder of this revelation of the mystery of the Gospel removes all doubt concerning the Lord as Speaker and as Slayer. It continues:– But My servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth. Here everything is in the future. What then is this new name of a religion; a name which shall be blessed upon earth? If ever in past ages there were a blessing upon the name Christian, it is not a new name. But if this hallowed name of our devotion towards God be new, then this new title of Christian, awarded to our faith, is that heavenly blessing which is our reward upon earth.

Now come words that perfectly harmonize with the inner assurance of our faith. He says, And they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon earth shall swear by the true God. Indeed, those who have received the new name in God's service will bless God, and furthermore the God by whom they will swear is the true God. What doubt can there be about who this true God is—by whom people will swear and whom they will bless, through whom a new and blessed name will be given to those who serve him? Against the blasphemous misrepresentations of heresy, I have on my side the clear and definite evidence of the Church's faith: the witness of the new name that you, Christ, have given, of the blessed title that you have bestowed as a reward for loyal service. It swears that you are true God. Every mouth of those who believe, O Christ, declares that you are God. The faith of all believers swears that you are God, confesses, proclaims, and is inwardly assured that you are true God.

30. And now come words in perfect harmony with the inward assurance of our faith. He says, And they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon earth shall swear by the true God. And indeed they who in God's service have received the new name shall bless God; and moreover the God by Whom they shall swear is the true God. What doubt is there as to Who this true God is, by Whom men shall swear and Whom they shall bless, through Whom a new and blessed name shall be given to them that serve Him? I have on my side, in opposition to the blasphemous misrepresentations of heresy, the clear and definite evidence of the Church's faith; the witness of the new name which Thou, O Christ, hast given, of the blessed title which You have bestowed in reward of loyal service. It swears that You are true God. Every mouth, O Christ, of them that believe tells that You are God. The faith of all believers swears that You are God, confesses, proclaims, is inwardly assured, that You are true God.

This passage of prophecy, when we consider its complete context, clearly identifies as God both the One we serve because of the new name, and the One through whom the new name is blessed on earth. It tells us who is blessed as the true God, and who is sworn by as the true God. This is the confession of faith that the Church makes in the fullness of time, in loyal devotion to Christ her Lord. We can see how precisely the prophetic words match the truth by their avoidance of using the second-person pronoun. If the words had been "You, the true God," they might have been understood as spoken to someone else. "The true God" can refer only to the Speaker himself. The passage by itself shows to whom it refers; the words that come before it, when read together with it, declare who the Speaker is who makes this confession about God. These are the words: "I have appeared openly to those who did not ask for me, and I have been found by those who did not seek me. I said, 'Here am I,' to a nation that did not call on my name. I have spread out my hands all day long to an unbelieving and contradicting people." Could a dishonest attempt to hide the truth be more completely exposed, or could the Speaker be more clearly revealed as the true God, than here? Who, I ask, appeared to those who did not ask for him and was found by those who did not seek him? What nation is it that formerly did not call on his name? Who is it that spread out his hands all day long to an unbelieving and contradicting people? Compare these words with that holy and divine Song of Deuteronomy, in which God, in his anger against those who are not gods, provokes the unbelievers to jealousy against those who are not a people and a foolish nation. Decide for yourself who it is that makes himself known to those who did not know him; who, though one people is his own, becomes the possession of strangers; who it is that spreads out his hands before an unbelieving and contradicting people, nailing to the cross the written record of the former sentence against us. For the same Spirit speaking through the prophet we are examining continues in the course of this single prophecy, which is connected in its argument as well as continuous in its expression: "But my servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed on the earth, and they shall bless the true God, and those who swear on the earth shall swear by the true God."

31. And thus this passage of prophecy, taken with its whole context, clearly describes as God both Him Whom we serve for the new name's sake, and Him through Whom the new name is blessed upon earth. It tells us Who it is that is blessed as true God, and Who is sworn by as true God. And this is the confession of faith made, in the fullness of time, by the Church in loyal devotion to Christ her Lord. We can see how exactly the words of prophecy conform to the truth, by their refraining from the insertion of that pronoun of the second person. Had the words been You, the true God, then they might have been interpreted as spoken to another. The true God can refer to none but the Speaker. The passage, taken by itself, shows to Whom it refers; the preceding words, taken in connection with it, declare Who the Speaker is Who makes this confession of God. They are these:– I have appeared openly to them that asked not for Me, and, I have been found of them that sought Me not. I said, Here am I, unto a nation that called not on My name. I have spread out My hands all the day to an unbelieving and gainsaying people. Could a dishonest attempt to suppress the truth be more completely exposed, or the Speaker be more distinctly revealed as true God, than here? Who, I demand, was it that appeared to them that asked not for Him, and was found of them that sought Him not? What nation is it that formerly called not on His name? Who is it that spread out His hands all the day to an unbelieving and gainsaying people? Compare with these words that holy and Divine Song of Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 32:21, in which God, in His wrath against them that are no Gods, moves the unbelievers to jealousy against those that are no people and a foolish nation. Conclude for yourself, Who it is that makes Himself manifest to them that knew Him not; Who, though one people is His own, becomes the possession of strangers; Who it is that spreads out His hands before an unbelieving and gainsaying people, nailing to the cross the writing of the former sentence against us. Colossians 2:14 For the same Spirit in the prophet, whom we are considering, proceeds thus in the course of this one prophecy, which is connected in argument as well as continuous in utterance:– But My servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth, and they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon the earth shall swear by the true God.

If heresy, in its foolishness and wickedness, tries to mislead the simple-minded and uneducated away from the true belief that these words were spoken about God the Son, by falsely claiming they are an utterance of God the Father about Himself, it will hear the Apostle and Teacher of the Gentiles pronounce judgment on this lie. He interprets all these prophecies as referring to the Lord's passion and to the times of Gospel faith, when he is rebuking the unbelief of Israel, which will not recognize that the Lord has come in the flesh. His words are: For whosoever shall have called upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? But how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they have been sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that proclaim peace, of them that proclaim good things. But all do not obey the Gospel. For Esaias says, Lord, who has believed our report? So then faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses says, I will provoke you to jealousy against them that are no people, and against a foolish nation I will anger you. Moreover Esaias is bold, and says, I appeared unto them that seek Me not, I was found by them that asked not after Me. But to Israel what says He? All day long I have stretched forth My hands to a people that hearken not. Romans 10:13-21 Who are you who have ascended through the successive heavens, not knowing whether you were in the body or out of the body, and can explain the prophet's words more faithfully than he? Who are you who have heard the inexpressible mysteries of heaven's secret things, which may not be told, and have proclaimed with greater confidence the knowledge God granted you for revelation? Who are you who have been destined beforehand to fully share in the Lord's suffering on the Cross, and have first been caught up to Paradise and drawn nobler teaching from the Scriptures of God than this chosen vessel? If such a person exists, has he been unaware that these are the deeds and words of the true God, proclaimed to us by His own true and chosen Apostle so that we may recognize Him as their Author?

32. If heresy, in its folly and wickedness, shall attempt to entice the simple-minded and uninstructed away from the true belief that these words were spoken in reference to God the Son, by feigning that they are an utterance of God the Father concerning Himself, it shall hear sentence passed upon the lie by the Apostle and Teacher of the Gentiles. He interprets all these prophecies as allusions to the passion of the Lord and to the times of Gospel faith, when he is reproving the unbelief of Israel, which will not recognise that the Lord has come in the flesh. His words are:– For whosoever shall have called upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? But how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, excerpt they have been sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that proclaim peace, of them that proclaim good things. But all do not obey the Gospel. For Esaias says, Lord, who has believed our report? So then faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses says, I will provoke you to jealousy against them that are no people, and against a foolish nation I will anger you. Moreover Esaias is bold, and says, I appeared unto them that seek Me not, I was found by them that asked not after Me. But to Israel what says He? All day long I have stretched forth My hands to a people that hearken not. Romans 10:13-21 Who are you that hast mounted up through the successive heavens, knowing not whether thou were in the body or out of the body, and can explain more faithfully than he the words of the prophet? Who are you that hast heard, and may not tell, the ineffable mysteries of the secret things of heaven, and hast proclaimed with greater assurance the knowledge granted you by God for revelation? Who are you that hast been fore-ordained to a full share of the Lord's suffering on the Cross, and first has been caught up to Paradise and drawn nobler teaching from the Scriptures of God than this chosen vessel? If there be such a man, has he been ignorant that these are the deeds and words of the true God, proclaimed to us by His own true and chosen Apostle that we may recognise in Him their Author?

33. But someone might argue that the Apostle was not inspired by the Spirit of prophecy when he borrowed these prophetic words—that he was simply interpreting another man's words at random. They might say that while everything the Apostle says about himself comes to him through revelation from Christ, his knowledge of Isaiah's words comes only from reading the book. I answer that at the beginning of that passage where it says the servants of the true God will bless Him and swear by Him, we find the prophet worshiping as follows: "From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except You, and Your works which You will do for them that await Your mercy" (Isaiah 64:4). Isaiah says he has seen no God but Him. For he actually saw the glory of God, the mystery of whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist: "These things said Isaiah, when he saw His glory, and spoke of Him" (John 12:41). The Apostle, the Evangelist, and the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God—even though it is written, "No one has seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared Him"—it was God whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honor granted to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him.

33. But it may be argued that the Apostle was not inspired by the Spirit of prophecy when he borrowed these prophetic words; that he was only interpreting at random the words of another man, and though, no doubt, everything the Apostle says of himself comes to him by revelation from Christ, yet his knowledge of the words of Isaiah is only derived from the book. I answer that in the beginning of that utterance in which it is said that the servants of the true God shall bless Him and swear by Him, we read this adoration by the prophet:– From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except You, and Your works which You will do for them that await Your mercy. Isaiah 64:4 Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist:– These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spoke of Him. John 12:41 The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one has seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared Him, it was God Whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the Divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honour vouchsafed to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him.

Thus the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has told us about God, whom no one has seen. Either prove that the Son has not informed us in this way, or else believe in him who was seen, who appeared to those who did not know him, and became the God of the Gentiles who did not call upon him, and spread out his hands before a people who rejected him. And believe this also about him: that those who serve him are called by a new name, and that on earth people bless him and swear by him as the true God. Prophecy declares it, the Gospel confirms it, the Apostle explains it, the Church confesses it—that he who was seen is true God. But no one dares to say that God the Father was seen. And yet the madness of heresy has gone so far that, while they claim to recognize this truth, they actually deny it. They deny it through a newfangled and godless trick of avoiding the truth while making a deliberate pretense of holding to it. For when they confess one God—alone true and alone righteous, alone wise, alone unchangeable, alone immortal, alone mighty—they attach to him a Son who is different in ousia, not born from God to be God, but adopted through creation to be a Son. They claim he has the name of God not by physis, but as a title received by adoption. In this way they inevitably strip the Son of all those attributes which they pile upon the Father in his isolated majesty.

34. Thus the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, has told us of God, Whom no man has seen. Either disprove the fact that the Son has thus informed us, or else believe Him Who has been seen, Who appeared to them who knew Him not, and became the God of the Gentiles who called not upon Him and spread out His hands before a gainsaying people. And believe this also concerning Him, that they who serve Him are called by a new name, and that on earth men bless Him and swear by Him as true God. Prophecy tells, the Gospel confirms, the Apostle explains, the Church confesses, that He Who was seen is true God; but none venture to say that God the Father was seen. And yet the madness of heresy has run to such lengths that, while they profess to recognise this truth, they really deny it. They deny it by means of the newfangled and godless device of evading the truth, while making a studied pretence of adhesion to it. For when they confess one God, alone true and alone righteous, alone wise, alone unchangeable, alone immortal, alone mighty, they attach to Him a Son different in substance, not born from God to be God, but adopted through creation to be a Son, having the name of God not by nature, but as a title received by adoption; and thus they inevitably deprive the Son of all those attributes which they accumulate upon the Father in His lonely majesty.

The twisted thinking of heresy cannot know and confess the one true God. Sound faith and reason, which are necessary for such confession, cannot coexist with unbelief. We must confess both Father and Son before we can understand God as one and true. When we have come to know the mysteries of humanity's salvation—which are accomplished in us through the power of regeneration into life in the Father and the Son—then we can hope to grasp the mysteries of the Law and the Prophets. Godless ignorance of the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles cannot form the concept of one true God. From the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles we will present the sound doctrine about Him, in precise agreement with the faith of true believers. We will present Him in such a way that the Only-begotten, who is of the ousia of the Father, will be known as indivisible and inseparable in physis, not in prosopon. We will set forth God as one, because God is from the physis of God. But we will also establish this doctrine of the perfect unity of God upon the words of the Prophets, making them the foundations of the Gospel structure, proving that there is one God with one divine physis, by the fact that God the Only-begotten is never classified separately as a second God. For throughout this book of our treatise we have followed the same approach as in its predecessor. The same methods that proved there that the Son is God have proved here that He is true God. I trust that our explanation of each passage has been so convincing that we have now shown Him to be true God as effectively as we previously demonstrated His Godhead. The rest of the book will be devoted to proving that He who is now recognized as true God must not be regarded as a second God. Our refutation of the notion of a second God will further establish the unity, and this truth will be shown to be consistent with the personal existence of the Son while still maintaining the unity of physis in God and God.

35. The distorted mind of heresy is incapable of knowing and confessing the One true God; the sound faith and reason necessary for such confession is incompatible with unbelief. We must confess Father and Son before we can apprehend God as One and true. When we have known the mysteries of man's salvation, accomplished in us through the power of regeneration unto life in the Father and the Son, then we may hope to penetrate the mysteries of the Law and the Prophets. Godless ignorance of the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles cannot frame the thought of One true God. Out of the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles we shall present the sound doctrine concerning Him, in accurate agreement with the faith of true believers. We shall present Him in such wise that the Only-begotten, Who is of the substance of the Father, shall be known as indivisible and inseparable in nature, not in Person. We shall set forth God as One, because God is from the nature of God. But we shall also establish this doctrine of the perfect unity of God upon the words of the Prophets, and make them the foundations of the Gospel structure, proving that there is One God, with one Divine nature, by the fact that God the Only-begotten is never classed apart as a second God. For throughout this book of our treatise we have followed the same course as in its predecessor; the same methods which proved there that the Son is God, have proved here that He is true God. I trust that our explanation of each passage has been so convincing that we have now manifested Him as true God as effectually as we formerly demonstrated His Godhead. The remainder of the book shall be devoted to the proof that He, Who is now recognised as true God, must not be regarded as a second God. Our disproof of the notion of a second God will further establish the unity; and this truth shall be displayed as not inconsistent with the personal existence of the Son, while yet it maintains the unity of nature in God and God.

36. The proper approach to our investigation requires that we begin with the one through whom God first revealed Himself to the world—that is, Moses. Through Moses, God the Only-begotten declared: "See, see that I am God, and there is no God beside Me" (Deuteronomy 32:39). It is clear from both the context of the passage and the testimony of the Apostle that godless heresy must not attribute these words to God the unbegotten Father. As we have already stated, the Apostle has taught us to understand this entire discourse as spoken by God the Only-begotten. The Apostle also identifies the words "Rejoice, O you nations, with His people" as words of the Son, and he further supports this by citing: "And there shall be a root of Jesse, and One that shall arise to rule the nations; in Him shall the nations trust." Thus Moses, by the words "Rejoice, O you nations, with His people," indicates the One who said "There is no God beside Me," and the Apostle refers these same words to our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Only-begotten, in whose rising as a king from the root of Jesse according to the flesh the hope of the Gentiles rests. Therefore, we must now examine the meaning of these words so that we, who know they were spoken by Him, may understand in what sense He spoke them.

36. The true method of our enquiry demands that we should begin with him, through whom God first manifested Himself to the world, that is, with Moses, by whose mouth God the Only-begotten thus declared Himself; See, see that I am God, and there is no God beside Me. Deuteronomy 32:39 That godless heresy must not assign these words to God, the unbegotten Father, is clear by the sense of the passage and by the evidence of the Apostle who, as we have already stated, has taught us to understand this whole discourse as spoken by God the Only-begotten. The Apostle also points out the words, Rejoice, O you nations, with His people as those of the Son, and in corroboration further cites this:– And there shall be a root of Jesse, and One that shall arise to rule the nations; in Him shall the nations trust. Thus Moses by the words, Rejoice, O you nations, with His people indicates Him Who said, There is no God beside Me; and the Apostle refers the same words to our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Only-begotten, in Whose rising as a king from the root of Jesse, according to the flesh, the hope of the Gentiles rests. And therefore we must now consider the meaning of these words, that we, who know that they were spoken by Him, may ascertain in what sense He spoke them.

That true, absolute, and perfect doctrine which forms our faith is the confession of God from God and God in God—not through any bodily process but by divine power, not by transferring substance from one nature to another but through the secret and mighty working of the one nature. God from God, not by division or extension or emanation, but by the operation of a nature which brings into existence, through birth, a nature one with itself. These facts will receive fuller treatment in the next book, which will be devoted to explaining the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles. For now we must maintain our assertion and belief using the Law and the Prophets. The nature with which God is born is necessarily the same as that of his Source. He cannot come into existence as anything other than God, since his origin is from none other than God. His nature is the same, not in the sense that the Begetter was also begotten—for then the Unbegotten, having been begotten, would not be himself—but in that the ousia of the Begotten consists in all those elements which are summed up in the ousia of the Begetter, who is his only Origin. Thus it is due to no external cause that his origin is from the One, and that his existence shares in the Unity. There is no new element in him, because his life is from the Living; no element is absent, because the Living begot him to share his own life. Hence, in the generation of the Son, the incorporeal and unchangeable God begets, in accordance with his own nature, God incorporeal and unchangeable. And this perfect birth of incorporeal and unchangeable God from incorporeal and unchangeable God involves, as we see in the light of the revelation of God from God, no diminution of the Begetter's ousia. And so God the Only-begotten bears witness through the holy Moses: "See, see that I am God, and there is no God beside me." For there is no second divine nature, and so there can be no God beside him, since he is God, yet by the powers of his nature God is also in him. And because he is God and God is in him, there is no God beside him—for God, than whom there is no other Source of Deity, is in him, and consequently there is within him not only his own existence, but the Author of that existence.

37. That true and absolute and perfect doctrine, which forms our faith, is the confession of God from God and God in God, by no bodily process but by Divine power, by no transfusion from nature into nature but through the secret and mighty working of the One nature; God from God, not by division or extension or emanation, but by the operation of a nature which brings into existence, by means of birth, a nature One with itself. The facts shall receive a fuller treatment in the next book, which is to be devoted to an exposition of the teaching of the Evangelists and Apostles; for the present we must maintain our assertion and belief by means of the Law and the Prophets. The nature with which God is born is necessarily the same as that of His Source. He cannot come into existence as other than God, since His origin is from none other than God. His nature is the same, not in the sense that the Begetter also was begotten — for then the Unbegotten, having been begotten, would not be Himself — but that the substance of the Begotten consists in all those elements which are summed up in the substance of the Begetter, Who is His only Origin. Thus it is due to no external cause that His origin is from the One, and that His existence partakes the Unity; there is no novel element in Him, because His life is from the Living; no element absent, because the Living begot Him to partake His own life. Hence, in the generation of the Son, the incorporeal and unchangeable God begets, in accordance with His own nature, God incorporeal and unchangeable; and this perfect birth of incorporeal and unchangeable God from incorporeal and unchangeable God involves, as we see in the light of the revelation of God from God, no diminution of the Begetter's substance. And so God the Only-begotten bears witness through the holy Moses; See, see that I am God, and there is no God beside Me. For there is no second Divine nature, and so there can be no God beside Him, since He is God, yet by the powers of His nature God is also in Him. And because He is God and God is in Him, there is no God beside Him; for God, than Whom there is no other Source of Deity, is in Him, and consequently there is within Him not only His own existence, but the Author of that existence.

This saving faith that we confess is supported by the spirit of prophecy, which speaks with one voice through many mouths and has never, through long and changing ages, given uncertain testimony to the truths of revelation. For example, the words that God the Only-begotten spoke (as we are told through Moses) are confirmed for our better understanding by the prophetic spirit, this time speaking through those great men: "For God is in You, and there is no God beside You. You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior." Let heresy throw itself with all its desperate and furious effort against this declaration of a name and nature joined together inseparably, and let it try to tear apart—if its violent struggles can—a union that is perfect in both title and reality. God is in God, and beside Him there is no God. Let heresy, if it can, separate the God who is within from the God within whom He is, and classify each member of that mystical union according to its kind. For when He says "God is in You," He teaches that the true nature of God the Father is present in God the Son; we must understand that it is the God Who is (Exodus 3:14) that is in Him. And when He adds, "And there is no God beside You," He shows that outside Him there is no God, since God's dwelling is within Himself. And the third statement, "You are God and we knew it not," sets forth for our instruction what the confession of the devout and believing soul must be. When it has learned the mysteries of the Divine birth and the name Emmanuel that the angel announced to Joseph, it must cry, "You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior." It must recognize the subsistence of the Divine nature in Him, because God is in God, and recognize the nonexistence of any other God except the true one. For since He is God and God is in Him, the delusion of another God, of whatever kind, must be abandoned. This is the message of the prophet Isaiah; he bears witness to the indivisible and inseparable Godhead of Father and Son.

38. This saving faith which we profess is sustained by the spirit of prophecy, speaking with one voice through many mouths, and never, through long and changing ages, bearing an uncertain witness to the truths of revelation. For instance, the words which, as we are told through Moses, were spoken by God the Only-begotten, are confirmed for our better instruction by the prophetic spirit, speaking this time through those men of stature — For God is in You, and there is no God beside You. You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour. Let heresy fling itself with its utmost effort of despair and rage against this declaration of a name and nature inseparably joined, and rend in two, if its furious struggles can, a union perfect in title and in fact. God is in God and beside Him there is no God. Let heresy, if it can, divide the God within from the God within Whom He is, and classify, Each after His kind, the members of that mystic union. For when He says God is in You, He teaches that the true nature of God the Father is present in God the Son; for we must understand that it is the God Who is Exodus 3:14 that is in Him. And when He adds, And there is no God beside You, He shows that outside Him there is no God, since God's dwelling is within Himself. And the third assertion, You are God and we knew it not, sets forth for our instruction what must be the confession of the devout and believing soul. When it has learned the mysteries of the Divine birth, and the name Emmanuel which the angel announced to Joseph, it must cry, You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour. It must recognise the subsistence of the Divine nature in Him, inasmuch as God is in God, and the nonexistence of any other God except the true. For, He being God and God being in Him, the delusion of another God, of whatever kind, must be surrendered. Such is the message of the prophet Isaiah; he bears witness to the indivisible and inseparable Godhead of Father and of Son.

39. Jeremiah also, a prophet equally inspired, has taught that God the Only-begotten shares one nature with God the Father. His words are: "This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He was seen upon earth, and dwelt among men." Why try to transform the Son of God into a second God? Learn to recognize and confess the One True God. No second God is likened to Christ who could claim to be God. He is God from God by nature and by birth, for the Source of His Godhead is God. And again, He is not a second God, for no other is likened to Him; the truth that is in Him is nothing other than the truth of God. Why link together, in pretended devotion to the unity of God, what is true and false, base and genuine, unlike and unlike? The Father is God and the Son is God. God is in God; beside Him there is no God, and no other is likened to Him so as to be God. If in these Two you recognize the Unity, rather than the isolation, of God, you will share the Church's faith, which confesses the Father in the Son. But if, in ignorance of the heavenly mystery, you insist that God is One in order to enforce the doctrine of His isolation, then you are a stranger to the knowledge of God, for you deny that God is in God.

39. Jeremiah also, a prophet equally inspired, has taught that God the Only-begotten is of a nature one with that of God the Father. His words are:– This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He was seen upon earth, and dwelt among men. Why try to transform the Son of God into a second God? Learn to recognise and to confess the One True God. No second God is likened to Christ, and so can claim to be God. He is God from God by nature and by birth, for the Source of His Godhead is God. And, again, He is not a second God, for no other is likened unto Him; the truth that is in Him is nothing else than the truth of God. Why link together, in pretended devotion to the unity of God, true and false, base and genuine, unlike and unlike? The Father is God and the Son is God. God is in God; beside Him there is no God, and none other is likened unto Him so as to be God. If in these Two you shall recognise the Unity, instead of the solitude, of God, you will share the Church's faith, which confesses the Father in the Son. But if, in ignorance of the heavenly mystery, you insist that God is One in order to enforce the doctrine of His isolation, then you are a stranger to the knowledge of God, for you deny that God is in God.

The earlier books of this treatise, written some time ago, contain what I believe is an unshakable proof that we hold and profess the faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and that no agreement is possible between us and the heretics, since they deny completely, irrationally, and recklessly the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, certain points remained that I have felt obliged to include in this and the following books, in order to make our confidence in the faith even more secure by exposing every one of their lies and blasphemies. Therefore, we will examine first what the dangers of their teaching are and the risks involved in such irreverence; next, what principles they hold and what arguments they use against the apostolic faith to which we hold, and by what deceptive language they take advantage of the sincerity of their listeners; and finally, by what method of interpretation they strip the words of Scripture of their power and meaning.

1. The earlier books of this treatise, written some time ago, contain, I think, an invincible proof that we hold and profess the faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and that no commerce is possible between us and the heretics, inasmuch as they deny unconditionally, irrationally, and recklessly, the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet certain points remained which I have felt myself bound to include in this and the following books, in order to make our assurance of the faith even more certain by exposure of every one of their falsehoods and blasphemies. Accordingly, we will enquire first what are the dangers of their teaching, the risks involved by such irreverence; next, what principles they hold, and what arguments they advance against the apostolic faith to which we adhere, and by what sleight of language they impose upon the candour of their hearers; and lastly, by what method of comment they disarm the words of Scripture of their force and meaning.

We are well aware that neither human speech nor analogies from human nature can give us a complete understanding of the things of God. The ineffable cannot be confined within the boundaries and limits of definition; that which is spiritual is distinct from every category or example of bodily things. Yet, since our subject concerns heavenly natures, we must use ordinary experiences and ordinary language as our means of expressing what our mind grasps—a means no doubt unworthy of the majesty of God, but forced upon us by the weakness of our intellect, which can only use our own circumstances and our own words to convey to others our perceptions and our conclusions. This truth has already been emphasized in the first book, but is now repeated so that, in any analogies from human affairs that we present, we may not be thought to consider God as resembling bodily natures, or to compare spiritual Beings with our passible (subject to suffering) selves, but rather be understood as putting forward the outward appearance of visible things as a guide to the inward meaning of things invisible.

2. We are well aware that neither the speech of men nor the analogy of human nature can give us a full insight into the things of God. The ineffable cannot submit to the bounds and limits of definition; that which is spiritual is distinct from every class or instance of bodily things. Yet, since our subject is that of heavenly natures, we must employ ordinary natures and ordinary speech as our means of expressing what our mind apprehends; a means no doubt unworthy of the majesty of God, but forced upon us by feebleness of our intellect, which can use only our own circumstances and our own words to convey to others our perceptions and our conclusions. This truth has been enforced already in the first book, but is now repeated in order that, in any analogies from human affairs which we adduce, we may not be supposed to think of God as resembling embodied natures, or to compare spiritual Beings with our passible selves, but rather be regarded as advancing the outward appearance of visible things as a clue to the inward meaning of things invisible.

The heretics say that Christ is not from God—that is, the Son is not born from the Father, and is not God by physis but by appointment. In other words, He has received an adoption that consists in the giving of a name, being God's Son in the same sense that many are sons of God. They also say that Christ's majesty is evidence of God's widespread generosity, with Him being God in the same sense that there are many gods. However, they do admit that in His adoption and naming as God, a more generous affection was shown than in other cases—His adoption being first in time, and He being greater than other adopted sons and first in rank among the creatures because of the greater splendor that accompanied His creation. Some add, as a way of confessing God's omnipotence, that He was created into God's likeness, and that He, like other creatures, was raised up out of nothing to be the Image of the eternal Creator, commanded by a word to spring from non-existence into being by the power of God, who can form out of nothing the likeness of Himself.

3. For the heretics say that Christ is not from God, that is, that the Son is not born from the Father, and is God not by nature but by appointment; in other words, that He has received an adoption which consists in the giving of a name, being God's Son in the sense in which many are sons of God; again, that Christ's majesty is an evidence of God's widespread bounty, He being God in the sense in which there are gods many; although they admit that in His adoption and naming as God a more liberal affection than in other cases was shown, His adoption being the first in order of time, and He greater than other adopted sons, and first in rank among the creatures because of the greater splendour which accompanied His creation. Some add, by way of confessing the omnipotence of God, that He was created into God's likeness, and that it was out of nothing that He, like other creatures, was raised up to be the Image of the eternal Creator, bidden at a word to spring from non- existence into being by the power of God, Who can frame out of nothing the likeness of Himself.

Moreover, they use their knowledge of the historical fact that bishops of earlier times taught that Father and Son are of one substance to undermine the truth through the clever argument that this is a heretical idea. They claim that the term "of one substance"—in Greek homoousion—is used to mean and express that the Father is the same as the Son; that is, that He extended Himself out of infinity into the Virgin, took a body from her, and gave Himself, in the body He had taken, the name of Son. This is their first falsehood about the homoousion. Their second falsehood is that this word homoousion implies that Father and Son share in something that existed before either of them and is distinct from both of them, and that a certain imaginary substance, or ousia, existing before all matter, has existed previously and been divided and completely distributed between the two. This proves, they say, that each of the two is of a nature that existed before himself, and each is identical in matter with the other. And so they claim to condemn the confession of the homoousion on the grounds that this term does not distinguish between Father and Son, and makes the Father later in time than the matter He has in common with the Son. They have also invented this third objection to the word homoousion: that its meaning, as they explain it, is that the Son derives His origin from a partition of the Father's substance, as though one object had been cut in two and He were the severed part. The meaning of "one substance," they say, is that the part cut off from the whole continues to share the nature of that from which it has been severed. But God, being impassible (incapable of suffering or change), cannot be divided, for if He must submit to being diminished by division, He is subject to change, and will become imperfect if His perfect substance leaves Him to reside in the severed part.

4. Moreover, they use their knowledge of the historical fact that bishops of a former time have taught that Father and Son are of one substance, to subvert the truth by the ingenious plea that this is a heretical notion. They say that this term 'of one substance,' in the Greek homoousion, is used to mean and express that the Father is the same as the Son; that is, that He extended Himself out of infinity into the Virgin, and took a body from her, and gave to Himself, in the body which He had taken, the name of Son. This is their first lie concerning the homoousion. Their next lie is that this word homoousion implies that Father and Son participate in something antecedent to Either and distinct from Both, and that a certain imaginary substance, or ousia, anterior to all matter whatsoever, has existed heretofore and been divided and wholly distributed between the Two; which proves, they say, that Each of the Two is of a nature pro-existent to Himself, and Each identical in matter with the Other. And so they profess to condemn the confession of the homoousion on the ground that that term does not discriminate between Father and Son, and makes the Father subsequent in time to that matter which He has in common with the Son. And they have devised this third objection to the word homoousion, that its meaning, as they explain it, is that the Son derives His origin from a partition of the Father's substance, as though one object had been cut in two and He were the severed portion. The meaning of 'one substance,' they say, is that the part cut off from the whole continues to share the nature of that from which it has been severed; but God, being impassible, cannot be divided, for, if He must submit to be lessened by division, He is subject to change, and will be rendered imperfect if His perfect substance leave Him to reside in the severed portion.

They also think they have a quick way to refute the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles all at once by claiming that the Son was born within time. They accuse us of being illogical when we say the Son has existed from everlasting. Since they reject the possibility of His eternity, they are forced to believe He was born at a specific point in time. For if He has not always existed, there was a time when He did not exist. And if there was a time when He did not exist, then time existed before Him. Anyone who has not existed everlastingly began to exist within time, while anyone who is free from the limits of time is necessarily eternal. The reason they give for rejecting the eternity of the Son is that His everlasting existence contradicts the faith in His birth—as though by confessing that He has existed eternally, we make His birth impossible.

5. They think also that they have a compendious refutation of Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles alike, in their assertion that the Son was born within time. They pronounce us illogical for saying that the Son has existed from everlasting; and, since they reject the possibility of His eternity, they are forced to believe that He was born at a point in time. For if He has not always existed, there was a time when He was not; and if there be a time when He was not, time was anterior to Him. He who has not existed everlastingly began to exist within time, while He Who is free from the limits of time is necessarily eternal. The reason they give for their rejection of the eternity of the Son is that His everlasting existence contradicts the faith in His birth; as though by confessing that He has existed eternally, we made His birth impossible.

How foolish and godless these fears are! What impious anxiety they show about God! The Church detests, rejects, and denounces the meaning they claim to find in the word homoousion and in the assertion of the Son's eternity. She confesses one God from whom are all things; she confesses one Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom are all things; one from whom, one through whom; one the Source of all, one the Agent through whom all were created. In the one from whom are all things she recognizes the majesty that has no beginning, and in the one through whom are all things she recognizes a power equal to his Source. Both are jointly supreme in the work of creation and in rule over created things. In the Spirit she recognizes God as Spirit, impassible and indivisible, for she has learned from the Lord that Spirit has neither flesh nor bones; a warning to prevent her from supposing that God, being Spirit, could be burdened with bodily suffering and loss. She recognizes one God, unborn from everlasting; she also recognizes one only-begotten Son of God. She confesses the Father eternal and without beginning; she also confesses that the Son's beginning is from eternity. Not that he has no beginning, but that he is Son of the Father who has none; not that he is self-originated, but that he is from him who is unbegotten from everlasting; born from eternity, receiving his birth from the eternity of the Father. Thus our faith is free from the guesswork of heretical perversity. It is expressed in fixed and published terms, though no reasoned defense of our confession has yet been put forth. Still, to prevent any suspicion from lingering around the sense in which the Fathers have used the word homoousion and around our confession of the eternity of the Son, I have set down the proofs by which we may be assured that the Son abides forever in that substance in which he was begotten from the Father, and that the birth of his Son has not diminished anything of that substance in which the Father was abiding. Holy men, inspired by the teaching of God, when they said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, pointed to no such flaws or defects as I have mentioned. My purpose has been to counteract the impression that this ousia, this assertion that he is homoousios with the Father, is a denial of the nativity of the only-begotten Son.

6. What foolish and godless fears! What impious anxiety on God's behalf! The meaning which they profess to detect in the word homoousion, and in the assertion of the eternity of the Son, is detested, rejected, denounced by the Church. She confesses one God from Whom are all things; she confesses one Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom are all things; One from Whom, One through Whom; One the Source of all, One the Agent through Whom all were created. In the One from Whom are all things she recognises the Majesty which has no beginning, and in the One through Whom are all things she recognises a might coequal with His Source; for Both are jointly supreme in the work of creation and in rule over created things. In the Spirit she recognises God as Spirit, impassible and indivisible, for she has learned from the Lord that Spirit has neither flesh nor bones Luke 24:39; a warning to save her from supposing that God, being Spirit, could be burdened with bodily suffering and loss. She recognises one God, unborn from everlasting; she recognises also one Only-begotten Son of God. She confesses the Father eternal and without beginning; she confesses also that the Son's beginning is from eternity. Not that He has no beginning, but that He is Son of the Father Who has none; not that He is self-originated, but that He is from Him Who is unbegotten from everlasting; born from eternity, receiving, that is, His birth from the eternity of the Father. Thus our faith is free from the guesswork of heretical perversity; it is expressed in fixed and published terms, though as yet no reasoned defense of our confession has been put forth. Still, lest any suspicion should linger around the sense in which the Fathers have used the word homoousion and round our confession of the eternity of the Son, I have set down the proofs whereby we may be assured that the Son abides ever in that substance wherein He was begotten from the Father, and that the birth of His Son has not diminished ought of that Substance wherein the Father was abiding; that holy men, inspired by the teaching of God, when they said that the Son is homoousios with the Father pointed to no such flaws or defects as I have mentioned. My purpose has been to counteract the impression that this ousia, this assertion that He is homoousios with the Father, is a negation of the nativity of the Only-begotten Son.

To convince ourselves that these two phrases were necessary—phrases that were adopted and used as the best safeguards against the heretical mob of that time—I think it is best to respond to the stubborn unbelief of our current heretics and to refute their empty and destructive teaching by the testimony of the evangelists and apostles. They deceive themselves into thinking they can provide proof for each of their claims; in fact, they have attached to each claim some passages or other from Holy Scripture—passages so badly misinterpreted that they trap only the uneducated with a false appearance of truth that twisted cleverness has disguised in their explanation.

7. To assure ourselves of the needfulness of these two phrases, adopted and employed as the best of safeguards against the heretical rabble of that day, I think it best to reply to the obstinate misbelief of our present heretics, and refute their vain and pestilent teaching by the witness of the evangelists and apostles. They flatter themselves that they can furnish a proof for each of their propositions; they have, in fact, appended to each some passages or other from holy Writ; passages so grossly misinterpreted as to ensnare none but the illiterate by the semblance of truth with which perverted ingenuity has masked their explanation.

They try to honor the Godhead of the Father alone in order to strip the Son of His divinity. They argue that it is written, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One," and that the Lord repeats this in His answer to the teacher of the Law who asked Him what was the greatest commandment in the Law: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One." They also say that Paul proclaims, "For there is One God, and One Mediator between God and men." Furthermore, they insist that God alone is wise, so as to leave no wisdom for the Son, relying on the Apostle's words: "Now to Him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence through age-long times, but now is manifested through the scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the eternal God Who is made known unto all nations unto obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory for ever and ever." They also argue that He alone is true, for Isaiah says, "They shall bless You, the true God," and the Lord Himself has testified in the Gospel, saying, "And this is life eternal that they should know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent." Again they reason that He alone is good, to leave no goodness for the Son, because it has been said through Him, "There is none good save One, even God," and that He alone has power, because Paul has said, "Which in His own times He shall show to us, Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords." And further, they claim to be certain that in the Father there is no change or turning, because He has said through the prophet, "I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed," and the apostle James wrote, "With Whom there is no change." They are also certain that He is the righteous Judge, for it is written, "God is the righteous Judge, strong and patient"; that He cares for all, because the Lord has said, speaking of the birds, "And your heavenly Father feeds them," and, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them falls upon the ground without the will of your Father; but the very hairs of your head are numbered." They say that the Father has foreknowledge of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, "O eternal God, that know secrets, and know all things before they be"; that He is incomprehensible, as it is written, "The heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet. What house will you build Me, or what is the place of My rest? For these things has My hand made, and all these things are mine"; that He contains all things, as Paul testifies, "For in Him we live and move and have our being," and the psalmist, "Whither shall I go from Your Spirit, and whither shall I fly from Your face? If I climb up into heaven, You are there; if I go down to hell, You are present. If I take my wings before the light and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me and Your right hand shall hold me"; that He is without body, for it is written, "For God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth"; that He is immortal and invisible, as Paul says, "Who only has immortality, and dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man has seen nor can see," and the Evangelist, "No one has seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father"; that He alone abides eternally unborn, for it is written, "I Am That I Am," and "Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I Am has sent me unto you," and through Jeremiah, "O Lord, Who art Lord."

8. For they attempt, by praising the Godhead of the Father only, to deprive the Son of His Divinity, pleading that it is written, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One Deuteronomy 6:4, and that the Lord repeats this in His answer to the doctor of the Law who asked Him what was the greatest commandment in the Law;– Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. Mark 12:29 Again, they say that Paul proclaims, For there is One God, and One Mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 And furthermore, they insist that God alone is wise, in order to leave no wisdom for the Son, relying upon the words of the Apostle, Now to Him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence through age-long times, but now is manifested through the scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the eternal God Who is made known unto all nations unto obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Romans 16:25-27 They argue also that He alone is true, for Isaiah says, They shall bless You, the true God Isaiah 65:16, and the Lord Himself has borne witness in the Gospel, saying, And this is life eternal that they should know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. John 17:3 Again they reason that He alone is good, to leave no goodness for the Son, because it has been said through Him, There is none good save One, even God Mark 10:18; and that He alone has power, because Paul has said, Which in His own times He shall show to us, Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 1 Timothy 6:15 And further, they profess themselves certain that in the Father there is no change nor turning, because He has said through the prophet, I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed Malachi 3:6, and the apostle James, With Whom there is no change; certain also that He is the righteous Judge, for it is written, God is the righteous Judge, strong and patient; that He cares for all, because the Lord has said, speaking of the birds, And your heavenly Father feeds them Matthew 6:26, and, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them falls upon the ground without the will of your Father; but the very hairs of your head are numbered. They say that the Father has prescience of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, O eternal God, that know secrets, and know all things before they be; that He is incomprehensible, as it is written, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet. What house will you build Me, or what is the place of My rest? For these things has My hand made, and all these things are mine; that He contains all things, as Paul bears witness, For in Him we live and move and have our being Acts 17:28, and the psalmist, Whither shall I go from Your Spirit, and whither shall I fly from Your face? If I climb up into heaven, You are there; if I go down to hell, You are present. If I take my wings before the light and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me and Your right hand shall hold me; that He is without body, for it is written, For God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth John 4:24; that He is immortal and invisible, as Paul says, Who only has immortality, and dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man has seen nor can see 1 Timothy 6:16, and the Evangelist, No one has seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18; that He alone abides eternally unborn, for it is written, I Am That I Am, and Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I Am has sent me unto you Exodus 3:14, and through Jeremiah, O Lord, Who art Lord.

Who can fail to see that these statements are full of deception and false reasoning? No matter how cleverly the issues have been confused and the texts combined, malice and foolishness are indelibly stamped on this labored effort of cunning and incompetence. For example, among their points of faith they have included this: that they confess the Father alone to be unborn—as if anyone on our side could suppose that He who begot Him through whom are all things derived His being from any external source. The very fact that He bears the name of Father reveals Him as the cause of His Son's existence. That name of Father gives no hint that the one who bears it is Himself descended from another, while it tells us plainly from whom the Son is begotten. Let us therefore leave to the Father His own special and incommunicable property, confessing that in Him reside the eternal powers of an omnipotence without beginning. No one, I am sure, can doubt that the reason why, in their confession of God the Father, certain attributes are emphasized as peculiarly and inalienably His own, is that He may be left in isolated possession of them. For when they say that He alone is true, alone is righteous, alone is wise, alone is invisible, alone is good, alone is mighty, alone is immortal, they are raising up this word "alone" as a barrier to cut off the Son from His share in these attributes. He who is alone, they say, has no partner in His properties. But if we suppose that these attributes reside in the Father only, and not in the Son also, then we must believe that God the Son has neither truth nor wisdom; that He is a bodily being composed of visible and material elements, ill-disposed and feeble and void of immortality—for we exclude Him from all these attributes of which we make the Father the solitary possessor.

9. Who can fail to observe that these statements are full of fraud and fallacy? Cleverly as issues have been confused and texts combined, malice and folly is the character indelibly imprinted upon this laborious effort of cunning and clumsiness. For instance, among their points of faith they have included this, that they confess the Father only to be unborn; as though any one on our side could suppose that He, Who begot Him through Whom are all things, derived His being from any external source. The very fact that He bears the name of Father reveals Him as the cause of His Son's existence. That name of Father gives no hint that He who bears it is Himself descended from another, while it tells us plainly from Whom it is that the Son is begotten. Let us therefore leave to the Father His own special and incommunicable property, confessing that in Him reside the eternal powers of an omnipotence without beginning. None, I am sure, can doubt that the reason why, in their confession of God the Father, certain attributes are dwelt upon as peculiarly and inalienably His own, is that He may be left in isolated possession of them. For when they say that He alone is true, alone is righteous, alone is wise, alone is invisible, alone is good, alone is mighty, alone is immortal, they are raising up this word alone as a barrier to cut off the Son from His share in these attributes. He Who is alone, they say, has no partner in His properties. But if we suppose that these attributes reside in the Father only, and not in the Son also, then we must believe that God the Son has neither truth nor wisdom; that He is a bodily being compact of visible and material elements, ill-disposed and feeble and void of immortality; for we exclude Him from all these attributes of which we make the Father the solitary Possessor.

We intend to discuss the most perfect majesty and complete divinity that belongs to the Only-begotten Son of God. We have no fear that our readers will think our expansive language about the Son somehow takes away from the glory of God the Father, as if every praise we give to the Son must first be taken from the Father. On the contrary, the majesty of the Son brings glory to the Father. The Source must be glorious when the One who comes from it is worthy of such glory. The Son has nothing except through His birth, and the Father shares in all honor given to the Son by virtue of that birth. This silences the accusation that we diminish the Father's honor, because all the glory that belongs to the Son—as we will teach—reflects back to increase the glory of the One who has begotten so great a Son.

10. We, however, who propose to discourse of that most perfect majesty and fullest Divinity which appertains to the Only-begotten Son of God, have no fear lest our readers should imagine that amplitude of phrase in speaking of the Son is a detraction from the glory of God the Father, as though every praise assigned to the Son had first been withdrawn from Him. For, on the contrary, the majesty of the Son is glory to the Father; the Source must be glorious from which He Who is worthy of such glory comes. The Son has nothing but by virtue of His birth; the Father shares all veneration received by that birthright. Thus the suggestion that we diminish the Father's honour is put to silence, for all the glory which, as we shall teach, is inherent in the Son will be reflected back, to the increased glory of Him who has begotten a Son so great.

Now that we have exposed their plan of belittling the Son under cover of magnifying the Father, the next step is to listen to the exact terms in which they express their own belief concerning the Son. Since we have to answer each of their claims in turn and to demonstrate from Holy Scripture the impiety of their doctrines, we must add to what they say about the Father the statements they have put on record about the Son. By comparing their confession about the Father with their confession about the Son, we can follow a consistent method in addressing the questions as they come up. They declare that the Son is not derived from any pre-existing matter, since all things were created through Him, nor is He begotten from God, because nothing can be taken away from God. Rather, they say He was made out of what did not exist—that is, He is a perfect creature of God, though different from His other creatures. They argue that He is a creature because it is written, "The Lord has created Me for a beginning of His ways" (Proverbs 8:22). That He is the perfect handiwork of God, though different from His other works, they try to prove first by what Paul writes to the Hebrews: "Being made so much better than the angels, as He possesses a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:4), and again, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to Him that made Him." For their attack on the might and majesty and Godhead of the Son, they rely chiefly on His own words, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). But they admit that He is not one of the common herd of creatures based on the evidence of "All things were made through Him" (John 1:3). And so they sum up the whole of their blasphemous teaching in these words that follow:

11. Now that we have exposed their plan of belittling the Son under cover of magnifying the Father, the next step is to listen to the exact terms in which they express their own belief concerning the Son. For, since we have to answer in succession each of their allegations and to display on the evidence of Holy Scripture the impiety of their doctrines, we must append, to what they say of the Father, the decisions which they have put on record concerning the Son, that by a comparison of their confession of the Father with their confession of the Son we may follow a uniform order in our solution of the questions as they arise. They state as their verdict that the Son is not derived from any pre-existent matter, for through Him all things were created, nor yet begotten from God, for nothing can be withdrawn from God; but that He was made out of what was nonexistent, that is, that He is a perfect creature of God, though different from His other creatures. They argue that He is a creature, because it is written, The Lord has created Me for a beginning of His ways Proverbs 8:22; that He is the perfect handiwork of God, though different from His other works, they prove, as to the first point, by what Paul writes to the Hebrews, Being made so much better than the angels, as He possesses a more excellent name than they Hebrews 1:4, and again, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to Him that made Him. For their depreciation of the might and majesty and Godhead of the Son they rely chiefly on His own words, The Father is greater than I. John 14:28 But they admit that He is not one of the common herd of creatures on the evidence of All things were made through Him. John 1:3 And so they sum up the whole of their blasphemous teaching in these words which follow:–

We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer, and Manager of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all ages, through whom He made the world and all things. He gave birth to Him not in appearance but in truth, following His own will, so that the Son is unchangeable and unalterable, God's perfect creature but not like His other creatures, His work but not like His other works. The Son is not, as Valentinus claimed, an emanation from the Father. He is not, as Manichaeus declared, a consubstantial part of the Father. He is not, as Sabellius taught when he made two out of one, both Son and Father at the same time. He is not, as Hieracas said, a light from a light or a lamp with two flames. Nor was He already in existence and then later born or freshly created to be a Son—a view you yourself, blessed Pope, have often condemned publicly in the church and in the assembly of the brethren. Rather, as we have stated, we believe that He was created by the will of God before times and ages, and has His life and being from the Father, who gave Him a share in His own glorious perfections. For when the Father gave Him the inheritance of all things, He did not strip Himself of the attributes that are His without origination, since He is the source of all things.

12. We confess One God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through Whom He made the world and all things; that He gave birth to Him not in semblance, but in truth, following His own Will, so that He is unchangeable and unalterable, God's perfect creature but not as one of His other creatures, His handiwork, but not as His other works; not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father; nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a consubstantial part of the Father; nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out of one, Son and Father at once; nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames; nor as if He was previously in being and afterwards born or created afresh to be a Son, a notion often condemned by yourself, blessed Pope, publicly in the Church and in the assembly of the brethren. But, as we have affirmed, we believe that He was created by the will of God before times and worlds, and has His life and existence from the Father, Who gave Him to share His own glorious perfections. For, when the Father gave to Him the inheritance of all things, He did not thereby deprive Himself of attributes which are His without origination, He being the source of all things.

So there are three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God, for His part, is the cause of all things, completely unoriginate and separate from all. The Son was brought forth by the Father outside time and created and established before the worlds. He did not exist before He was born, but being born outside time before the worlds, He came into being as the Only Son of the Only Father. He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-unoriginate with the Father, nor does He have an existence alongside the Father, as some claim who propose two unborn principles. But God is before all things, being indivisible and the beginning of all. Therefore He is also before the Son, as we have indeed learned from you in your public preaching. Since the Son has His being from God, and His glorious perfections, and His life, and is entrusted with all things, for this reason God is His source and has authority over Him, being His God, since He is before Him. As to such phrases as "from Him," and "from the womb," and "I went out from the Father and have come," if they are understood to mean that the Father extends a part and, as it were, an offshoot of that one ousia, then the Father will be composite in nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them. And thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subject to the properties of matter.

13. So there are three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God, for His part, is the cause of all things, utterly unoriginate and separate from all; while the Son, put forth by the Father outside time, and created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was born, but, being born outside time before the worlds, came into being as the Only Son of the Only Father. For He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-uncreate with the Father, nor has He an existence collateral with the Father, as some say, who postulate two unborn principles. But God is before all things, as being indivisible and the beginning of all. Wherefore He is before the Son also, as indeed we have learned from you in your public preaching. Inasmuch then as He has His being from God, and His glorious perfections, and His life, and is entrusted with all things, for this reason God is His source, and has rule over Him, as being His God, since He is before Him. As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and have come, if they be understood to denote that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of that one substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter.

This is their error, this is their destructive teaching. To support it, they take words from Scripture, twist their meaning, and exploit people's ignorance as an opportunity to make their lies believable. Yet it is precisely through these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God. For human weakness cannot, by its own strength, reach knowledge of heavenly things. The abilities we use for bodily matters cannot form any idea of the unseen world. Neither our created bodily substance nor the reason God gave us for ordinary life can discover and declare the nature and work of God. Our minds cannot rise to the level of heavenly knowledge; our powers of perception lack the strength to grasp that limitless power. We must believe God's word about Himself and humbly accept whatever insight He chooses to give. We must choose either to reject His testimony, as the pagans do, or to believe in Him as He is—and this in the only possible way, by thinking of Him in the way He presents Himself to us. Therefore, let private judgment stop; let human reason refrain from crossing boundaries that God has set. In this spirit, we reject all blasphemous and reckless statements about God and hold fast to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our investigation will be considered in light of His instruction—He who is our subject. There will be no stringing together of isolated phrases whose context is hidden, in order to trick and mislead the inexperienced listener. The meaning of words will be determined by considering the circumstances under which they were spoken. Words must be explained by circumstances, not circumstances forced to conform to words. We, at least, will treat our subject completely. We will state both the circumstances under which words were spoken and the true meaning of the words. Each point will be considered in proper order.

14. Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies. Yet it is certainly by these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God. For human feebleness cannot by any strength of its own attain to the knowledge of heavenly things; the faculties which deal with bodily matters can form no notion of the unseen world. Neither our created bodily substance, nor the reason given by God for the purposes of ordinary life, is capable of ascertaining and pronouncing upon the nature and work of God. Our wits cannot rise to the level of heavenly knowledge, our powers of perception lack the strength to apprehend that limitless might. We must believe God's word concerning Himself, and humbly accept such insight as He vouchsafes to give. We must make our choice between rejecting His witness, as the heathen do, or else believing in Him as He is, and this in the only possible way, by thinking of Him in the aspect in which He presents Himself to us. Therefore let private judgment cease; let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set. In this spirit we eschew all blasphemous and reckless assertion concerning God, and cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction, Who is our theme; there shall be no stringing together of isolated phrases whose context is suppressed, to trick and misinform the unpractised listener. The meaning of words shall be ascertained by considering the circumstances under which they were spoken; words must be explained by circumstances not circumstances forced into conformity with words. We, at any rate, will treat our subject completely; we will state both the circumstances under which words were spoken, and the true purport of the words. Each point shall be considered in orderly sequence.

Their starting point is this: "We confess one God only," they say, "because Moses says, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One.'" But is this a truth that anyone has ever dared to doubt? Or was any believer ever known to confess anything other than that there is One God from whom are all things, One Majesty who has no birth, and that He is that unoriginated Power? Yet this fact of God's unity offers no opportunity for denying the divinity of His Son. For Moses, or rather God through Moses, laid down as His first commandment to that people—devoted both in Egypt and in the desert to idols and the worship of imaginary gods—that they must believe in One God. There was truth and reason in the commandment, for God, from whom are all things, is One. But let us see whether this same Moses has not also confessed that He through whom are all things is also God. God is not robbed—He is still God—if His Son shares the Godhead. For this is a case of God from God, of One from One, of God who is One because God is from Him. And conversely, the Son is not less God because God the Father is One, for He is the Only-begotten Son of God—not eternally unborn so as to deprive the Father of His oneness, nor yet different from God, for He is born from Him. We must not doubt that He is God by virtue of that birth from God which proves to us who believe that God is One. Yet let us see whether Moses, who announced to Israel "The Lord your God is One," has also proclaimed the Godhead of the Son. To make good our confession of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must use the evidence of that same witness on whom the heretics rely for the confession of One Only God, which they imagine involves the denial of the Godhead of the Son.

15. Their starting-point is this; We confess, they say, One only God, because Moses says, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. Deuteronomy 6:4 But is this a truth which anyone has ever dared to doubt? Or was any believer ever known to confess otherwise than that there is One God from Whom are all things, One Majesty which has no birth, and that He is that unoriginated Power? Yet this fact of the Unity of God offers no chance for denying the Divinity of His Son. For Moses, or rather God through Moses, laid it down as His first commandment to that people, devoted both in Egypt and in the Desert to idols and the worship of imaginary gods, that they must believe in One God. There was truth and reason in the commandment, for God, from Whom are all things, is One. But let us see whether this Moses have not confessed that He, through Whom are all things, is also God. God is not robbed, He is still God, if His Son share the Godhead. For the case is that of God from God, of One from One, of God Who is One because God is from Him. And conversely the Son is not less God because God the Father is One, for He is the Only-begotten Son of God; not eternally unborn, so as to deprive the Father of His Oneness, nor yet different from God, for He is born from Him. We must not doubt that He is God by virtue of that birth from God which proves to us who believe that God is One; yet let us see whether Moses, who announced to Israel, The Lord your God is One, has also proclaimed the Godhead of the Son. To make good our confession of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ we must employ the evidence of that same witness on whom the heretics rely for the confession of One Only God, which they imagine to involve the denial of the Godhead of the Son.

Since the Apostle's words, "One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and one Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things," form an accurate and complete confession concerning God, let us examine what Moses says about the beginning of the world. His words are: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the water from the water. And it was so, and God made the firmament and God divided the water through the midst." Here you have the God from Whom, and the God through Whom. If you deny this, you must tell us through whom God's work in creation was done, or else claim that things not yet created somehow obeyed when God said "Let there be a firmament," and the firmament established itself. Such suggestions contradict the clear meaning of Scripture. For all things, as the Prophet says, were made out of nothing—this was not a transformation of existing things, but the creation of the non-existent into a perfect form. Through whom? Listen to the Evangelist: "All things were made through Him." If you ask who this is, the same Evangelist will tell you: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If you want to argue that it was not the Father who said "Let there be a firmament," the prophet will answer you: "He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." The recorded words "Let there be a firmament" reveal to us that the Father spoke. But in the words that follow, "And it was so," in the statement that God did this thing, we must recognize the Person of the Agent. "He spoke, and they were made"—Scripture does not say that He willed it and did it. "He commanded, and they were created"—you notice it does not say they came into existence simply because it was His pleasure. In that case there would be no role for a Mediator between God and the world awaiting its creation. God, from Whom are all things, gives the order for creation which God, through Whom are all things, executes. Under one and the same Name we confess Him Who gave the command and Him Who fulfilled it. If you dare to deny that "God made" refers to the Son, how do you explain "All things were made through Him"? Or the Apostle's words, "One Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things"? Or "He spoke, and they were made"? If these inspired words succeed in convincing your stubborn mind, you will stop viewing the text "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One" as a denial of divinity to the Son of God, since at the very foundation of the world He Who spoke it proclaimed that His Son also is God. But let us see what additional understanding we may gain from this distinction between God Who commands and God Who executes. For though it goes against even our natural reason to suppose that in the words "He commanded, and they were made," only one single and isolated Person is intended, yet to avoid all doubts, we must explain the events that followed the creation of the world.

16. Since, therefore, the words of the Apostle, One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and one Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things 1 Corinthians 8:6, form an accurate and complete confession concerning God, let us see what Moses has to say of the beginning of the world. His words are, And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the water from the water. And it was so, and God made the firmament and God divided the water through the midst. Genesis 1:6-7 Here, then, you have the God from Whom, and the God through Whom. If you deny it, you must tell us through whom it was that God's work in creation was done, or else point for your explanation to an obedience in things yet uncreated, which, when God said Let there be a firmament, impelled the firmament to establish itself. Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. For all things, as the Prophet says 2 Maccabbees 7:28, were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent. Through whom? Hear the Evangelist: All things were made through Him. If you ask Who this is, the same Evangelist will tell you: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him. John 1:1-3 If you are minded to combat the view that it was the Father Who said, Let there be a firmament, the prophet will answer you: He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. The recorded words, Let there be a firmament, reveal to us that the Father spoke. But in the words which follow, And it was so, in the statement that God did this thing, we must recognise the Person of the Agent. He spoke, and they were made; the Scripture does not say that He willed it, and did it. He commanded, and they were created; you observe that it does not say they came into existence, because it was His pleasure. In that case there would be no office for a Mediator between God and the world which was awaiting its creation. God, from Whom are all things, gives the order for creation which God, through Whom are all things, executes. Under one and the same Name we confess Him Who gave and Him Who fulfilled the command. If you dare to deny that God made is spoken of the Son, how do you explain All things were made through Him? Or the Apostle's words, One Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things? Or, He spoke, and they were made? If these inspired words succeed in convincing your stubborn mind, you will cease to regard that text, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One, as a refusal of Divinity to the Son of God, since at the very foundation of the world He Who spoke it proclaimed that His Son also is God. But let us see what increase of profit we may draw from this distinction of God Who commands and God Who executes. For though it is repugnant even to our natural reason to suppose that in the words, He commanded, and they were made, one single and isolated Person is intended, yet, for the avoidance of all doubts, we must expound the events which followed upon the creation of the world.

When the world was complete and its inhabitant was to be created, the words spoken concerning him were, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness." I ask you, Do you suppose that God spoke those words to Himself? Isn't it obvious that He was addressing not Himself, but Another? If you reply that He was alone, then out of His own mouth He refutes you, for He says, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness." God has spoken to us through the Lawgiver in a way that is intelligible to us; that is, He makes us acquainted with His action by means of language, the faculty with which He has been pleased to endow us. There is, indeed, an indication of the Son of God, through Whom all things were made, in the words "And God said, Let there be a firmament," and in "And God made the firmament," which follows. But lest we should think these words of God were wasted and meaningless, supposing that He issued to Himself the command of creation, and Himself obeyed it—for what notion could be further from the thought of a solitary God than that of giving a verbal order to Himself, when nothing was necessary except an exertion of His will?—He determined to give us a more perfect assurance that these words refer to Another beside Himself. When He said, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness," His indication of a Partner demolishes the theory of His isolation. For an isolated being cannot be partner to himself; and again, the words "Let Us make" are inconsistent with solitude, while "Our" cannot be used except to a companion. Both words, "Us" and "Our," are inconsistent with the notion of a solitary God speaking to Himself, and equally inconsistent with that of the address being made to a stranger who has nothing in common with the Speaker. If you interpret the passage to mean that He is isolated, I ask you whether you suppose that He was speaking with Himself? If you do not understand that He was speaking with Himself, how can you assume that He was isolated? If He were isolated, we should find Him described as isolated; if He had a companion, then as not isolated. "I" and "Mine" would describe the former state; the latter is indicated by "Us" and "Our."

17. When the world was complete and its inhabitant was to be created, the words spoken concerning him were, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness. Genesis 1:26 I ask you, Do you suppose that God spoke those words to Himself? Is it not obvious that He was addressing not Himself, but Another? If you reply that He was alone, then out of His own mouth He confutes you, for He says, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness. God has spoken to us through the Lawgiver in the way which is intelligible to us; that is, He makes us acquainted with His action by means of language, the faculty with which He has been pleased to endow us. There is, indeed, an indication of the Son of God, through Whom all things were made, in the words, And God said, Let there be a firmament, and in, And God made the firmament, which follows: but lest we should think these words of God were wasted and meaningless, supposing that He issued to Himself the command of creation, and Himself obeyed it — for what notion could be further from the thought of a solitary God than that of giving a verbal order to Himself, when nothing was necessary except an exertion of His will?– He determined to give us a more perfect assurance that these words refer to Another beside Himself. When He said, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness, His indication of a Partner demolishes the theory of His isolation. For an isolated being cannot be partner to himself; and again, the words, Let Us make, are inconsistent with solitude, while Our cannot be used except to a companion. Both words, Us and Our are inconsistent with the notion of a solitary God speaking to Himself, and equally inconsistent with that of the address being made to a stranger who has nothing in common with the Speaker. If you interpret the passage to mean that He is isolated, I ask you whether you suppose that He was speaking with Himself? If you do not understand that He was speaking with Himself, how can you assume that He was isolated? If He were isolated, we should find Him described as isolated; if He had a companion, then as not isolated. I and Mine would describe the former state; the latter is indicated by Us and Our.

Thus, when we read, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness, these two words Us and Our reveal that there is neither one isolated God, nor one God in two dissimilar Persons. Our confession must align with both of these truths. The phrase our image—not our images—proves that there is one nature (physis) possessed by Both. But an argument from words alone is insufficient proof unless it is confirmed by the evidence of facts. Accordingly, it is written, And God made man; after the image of God made He him. If the words He spoke were, I ask, the soliloquy of an isolated God, what meaning should we assign to this last statement? In it I see a triple reference: to the Maker, to the being made, and to the image. The being made is man. God made him, and made him in the image of God. If Genesis were speaking of an isolated God, it would certainly have said And made him after His own image. But since the book was foreshowing the Mystery of the Gospel, it spoke not of two Gods, but of God and God, for it speaks of man made through God in the image of God. Thus we find that God created man after an image and likeness common to Himself and to God; that the mention of an Agent forbids us to assume that He was isolated; and that the work, done after an image and likeness which belonged to Both, proves that there is no difference in kind between the Godhead of the One and of the Other.

18. Thus, when we read, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness, these two words Us and Our reveal that there is neither one isolated God, nor yet one God in two dissimilar Persons; and our confession must be framed in harmony with the second as well as with the first truth. For the words our image — not our images — prove that there is one nature possessed by Both. But an argument from words is an insufficient proof, unless its result be confirmed by the evidence of facts; and accordingly it is written, And God made man; after the image of God made He him. Genesis 1:27 If the words He spoke, I ask, were the soliloquy of an isolated God, what meaning shall we assign to this last statement? For in it I see a triple allusion, to the Maker, to the being made, and to the image. The being made is man; God made him, and made him in the image of God. If Genesis were speaking of an isolated God, it would certainly have been And made him after His own image. But since the book was foreshowing the Mystery of the Gospel, it spoke not of two Gods, but of God and God, for it speaks of man made through God in the image of God. Thus we find that God wrought man after an image and likeness common to Himself and to God; that the mention of an Agent forbids us to assume that He was isolated; and that the work, done after an image and likeness which was that of Both, proves that there is no difference in kind between the Godhead of the One and of the Other.

19. It may seem like a waste of time to bring forward more arguments, since truths about God gain no strength from repetition; a single statement is enough to establish them. Yet it is good for us to know everything that has been revealed on this subject, because while we are not responsible for the words of Scripture themselves, we will have to give an account for the meaning we have assigned to them. One of the many commands that God gave to Noah is, "Whoever sheds man's blood, for his blood shall his life be shed, for after the image of God made I man." Here again is the distinction between likeness, creature, and Creator. God testifies that He made man after the image of God. When He was about to make man, because He was speaking of Himself yet not to Himself, God said, "After our image"; and again, after man was made, God made man after the image of God. It would not have been inaccurate language had He said, addressing Himself, "I have made man after My image," for He had shown that the Persons are one in nature by saying, "Let us make man after Our image." But for the more complete removal of all doubt about whether God is or is not a solitary Being, when He made man He made him, we are told, after the image of God.

19. It may seem waste of time to bring forward further arguments, for truths concerning God gain no strength by repetition; a single statement suffices to establish them. Yet it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject, for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to them. One of the many commandments which God gave to Noah is, Whoever sheds man's blood, for his blood shall his life be shed, for after the image of God made I man. Here again is the distinction between likeness, creature, and Creator. God bears witness that He made man after the image of God. When He was about to make man, because He was speaking of Himself, yet not to Himself, God said, After our image; and again, after man was made, God made man after the image of God. It would have been no inaccuracy of language, had He said, addressing Himself, I have made man after My image, for He had shown that the Persons are one in nature by, Let us make man after Our image. But for the more perfect removal of all doubt as to whether God be, or be not, a solitary Being, when He made man He made him, we are told, After the image of God.

20. If you still want to claim that God the Father, while alone, spoke these words to Himself, I can go so far as to admit that He might have spoken to Himself in solitude as though He were talking with a companion, and that it is believable He intended the words "I have made man after the image of God" to mean the same as "I have made man after My own image." But your own confession of faith will prove you wrong. For you have confessed that all things are from the Father, but all are through the Son. The words "Let Us make man" show that the Source from Whom all things come is the One Who spoke this way, while "God made him after the image of God" clearly points to the One through Whom the work was accomplished.

20. If you still wish to assert that God the Father in solitude said these words to Himself, I can go with you as far as to admit the possibility that He might in solitude have spoken to Himself as if He were conversing with a companion, and that it is credible that He wished the words I have made man after the image of God to be equivalent to I have made man after My own image. But your own confession of faith will refute you. For you have confessed that all things are from the Father, but all through the Son; and the words, Let Us make man, show that the Source from Whom are all things is He Who spoke thus, while God made him after the image of God clearly points to Him through Whom the work was done.

And furthermore, to make all self-deception impossible, that Wisdom, which you have yourself admitted to be Christ, will confront you with these words: When He was establishing the fountains under the heaven, when He was making strong the foundations of the earth, I was with Him, setting them in order. It was I, over whom He rejoiced. Moreover, I was daily rejoicing in His sight, all the while that He was rejoicing in the world that He had made, and in the sons of men. Every difficulty is removed; even error itself must recognize the truth. There is with God a Wisdom, begotten before the worlds, who is not only present with Him but actively setting things in order, for She was with Him, setting them in order. Notice this work of setting in order, or arranging. The Father, through His commands, is the Cause; the Son, through His execution of what is commanded, sets things in order. The distinction between the Persons is marked by the work assigned to Each. When it says Let us make, creation is connected with the word of command. But when it is written, I was with Him, setting them in order, God reveals that He did not do the work alone. For He was rejoicing before Him, who, He tells us, rejoiced in return: Moreover, I was daily rejoicing in His sight, all the while that He was rejoicing in the world that He had made, and in the sons of men. Wisdom has taught us the reason for Her joy. She rejoiced because of the Father's joy, who rejoices over the completion of the world and over the sons of men. For it is written, And God saw that they were good. She rejoices that God is pleased with His work, which has been made through Her, at His command. She declares that Her joy comes from the Father's gladness over the finished world and over the sons of men—over the sons of men, because in the one man Adam the whole human race had begun its course. Thus in the creation of the world there is no mere soliloquy of an isolated Father; His Wisdom is His partner in the work, and rejoices with Him when their joint labor ends.

21. And furthermore, to make all self-deception unlawful, that Wisdom, which you have yourself confessed to be Christ, shall confront you with the words, When He was establishing the fountains under the heaven, when He was making strong the foundations of the earth, I was with Him, setting them in order. It was I, over Whom He rejoiced. Moreover, I was daily rejoicing in His sight, all the while that He was rejoicing in the world that He had made, and in the sons of men. Proverbs 8:28-31 Every difficulty is removed; error itself must recognise the truth. There is with God Wisdom, begotten before the worlds; and not only present with Him, but setting in order, for She was with Him, setting them in order. Mark this work of setting in order, or arranging. The Father, by His commands, is the Cause; the Son, by His execution of the things commanded, sets in order. The distinction between the Persons is marked by the work assigned to Each. When it says Let us make, creation is identified with the word of command; but when it is written, I was with Him, setting them in order, God reveals that He did not do the work in isolation. For He was rejoicing before Him, Who, He tells us, rejoiced in return; Moreover, I was daily rejoicing in His sight, all the while that He was rejoicing in the world that He had made, and in the sons of men. Wisdom has taught us the reason of Her joy. She rejoiced because of the joy of the Father, Who rejoices over the completion of the world and over the sons of men. For it is written, And God saw that they were good. She rejoices that God is well pleased with His work, which has been made through Her, at His command. She avows that Her joy results from the Father's gladness over the finished world and over the sons of men; over the sons of men, because in the one man Adam the whole human race had begun its course. Thus in the creation of the world there is no mere soliloquy of an isolated Father; His Wisdom is His partner in the work, and rejoices with Him when their conjoint labour ends.

I am aware that fully explaining these words requires discussing many difficult and important issues. I do not avoid them, but I am setting them aside for now and will address them at later points in this investigation. For the present, I focus on that article of the heretics' faith—or rather, unfaith—which claims that Moses proclaims God's solitude. We do not deny that this assertion is true in the sense that there is One God, from Whom all things come. But we also remember that this truth is no excuse for denying the divinity of the Son, since Moses throughout his writings clearly indicates the existence of God and God. We must examine how the account of God's election and the giving of the Law proclaims God alongside God.

22. I am aware that the full explanation of these words involves the discussion of many and weighty problems. I do not shirk them, but postpone them for the present, reserving their consideration for later stages of the enquiry. For the present I devote myself to that article of the blasphemers ' faith, or rather faithlessness, which asserts that Moses proclaims the solitude of God. We do not forget that the assertion is true in the sense that there is One God, from Whom are all things; but neither do we forget that this truth is no excuse for denying the Godhead of the Son, since Moses throughout the course of his writings clearly indicates the existence of God and God. We must examine how the history of God's choice, and of the giving of the Law, proclaims God co-ordinate with God.

After God had spoken with Abraham many times, Sarah became angry with Hagar. She was jealous because she, the mistress, was barren while her servant had conceived a son. When Hagar had left her presence, the Spirit speaks about her as follows: "And the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, and it shall not be numbered for multitude," and again, "And she called the Name of the Lord that spoke with her, You are God, Who hast seen me." It is the Angel of God who speaks, and he speaks of things far beyond the abilities that a messenger—for that is what the word means—could have. He says, "I will multiply your seed exceedingly, and it shall not be numbered for multitude." The power to multiply nations lies outside the work of an angel. Yet what does Scripture say about the one who is called the Angel of God, yet speaks words that belong to God alone? "And she called the Name of the Lord that spoke with her, You are God, Who hast seen me." First he is the Angel of God, then he is the Lord, for "she called the Name of the Lord," and then, third, he is God, for "You are God, Who hast seen me." The one who is called the Angel of God is also Lord and God. The Son of God is also, according to the prophet, the Angel of great counsel. To distinguish clearly between the Persons, he is called the Angel of God. He who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but so that he may have the honor that is due to him, he is also called Lord and God.

23. After God had often spoken with Abraham, Sarah was moved to wrath against Hagar, being jealous that she, the mistress, was barren, while her handmaid had conceived a son. Then, when Hagar had departed from her sight, the Spirit speaks thus concerning her, And the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, and it shall not be numbered for multitude, and again, And she called the Name of the Lord that spoke with her, You are God, Who hast seen me. It is the Angel of God Who speaks, and speaks of things far beyond the powers which a messenger, for that is the meaning of the word, could have. He says, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, and it shall not be numbered for multitude. The power of multiplying nations lies outside the ministry of an angel. Yet what says the Scripture of Him Who is called the Angel of God, yet speaks words which belong to God alone? And she called the Name of the Lord that spoke with her, You are God, Who hast seen me. First He is the Angel of God; then He is the Lord, for She called the Name of the Lord; then, thirdly, He is God, for You are God, Who hast seen me. He Who is called the Angel of God is also Lord and God. The Son of God is also, according to the prophet, the Angel of great counsel. To discriminate clearly between the Persons, He is called the Angel of God; He Who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but, that He may have the honour which is His due, He is entitled also Lord and God.

In this passage, the one Deity is first called the Angel of God, and then, one after another, Lord and God. But to Abraham He is called God only. Once the distinction of Persons had first been made—as a protection against the false idea that God is a solitary Being—then His true and full name could safely be spoken. And so it is written: "And God said to Abraham, Behold Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, behold, I have heard you and have blessed him, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve nations shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation" (Genesis 17:19-20). Is it possible to doubt that He who was previously called the Angel of God is here, in what follows, spoken of as God? In both instances He is speaking about Ishmael; in both it is the same Person who will multiply him. To keep us from thinking that this was a different Speaker from the one who had addressed Hagar, the divine words explicitly confirm the identity, saying, "And I have blessed him, and will multiply him." The blessing is repeated from an earlier occasion, for Hagar had already been addressed; the multiplication is promised for a future day, for this is God's first word to Abraham about Ishmael. Now it is God who speaks to Abraham; to Hagar the Angel of God had spoken. Thus God and the Angel of God are one; He who is the Angel of God is also God the Son of God. He is called the Angel because He is the Angel of great counsel; but afterwards He is spoken of as God, so that we will not suppose that He who is God is only an angel. Let us now go through the facts in order. The Angel of the Lord spoke to Hagar; He also spoke to Abraham as God. One Speaker addressed both. The blessing was given to Ishmael, and the promise that he would grow into a great people.

24. In this passage the one Deity is first the Angel of God, and then, successively, Lord and God. But to Abraham He is God only. For when the distinction of Persons had first been made, as a safeguard against the delusion that God is a solitary Being, then His true and unqualified name could safely be uttered. And so it is written. And God said to Abraham, Behold Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as far Ishmael, behold. I have heard you and have blessed him, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve nations shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. Genesis 17:19-20 Is it possible to doubt that He Who was previously called the Angel of God is here, in the sequel, spoken of as God? In both instances He is speaking of Ishmael; in both it is the same Person Who shall multiply him. To save us from supposing that this was a different Speaker from Him who had addressed Hagar, the Divine words expressly attest the identity, saying, And I have blessed him, and will multiply him. The blessing is repeated from a former occasion, for Hagar had already been addressed; the multiplication is promised for a future day, for this is God's first word to Abraham concerning Ishmael. Now it is God Who speaks to Abraham; to Hagar the Angel of God had spoken. Thus God and the Angel of God are One; He Who is the Angel of God is also God the Son of God. He is called the Angel because He is the Angel of great counsel; but afterwards He is spoken of as God, lest we should suppose that He Who is God is only an angel. Let us now repeat the facts in order. The Angel of the Lord spoke to Hagar; He spoke also to Abraham as God. One Speaker addressed both. The blessing was given to Ishmael, and the promise that he should grow into a great people.

In another instance, Scripture reveals through Abraham that it was God who spoke. Abraham receives the further promise of a son, Isaac. Afterward, three men appear to him. Though Abraham sees three, he worships one and acknowledges Him as Lord. Scripture says three were standing before him, but he knew well which one he must worship and confess. There was nothing in their outward appearance to distinguish them, but by the eye of faith, the vision of the soul, he knew his Lord. Then Scripture goes on: And He said to him, I will certainly return to you at this time hereafter, and Sarah your wife shall have a son. Afterward the Lord said to Him, I will not conceal from Abraham My servant the things that I will do. And again: Moreover the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is filled up, and their sins are exceeding great. Then after much discussion, which for the sake of brevity shall be omitted, Abraham, distressed at the destruction awaiting the innocent as well as the guilty, said, In no wise will You, Who judges the earth, execute this judgment. And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. Afterward, when the warning to Lot, Abraham's brother, was ended, Scripture says, And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And after a while, And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and did to Sarah as He had spoken, and Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And afterward, when the handmaid with her son had been driven from Abraham's house and was dreading lest her child should die in the wilderness for want of water, the same Scripture says And the Lord God heard the voice of the lad, where he was, and the Angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, What is it, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad from the place where he is. Arise, and take the lad and hold his hand, for I will make him a great nation.

25. In another instance the Scripture reveals through Abraham that it was God Who spoke. He receives the further promise of a son, Isaac. Afterwards there appear to him three men. Abraham, though he sees three, worships One, and acknowledges Him as Lord. Three were standing before him, Scripture says, but he knew well Which it was that he must worship and confess. There was nothing in outward appearance to distinguish them, but by the eye of faith, the vision of the soul, he knew his Lord. Then the Scripture goes on, And He said to him, I will certainly return unto you at this time hereafter, and Sarah your wife shall have a son Genesis 18:10; and afterwards the Lord said to Him, I will not conceal from Abraham My servant the things that I will do; and again, Moreover the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is filled up, and their sins are exceeding great. Then after long discourse, which for the sake of brevity shall be omitted, Abraham, distressed at the destruction which awaited the innocent as well as the guilty, said, In no wise will You, Who judges the earth, execute this judgment. And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. Afterwards, when the warning to Lot, Abraham's brother, was ended, the Scripture says, And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and, after a while, And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and did unto Sarah as He had spoken, and Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And afterwards, when the handmaid with her son had been driven from Abraham's house, and was dreading lest her child should die in the wilderness for want of water, the same Scripture says And the Lord God heard the voice of the lad, where he was, and the Angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, What is it, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad from the place where he is. Arise, and take the lad and hold his hand, for I will make him a great nation.

What blind faithlessness this is, what dullness of an unbelieving heart, what stubborn impiety—to remain ignorant of all this, or to know it and yet neglect it! Certainly it is written for the very purpose that error or forgetfulness may not prevent the recognition of truth. If, as we shall prove, it is impossible to escape knowledge of these facts, then it must be nothing less than blasphemy to deny them. This record begins with the Angel's speech to Hagar, His promise to multiply Ishmael into a great nation and to give him countless offspring. She listens, and by her confession reveals that He is Lord and God. The story begins with His appearance as the Angel of God; at its end He stands confessed as God Himself. Thus He Who, while He carries out the ministry of declaring the great counsel is God's Angel, is Himself in name and physis God. The name corresponds to the physis; the physis is not falsified to make it conform to the name. Again, God speaks to Abraham about this same matter; he is told that Ishmael has already received a blessing and shall be increased into a nation; I have blessed him, God says. This is no change from the Person indicated before; He shows that it was He Who had already given the blessing. The Scripture has clearly been consistent throughout in its progress from mystery to clear revelation; it began with the Angel of God, and proceeds to reveal that it was God Himself Who had spoken in this same matter.

26. What blind faithlessness it is, what dulness of an unbelieving heart, what headstrong impiety, to abide in ignorance of all this, or else to know and yet neglect it! Assuredly it is written for the very purpose that error or oblivion may not hinder the recognition of the truth. If, as we shall prove, it is impossible to escape knowledge of the facts, then it must be nothing less than blasphemy to deny them. This record begins with the speech of the Angel to Hagar, His promise to multiply Ishmael into a great nation and to give him a countless offspring. She listens, and by her confession reveals that He is Lord and God. The story begins with His appearance as the Angel of God; at its termination He stands confessed as God Himself. Thus He Who, while He executes the ministry of declaring the great counsel is God's Angel, is Himself in name and nature God. The name corresponds to the nature; the nature is not falsified to make it conform to the name. Again, God speaks to Abraham of this same matter; he is told that Ishmael has already received a blessing, and shall be increased into a nation; I have blessed him, God says. This is no change from the Person indicated before; He shows that it was He Who had already given the blessing. The Scripture has obviously been consistent throughout in its progress from mystery to clear revelation; it began with the Angel of God, and proceeds to reveal that it was God Himself Who had spoken in this same matter.

The unfolding of the divine narrative is accompanied by a progressive development of doctrine. In the passage we have discussed, God speaks to Abraham and promises that Sarah will bear a son. Afterwards three men stand by him; he worships one and acknowledges him as Lord. After this worship and acknowledgment by Abraham, the one promises that he will return later at the same season, and that then Sarah will have her son. This one is again seen by Abraham in the form of a man, and addresses him with the same promise. The change is only one of name; Abraham's acknowledgment in each case is the same. It was a man whom he saw, yet Abraham worshiped him as Lord; he beheld, no doubt, in a mystery the coming Incarnation. Faith so strong has not missed its recognition; the Lord says in the Gospel, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. To continue the history: the man whom he saw promised that he would return at the same season. Note the fulfillment of the promise, remembering meanwhile that it was a man who made it. What does Scripture say? And the Lord visited Sarah. So this man is the Lord, fulfilling his own promise. What follows next? And God did unto Sarah as he had said. The narrative calls his words those of a man, relates that Sarah was visited by the Lord, proclaims that the result was the work of God. You are certain that it was a man who spoke, for Abraham not only heard but saw him. Can you be less certain that he was God, when the same Scripture, which had called him man, confesses him God? For its words are, And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, and at the set time of which God had spoken to him. But it was the man who had promised that he would come. Believe that he was nothing more than man—unless, in fact, he who came was God and Lord. Connect the incidents. It was, admittedly, the man who promised that he would come so that Sarah might conceive and bear a son. And now accept instruction and confess the faith: it was the Lord God who came that she might conceive and bear. The man made the promise in the power of God; by the same power God fulfilled the promise. Thus God reveals himself both in word and deed. Next, two of the three men whom Abraham saw depart; he who remains behind is Lord and God. And not only Lord and God, but also Judge, for Abraham stood before the Lord and said, In no wise shall you do this thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, for then the righteous shall be as the wicked. In no wise will you who judge the whole earth execute this judgment. Thus by all his words Abraham instructs us in that faith for which he was justified; he recognizes the Lord from among the three, he worships him only, and confesses that he is Lord and Judge.

27. The course of the Divine narrative is accompanied by a progressive development of doctrine. In the passage which we have discussed God speaks to Abraham, and promises that Sarah shall bear a son. Afterwards three men stand by him; he worships One and acknowledges Him as Lord. After this worship and acknowledgment by Abraham, the One promises that He will return hereafter at the same season, and that then Sarah shall have her son. This One again is seen by Abraham in the guise of a man, and salutes him with the same promise. The change is one of name only; Abraham's acknowledgment in each case is the same. It was a Man whom he saw, yet Abraham worshipped Him as Lord; he beheld, no doubt, in a mystery the coming Incarnation. Faith so strong has not missed its recognition; the Lord says in the Gospel, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56 To continue the history; the Man Whom he saw promised that He would return at the same season. Mark the fulfilment of the promise, remembering meanwhile that it was a Man Who made it. What says the Scripture? And the Lord visited Sarah. So this Man is the Lord, fulfilling His own promise. What follows next? And God did unto Sarah as He had said. The narrative calls His words those of a Man, relates that Sarah was visited by the Lord, proclaims that the result was the work of God. You are sure that it was a Man who spoke, for Abraham not only heard, but saw Him. Can you be less certain that He was God, when the same Scripture, which had called Him Man, confesses Him God? For its words are, And Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, and at the set time of which God had spoken to him. But it was the Man who had promised that He would come. Believe that He was nothing more than man; unless, in fact, He Who came was God and Lord. Connect the incidents. It was, confessedly, the Man who promised that He would come that Sarah might conceive and bear a son. And now accept instruction, and confess the faith; it was the Lord God Who came that she might conceive and bear. The Man made the promise in the power of God; by the same power God fulfilled the promise. Thus God reveals Himself both in word and deed. Next, two of the three men whom Abraham saw depart; He Who remains behind is Lord and God. And not only Lord and God, but also Judge, for Abraham stood before the Lord and said, In no wise shall Thou do this things, to slay the righteous with the wicked, for then the righteous shall be as the wicked. In no wise will You Who judges the whole earth, execute this judgment. Genesis 18:25 Thus by all his words Abraham instructs us in that faith, for which he was justified; he recognises the Lord from among the three, he worships Him only, and confesses that He is Lord and Judge.

Lest you fall into the error of thinking that this acknowledgment of the One was an honoring of all three whom Abraham saw together, notice the words of Lot when he saw the two who had departed: "And when Lot saw them, he rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold, my lords, turn in to your servant's house." Here the plural "lords" shows that this was nothing more than a vision of angels. In the other case, the faithful patriarch pays honor due to One only. Thus the sacred narrative makes it clear that two of the three were mere angels, while it had previously proclaimed the One as Lord and God by the words, "And the Lord said to Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I then bear a child? But I am grown old. Is anything from God impossible? At this season I will return to you hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son." The Scripture is accurate and consistent. We detect no such confusion as the plural being used of the One God and Lord, nor any Divine honors paid to the two angels. Lot, no doubt, calls them "lords," while the Scripture calls them angels. The one is human reverence, the other is literal truth.

28. Lest you fall into the error of supposing that this acknowledgment of the One was a payment of honor to all the three whom Abraham saw in company, mark the words of Lot when he saw the two who had departed; And when Lot saw them, he rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold, my lords, turn in to your servant's house. Here the plural lords shows that this was nothing more than a vision of angels; in the other case the faithful patriarch pays the honour due to One only. Thus the sacred narrative makes it clear that two of the three were mere angels; it had previously proclaimed the One as Lord and God by the words, And the Lord said to Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I then bear a child? But I am grown old. Is anything from God impossible? At this season I will return to you hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son. The Scripture is accurate and consistent; we detect no such confusion as the plural used of the One God and Lord, no Divine honours paid to the two angels. Lot, no doubt, calls them lords, while the Scripture calls them angels. The one is human reverence, the other literal truth.

29. And now the vengeance of a righteous judgment falls on Sodom and Gomorrah. What can we learn from this for the purposes of our inquiry? The Lord rained brimstone and fire from the Lord. It is the Lord from the Lord. Scripture makes no distinction between their natures by using different names, but it does distinguish between themselves. For we read in the Gospel, "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." Thus what the Lord gave, the Lord had received from the Lord.

29. And now there falls on Sodom and Gomorrha the vengeance of a righteous judgment. What can we learn from it for the purposes of our enquiry? The Lord rained brimstone and fire from the Lord. It is The Lord from the Lord; Scripture makes no distinction, by difference of name, between Their natures, but discriminates between Themselves. For we read in the Gospel, The Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son. John 5:22 Thus what the Lord gave, the Lord had received from the Lord.

You now have evidence of God the Judge as Lord and Lord. Next, learn that the same joint ownership of name applies in the case of God and God. Jacob, when he fled in fear of his brother, saw in his dream a ladder resting on the earth and reaching to heaven, with the angels of God ascending and descending on it, and the Lord resting above it, who gave him all the blessings he had given to Abraham and Isaac. Later God spoke to him in this way: And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to the place Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto you when you fled from the face of your brother. God demands honor for God, and makes it clear that the demand is on behalf of Another than himself. He who appeared to you when you fled are his words. He carefully guards against any confusion of the Persons. It is God who speaks, and God of whom he speaks. Their majesty is asserted by the combination of both under their true name of God, while the words plainly declare their separate existence.

30. You have now had evidence of God the Judge as Lord and Lord; learn next that there is the same joint ownership of name in the case of God and God. Jacob, when he fled through fear of his brother, saw in his dream a ladder resting upon the earth and reaching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord resting above it, Who gave him all the blessings which He had bestowed upon Abraham and Isaac. At a later time God spoke to him thus: And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to the place Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto you when you fled from the face of your brother. Genesis 35:1 God demands honour for God, and makes it clear that demand is on behalf of Another than Himself. He who appeared to you when you fled are His words: He guards carefully against any confusion of the Persons. It is God Who speaks, and God of Whom He speaks. Their majesty is asserted by the combination of Both under Their true Name of God, while the words plainly declare Their several existence.

Here again, considerations come to mind that need to be addressed in a complete treatment of this subject. But the order of my defense must follow the order of the attack against me, and I will save these remaining questions for discussion in the next book. For now, regarding God Who demanded honor for God, it will be enough for me to point out the following: He Who was the Angel of God when He spoke with Hagar was God and Lord when He spoke about the same matter with Abraham; the Man Who spoke with Abraham was also God and Lord, while the two angels who were seen with the Lord and whom He sent to Lot are described by the prophet simply as angels and nothing more. Nor did God appear in human form only to Abraham; He appeared as Man to Jacob as well. And not only did He appear, but, as we are told, He wrestled; and not only did He wrestle, but He was defeated by His opponent. Neither the time I have available nor the subject will allow me to discuss the symbolic meaning of this wrestling. It was certainly God Who wrestled, for Jacob prevailed against God, and Israel saw God.

31. Here again there occur to me considerations which must be taken into account in a complete treatment of the subject. But the order of defense must adapt itself to the order of attack, and I reserve these outstanding questions for discussion in the next book. For the present, in regard to God Who demanded honour for God, it will suffice for me to point out that He Who was the Angel of God, when He spoke with Hagar, was God and Lord when He spoke of the same matter with Abraham; that the Man Who spoke with Abraham was also God and Lord, while the two angels, who were seen with the Lord and whom He sent to Lot, are described by the prophet as angels, and nothing more. Nor was it to Abraham only that God appeared in human guise; He appeared as Man to Jacob also. And not only did He appear, but, so we are told, He wrestled; and not only did He wrestle, but He was vanquished by His adversary. Neither the time at my disposal, nor the subject, will allow me to discuss the typical meaning of this wrestling. It was certainly God Who wrestled, for Jacob prevailed against God, and Israel saw God.

Now let us ask whether the Angel of God has been shown to be God Himself anywhere other than in Hagar's case. He has been shown to be not only God, but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses from the bush. Whose voice should we think was heard? The voice of the one who was seen, or of someone else? There is no room for confusion—the words of Scripture are clear: "And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire from a bush," and again, "The Lord called unto him from the bush, Moses, Moses, and he answered, What is it? And the Lord said, Draw not near hither, put off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground. And He said to him, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." The one who appeared in the bush speaks from the bush. The place of the vision and the place of the voice are one. The one who speaks is none other than the one who was seen. The one who is the Angel of God when the eye sees him is the Lord when the ear hears him, and the Lord whose voice is heard is recognized as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When he is called the Angel of God, it is revealed that he is not a self-contained and solitary being, for he is the Angel of God. When he is called Lord and God, he receives the full title that belongs to his nature and his name. You have, then, in the Angel who appeared from the bush, the one who is Lord and God.

32. And now let us enquire whether elsewhere than in the case of Hagar the Angel of God has been discovered to be God Himself. He has been so discovered, and found to be not only God, but the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. For the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses from the bush; and Whose voice, think you, are we to suppose was heard? The voice of Him Who was seen, or of Another? There is no room for deception; the words of Scripture are clear: And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire from a bush, and again, The Lord called unto him from the bush, Moses, Moses, and he answered, What is it? And the Lord said, Draw not near hither, put off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground. And He said to him, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He who appeared in the bush speaks from the bush; the place of the vision and of the voice is one; He Who speaks is none other than He Who was seen. He Who is the Angel of God when the eye beholds Him is the Lord when the ear hears Him, and the Lord Whose voice is heard is recognised as the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. When He is styled the Angel of God, the fact is revealed that He is no self-contained and solitary Being: for He is the Angel of God. When He is designated Lord and God, He receives the full title which is due to His nature and His name. You have, then, in the Angel Who appeared from the bush, Him Who is Lord and God.

Continue your study of the witness Moses gives. Notice how carefully he takes every opportunity to proclaim the Lord and God. You recognize the passage, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One." Note also the words from that divine song of his: "See, see, that I am the Lord, and there is no God beside Me." While God has been the speaker throughout the poem, he ends with, "Rejoice, you heavens, together with Him and let all the sons of God praise Him. Rejoice, O you nations, with His people, and let all the Angels of God do Him honor." God is to be glorified by the Angels of God, and He says, "For I am the Lord, and there is no God beside Me." For He is God the Only-begotten, and the title "Only-begotten" excludes all partnership in that character, just as the title "Unoriginate" denies that there is, in that regard, anyone who shares the character of the Unoriginate Father. The Son is One from One. There is no one unoriginate except God the Unoriginate, and likewise there is no one only-begotten except God the Only-begotten. They stand each single and alone, being respectively the One Unoriginate and the One Only-begotten. And so these Two are One God, for between the One and the One Who is His offspring there is no gulf of difference of nature in the eternal Godhead. Therefore He must be worshipped by the sons of God and glorified by the angels of God. Honor and reverence is demanded for God from the sons and from the angels of God. Notice who it is that shall receive this honor, and by whom it is to be paid. It is God, and they are the sons and angels of God. And in case you should think that honor is not demanded for God who shares our nature, but that Moses is thinking here of reverence due to God the Father—though indeed it is in the Son that the Father must be honored—examine the words of the blessing God gave to Joseph at the end of the same book. They are: "And let the things that are well-pleasing to Him that appeared in the bush come upon the head and crown of Joseph." Thus God is to be worshipped by the sons of God; but God who is Himself the Son of God. And God is to be reverenced by the angels of God; but God who is Himself the Angel of God. For God appeared from the bush as the Angel of God, and the prayer for Joseph is that he may receive such blessings as He shall please. He is no less God because He is the Angel of God, and no less the Angel of God because He is God. A clear indication is given of the divine Persons; the line is definitively drawn between the Unbegotten and the Begotten. A revelation of the mysteries of heaven is granted, and we are taught not to imagine God as dwelling in solitude, when angels and sons of God shall worship Him who is God's Angel and His Son.

33. Continue your study of the witness borne by Moses; mark how diligently he seizes every opportunity of proclaiming the Lord and God. You take note of the passage, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. Deuteronomy 6:4 Note also the words of that Divine song of his; See, See, that I am the Lord, and there is no God beside Me. While God has been the Speaker throughout the poem, he ends with, Rejoice, you heavens, together with Him and let all the sons of God praise Him. Rejoice, O you nations, with His people, and let all the Angels of God do Him honour. God is to be glorified by the Angels of God, and He says, For I am the Lord, and there is no God beside Me. For He is God the Only-begotten, and the title 'Only-begotten' excludes all partnership in that character, just as the title 'Unoriginate' denies that there is, in that regard, any who shares the character of the Unoriginate Father. The Son is One from One. There is none unoriginate except God the Unoriginate, and so likewise there is none only-begotten except God the Only-begotten. They stand Each single and alone, being respectively the One Unoriginate and the One Only-begotten. And so They Two are One God, for between the One, and the One Who is His offspring there lies no gulf of difference of nature in the eternal Godhead. Therefore He must be worshipped by the sons of God and glorified by the angels of God. Honour and reverence is demanded for God from the sons and from the angels of God. Notice Who it is that shall receive this honour, and by whom it is to be paid. It is God, and they are the sons and angels of God. And lest you should imagine that honour is not demanded for God Who shares our nature, but that Moses is thinking here of reverence due to God the Father — though, indeed, it is in the Son that the Father must be honoured — examine the words of the blessing bestowed by God upon Joseph, at the end of the same book. They are, And let the things that are well-pleasing to Him that appeared in the bush come upon the head and crown of Joseph. Deuteronomy 33:16 Thus God is to be worshipped by the sons of God; but God Who is Himself the Son of God. And God is to be reverenced by the angels of God; but God Who is Himself the Angel of God. For God appeared from the bush as the Angel of God, and the prayer for Joseph is that he may receive such blessings as He shall please. He is none the less God because He is the Angel of God; and none the less the Angel of God because He is God. A clear indication is given of the Divine Persons; the line is definitely drawn between the Unbegotten and the Begotten. A revelation of the mysteries of heaven is granted, and we are taught not to dream of God as dwelling in solitude, when angels and sons of God shall worship Him, Who is God's Angel and His Son.

34. Let this stand as our response from the books of Moses, or rather as the response of Moses himself. The heretics think they can use his assertion of the Unity of God to disprove the Divinity of God the Son—a blasphemy that ignores the clear warning of their own witness, since whenever Moses confesses that God is One, he never fails to teach the Son's Divinity. Our next step must be to present the many statements of the prophets concerning this same Son.

34. Let this be taken as our answer from the books of Moses, or rather as the answer of Moses himself. The heretics imagine that they can use his assertion of the Unity of God in disproof of the Divinity of God the Son; a blasphemy in defiance of the clear warning of their own witness, for whenever he confesses that God is One he never fails to teach the Son's Divinity. Our next step must be to adduce the manifold utterance of the prophets concerning the same Son.

You know the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One"—if only you understood them correctly! The way you interpret them leaves me unable to find any sense in them. The Psalms say, "God, Your God, has anointed You." Make sure the reader grasps the distinction between the One who anoints and the One who is anointed. Distinguish between "You" and "Your"—make it clear to whom and about whom these words are spoken. This definite confession is the conclusion of the passage that comes before it, which says: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity." Then it continues, "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You." So the God of the eternal kingdom is anointed by His God as a reward for His love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity. Surely this draws some broad difference, some gap too wide for our minds to bridge, between these names? No—the distinction of Persons is indicated by "You" and "Your," but nothing suggests a difference of nature. "Your" points to the Author, "You" to Him who is the Author's offspring. For He is God from God, as these same words of the prophet declare: "God, Your God, has anointed You." And His own words testify that there is no God prior to God the Unoriginate: "Be My witnesses, and I am witness, says the Lord God, and My Servant Whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe and understand that I am, and before Me there is no other God, nor shall be after Me." Thus the majesty of Him who has no beginning is declared, and the glory of Him who is from the Unoriginate is safeguarded, for "God, Your God, has anointed You." That word "Your" declares His birth, yet does not contradict His nature. "Your God" means that the Son was born from Him to share the Godhead. But the fact that the Father is God is no obstacle to the Son's being God also, for "God, Your God, has anointed You." Mention is made both of Father and of Son; the one title of God conveys the assurance that in character and majesty They are One.

35. You know the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One; would that you knew them aright! As you interpret them, I seek in vain for their sense. It is said in the Psalms, God, Your God, has anointed You. Psalm 45:7 Impress upon the reader's mind the distinction between the Anointer and the Anointed; discriminate between the You and the Your: make it clear to Whom and of Whom the words are spoken. For this definite confession is the conclusion of the preceding passage, which runs thus; Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And then he continues, Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You. Thus the God of the eternal kingdom, in reward for His love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity, is anointed by His God. Surely some broad difference is drawn, some gap too wide for our mental span, between these names? No; the distinction of Persons is indicated by You and Your, but nothing suggests a difference of nature. Your points to the Author, You to Him Who is the Author's offspring. For He is God from God, as these same words of the prophet declare, God, Your God, has anointed You. And His own words bear witness that there is no God anterior to God the Un-originate; Be My witnesses, and I am witness, says the Lord God, and My Servant Whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe and understand that I am, and before Me there is no other God, nor shall be after Me. Isaiah 43:10 Thus the majesty of Him that has no beginning is declared, and the glory of Him that is from the Unoriginate is safeguarded; for God, Your God, has anointed You. That word Your declares His birth, yet does not contradict His nature; Your God means that the Son was born from Him to share the Godhead. But the fact that the Father is God is no obstacle to the Son's being God also, for God, Your God, has anointed You. Mention is made both of Father and of Son; the one title of God conveys the assurance that in character and majesty They are One.

But these words—"For I am, and before Me there is no other God, nor shall be after Me"—must not be twisted into blasphemous presumption, as if they proved that the Son is not God, since no other God follows after the God before whom no God exists. We must consider the purpose of the passage. God is His own best interpreter, but His chosen Servant joins with Him to assure us that there is no God before Him, nor shall be after Him. His own witness about Himself is indeed sufficient, but He has added the witness of the Servant whom He has chosen. So we have the united testimony of the two, that there is no God before Him. We accept this truth because all things come from Him. We also have their witness that there shall be no God after Him, but they do not deny that God has been born from Him in the past. The Servant was already present, speaking in this way and bearing witness to the Father—the Servant born in that tribe from which God's chosen one was to come. He sets forth the same truth in the Gospels: "Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased." This, then, is the sense in which God says, "There is no other God before Me, nor shall be after Me." He reveals the infinity of His eternal and unchanging majesty by asserting that there is no God before or after Himself. But He gives His Servant a share both in bearing witness and in possessing the Name of God.

36. But lest these words, For I am, and before Me there is no other God, nor shall be after Me, be made a handle for blasphemous presumption, as proving that the Son is not God, since after the God, Whom no God precedes, there follows no other God, the purpose of the passage must be considered. God is His own best interpreter, but His chosen Servant joins with Him to assure us that there is no God before Him, nor shall be after Him. His own witness concerning Himself is, indeed, sufficient, but He has added the witness of the Servant Whom He has chosen. Thus we have the united testimony of the Two, that there is no God before Him; we accept the truth, because all things are from Him. We have Their witness also that there shall be no God after Him; but They do not deny that God has been born from Him in the past. Already there was the Servant speaking thus, and bearing witness to the Father; the Servant born in that tribe from which God's elect was to spring. He sets forth also the same truth in the Gospels: Behold, My Servant Whom I have chosen, My Beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased. Matthew 12:18 This is the sense, then, in which God says, There is no other God before Me, nor shall be after Me. He reveals the infinity of His eternal and unchanging majesty by this assertion that there is no God before or after Himself. But He gives His Servant a share both in the bearing of witness and in the possession of the Name of God.

The meaning is clear from God's own words. He says to the prophet Hosea, "I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but will altogether be their enemy. But I will have mercy upon the children of Judah, and will save them in the Lord their God." Here God the Father gives the name of God, without any ambiguity, to the Son, in whom He also chose us before countless ages. He says "their God," because while the Father, being Unoriginate, is independent of all, He has given us as an inheritance to His Son. Similarly we read, "Ask of Me, and I will give You the Gentiles for Your inheritance." No one can be God to Him from whom all things come, for He is eternal and has no beginning. But the Son has God, from whom He was born, as His Father. Yet to us the Father is God and the Son is God. The Father reveals to us that the Son is our God, and the Son teaches that the Father is God over us. The point for us to remember is that in this passage the Father gives to the Son the name of God, the title of His own unoriginate majesty. But I have commented sufficiently on these words of Hosea.

37. The fact is obvious from His own words. For He says to Hosea the prophet, I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but will altogether be their enemy. But I will have mercy upon the children of Judah, and will save them in the Lord their God. Hosea 1:6-7 Here God the Father gives the name of God, without any ambiguity, to the Son, in Whom also He chose us before countless ages. Their God, He says, for while the Father, being Unoriginate, is independent of all, He has given us for an inheritance to His Son. In like manner we read, Ask of Me, and I will give You the Gentiles for Your inheritance. None can be God to Him from Whom are all things, for He is eternal and has no beginning; but the Son has God, from Whom He was born, for His Father. Yet to us the Father is God and the Son is God; the Father reveals to us that the Son is our God, and the Son teaches that the Father is God over us. The point for us to remember is that in this passage the Father gives to the Son the name of God, the title of His own unoriginate majesty. But I have commented sufficiently on these words of Hosea.

Again, how clear is the declaration that God the Father made through Isaiah concerning our Lord! He says, "For thus says the Lord, the holy God of Israel, who made the things to come: Ask me concerning your sons and your daughters, and concerning the works of my hands command me. I have made the earth and man upon it, I have commanded all the stars, I have raised up a King with righteousness, and all his ways are straight. He shall build my city, and shall turn back the captivity of my people, not for price nor reward, says the Lord of Sabaoth. Egypt shall labor, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians and Sabeans. Men of stature shall come over to you and shall be your servants, and shall follow after you, bound in chains, and shall worship you and make supplication to you, for God is in you and there is no God beside you. For you are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior. All that resist him shall be ashamed and confounded, and shall walk in confusion." Is any room left for objection, or any excuse for ignorance? If blasphemy continues, does it not survive in brazen defiance? God from whom are all things, who made all by his command, declares that he is the Author of the universe, for unless he had spoken, nothing would have been created. He declares that he has raised up a righteous King, who builds for himself—that is, for God—a city, and turns back the captivity of his people, for no gift or reward, for we are all saved freely. Next, he tells how after the labors of Egypt, and after the traffic of Ethiopians and Sabeans, men of stature shall come over to him. How shall we understand these labors in Egypt, this traffic of Ethiopians and Sabeans? Let us remember how the Magi of the East worshipped and paid tribute to the Lord; let us consider the weariness of that long pilgrimage to Bethlehem of Judah. In the toilsome journey of the Magian princes we see the labors of Egypt to which the prophet refers. For when the Magi carried out, in their counterfeit, material way, the duty ordained for them by the power of God, the whole heathen world was offering in their person the deepest reverence of which its worship was capable. And these same Magi presented gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh from the merchandise of the Ethiopians and Sabeans—a thing foretold by another prophet, who has said, "The Ethiopians shall fall down before his face, and his enemies shall lick the dust. The Kings of Tharsis shall offer presents, the Kings of the Arabians and Sabeans shall bring gifts, and there shall be given to him of the gold of Arabia." The Magi and their offerings stand for the labor of Egypt and for the merchandise of Ethiopians and Sabeans; the adoring Magi represent the heathen world, and offer the choicest gifts of the Gentiles to the Lord whom they adore.

38. Again, how clear is the declaration made by God the Father through Isaiah concerning our Lord! He says, For thus says the Lord, the holy God of Israel, Who made the things to come, Ask me concerning your sons and your daughters, and concerning the works of My hands command ye Me. I have made the earth and man upon it, I have commanded all the stars, I have raised up a King with righteousness, and all His ways are straight. He shall build My city, and shall turn back the captivity of My people, not for price nor reward, says the Lord of Sabaoth. Egypt shall labour, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians and Sabeans. Men of stature shall come over unto You and shall be Your servants, and shall follow after You, bound in chains, and shall worship You and make supplication unto You, for God is in You and there is no God beside You. For You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour. All that resist Him shall be ashamed and confounded, and shall walk in confusion. Isaiah 45:11-16 Is any opening left for gainsaying, or excuse for ignorance? If blasphemy continue, is it not in brazen defiance that it survives? God from Whom are all things, Who made all by His command, asserts that He is the Author of the universe, for, unless He had spoken, nothing had been created. He asserts that He has raised up a righteous King, who builds for Himself, that is, for God, a city, and turns back the captivity of His people, for no gift nor reward, for freely are we all saved. Next, He tells how after the labours of Egypt, and after the traffic of Ethiopians and Sabeans, men of stature shall come over to Him. How shall we understand these labours in Egypt, this traffic of Ethiopians and Sabeans? Let us call to mind how the Magi of the East worshipped and paid tribute to the Lord; let us estimate the weariness of that long pilgrimage to Bethlehem of Judah. In the toilsome journey of the Magian princes we see the labours of Egypt to which the prophet alludes. For when the Magi executed, in their spurious, material way, the duty ordained for them by the power of God, the whole heathen world was offering in their person the deepest reverence of which its worship was capable. And these same Magi presented gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh from the merchandise of the Ethiopians and Sabeans; a thing foretold by another prophet, who has said, The Ethiopians shall fall down before His face, and His enemies shall lick the dust. The Kings of Tharsis shall offer presents, the Kings of the Arabians and Sabeans shall bring gifts, and there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia. The Magi and their offerings stand for the labour of Egypt and for the merchandise of Ethiopians and Sabeans; the adoring Magi represent the heathen world, and offer the choicest gifts of the Gentiles to the Lord Whom they adore.

39. As for the men of stature who will come over to Him and follow Him in chains, there is no doubt who they are. Turn to the Gospels: Peter, when he is to follow his Lord, is girded up. Read the Apostles: Paul, the servant of Christ, boasts of his bonds. Let us see whether this 'prisoner of Jesus Christ' conforms in his teaching to the prophecies spoken by God concerning God His Son. God had said, They shall make supplication, for God is in You. Now notice and take in these words of the Apostle: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. And then the prophecy continues, And there is no God beside You. The Apostle immediately matches this with For there is one Jesus Christ our Lord, through Whom are all things. Obviously there can be no other but He, for He is One. The third prophetic statement is, You are God and we knew it not. But Paul, once the persecutor of the Church, says, Whose are the fathers, from Whom is Christ, Who is God over all. This is to be the message of these men in chains. They will indeed be men of stature, and shall sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, and shall follow their Lord, witnesses to Him in teaching and in martyrdom.

39. As for the men of stature who shall come over to Him and follow Him in chains, there is no doubt who they are. Turn to the Gospels; Peter, when he is to follow his Lord, is girded up. Read the Apostles: Paul, the servant of Christ, boasts of his bonds. Let us see whether this 'prisoner of Jesus Christ ' conforms in his teaching to the prophecies uttered by God concerning God His Son. God had said, They shall make supplication, for God is in You. Now mark and digest these words of the Apostle:– God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:19 And then the prophecy continues, And there is no God beside You. The Apostle promptly matches this with For there is one Jesus Christ our Lord, through Whom are all things. 1 Corinthians 8:6 Obviously there can be none other but He, for He is One. The third prophetic statement is, You are God and we knew it not. But Paul, once the persecutor of the Church, says, Whose are the fathers, from Whom is Christ, Who is God over all. Romans 9:5 Such is to be the message of these men in chains; men of stature, indeed, they will be, and shall sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, and shall follow their Lord, witnesses to Him in teaching and in martyrdom.

God is in God, and it is God in whom God dwells. But how is "There is no God beside You" true if God is within Him? Heretic! To support your claim that the Father is solitary, you use the words "There is no God beside Me." But what meaning can you give to God the Father's solemn declaration "There is no God beside You," if your interpretation of "There is no God beside Me" denies the Godhead of the Son? To whom could God have said "There is no God beside You" in that case? You cannot suggest that this solitary Being said it to Himself. The Lord spoke these words to the King He summoned, through the mouths of the men of stature who worshipped and made supplication, saying "For God is in You." The facts do not fit with solitude. "In You" implies that there was One present within range, if I may say so, of the Speaker's voice. The complete sentence "God is in You" reveals not only God present, but also God dwelling in Him who is present. The words distinguish the Indweller from Him in whom He dwells, but it is a distinction of Person only, not of nature. God is in Him, and He in whom God is, is God. The residence of God cannot be within a nature foreign and alien to His own. He dwells in One who is His own, born from Himself. God is in God, because God is from God. "For You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior."

40. Thus God is in God, and it is God in Whom God dwells. But how is There is no God beside You true, if God be within Him? Heretic! In support of your confession of a solitary Father you employ the words, There is no God beside Me; what sense can you assign to the solemn declaration of God the Father, There is no God beside You, if your explanation of There is no God beside Me be a denial of the Godhead of the Son? To whom, in that case, can God have said, There is no God beside You? You cannot suggest that this solitary Being said it to Himself. It was to the King Whom He summoned that the Lord said, by the mouth of the men of stature who worshipped and made supplication, For God is in You. The facts are inconsistent with solitude. In You implies that there was One present within range, if I may say so, of the Speaker's voice. The complete sentence, God is in You, reveals not only God present, but also God abiding in Him Who is present. The words distinguish the Indweller from Him in Whom He dwells, but it is a distinction of Person only, not of character. God is in Him, and He, in Whom God is, is God. The residence of God cannot be within a nature strange and alien to His own. He abides in One Who is His own, born from Himself. God is in God, because God is from God. For You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

My next book will refute your denial that God is in God, for the prophet continues: "All that resist Him shall be ashamed and confounded and shall walk in confusion." This is God's judgment on your unbelief. You oppose Christ, and it is because of Him that the Father's voice speaks in solemn reproof, for He, whose Godhead you deny, is God. You deny it while pretending to revere God, because He says, "There is no other God beside Me." Accept your shame and confusion. The Unbegotten God does not need the honor you offer. He never asked for this isolated majesty you assign to Him. He rejects your meddling interpretation that would twist His words, "There is no other God beside Me," into a denial of the Godhead of the Son whom He begot from Himself. To prevent your attempt to destroy the Divinity of the Son by claiming the Godhead belongs to Him alone in some special way, He completes the glory of the Only-begotten by attributing absolute Divinity: "And there is no God beside You." Why distinguish between exact equivalents? Why separate what is perfectly matched? It is the distinctive characteristic of the Son of God that there is no God beside Him; the distinctive characteristic of God the Father that there is no God apart from Him. Use His own words about Himself. Confess Him in His own terms and worship Him as King: "For God is in You, and there is no God beside You. For You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior." A confession expressed in such reverent words is free from the stain of presumption and cannot cause offense. Above all, remember that refusing it means shame and disgrace. Reflect deeply on these words of God. Use them in your confession of Him and avoid the threatened shame. For if you deny the Divinity of the Son of God, you will not increase God's glory by worshiping Him in solitary majesty. You will be insulting the Father by refusing to honor the Son. In faith and reverence confess of the Unbegotten God that there is no God beside Him. Claim for God the Only-begotten that apart from Him there is no God.

41. My next book is devoted to the refutation of your denial that God is in God; for the prophet continues, All that resist Him shall be ashamed and confounded and shall walk in confusion. This is God's sentence, passed upon your unbelief. You set yourself in opposition to Christ, and it is on His account that the Father's voice is raised in solemn reproof; for He, Whose Godhead you deny, is God. And you deny it under cloak of reverence for God, because He says, There is no other God beside Me. Submit to shame and confusion; the Unoriginate God has no need of the dignity you offer; He has never asked for this majesty of isolation which you attribute to Him. He repudiates your officious interpretation which would twist His words, There is no other God beside Me, into a denial of the Godhead of the Son Whom He begot from Himself. To frustrate your purpose of demolishing the Divinity of the Son by assigning the Godhead in some special sense to Himself, He rounds off the glories of the Only-begotten by the attribution of absolute Divinity: — And there is no God beside You. Why make distinctions between exact equivalents? Why separate what is perfectly matched? It is the peculiar characteristic of the Son of God that there is no God beside Him; the peculiar characteristic of God the Father that there is no God apart from Him. Use His words concerning Himself; confess Him in His own terms, and entreat Him as King; For God is in You, and there is no God beside You. For You are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour. A confession couched in words so reverent is free from the taint of presumption: its terms can excite no repugnance. Above all, we must remember that to refuse it means shame and ignominy. Brood in thought over these words of God; employ them in your confession of Him, and so escape the threatened shame. For if you deny the Divinity of the Son of God, you will not be augmenting the glory of God by adoring Him in lonely majesty; you will be slighting the Father by refusing to reverence the Son. In faith and veneration confess of the Unoriginate God that there is no God beside Him; claim for God the Only-begotten that apart from Him there is no God.

As you have already listened to Moses and Isaiah, now listen to Jeremiah teaching the same truth: "This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men." Earlier he had said, "And He is Man, and Who shall know Him?" So you have God seen on earth and dwelling among men. Now I ask you what meaning you would give to "No one has seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," when Jeremiah declares God seen on earth and dwelling among men? The Father admittedly cannot be seen except by the Son. Who then is this One who was seen and dwelt among men? He must be our God, for He is God visible in human form, whom people can touch. And consider carefully the prophet's words, "There shall be none other likened to Him." If you ask how this can be, listen to the rest of the sentence, so you won't be tempted to deny the Father His share in this confession. Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. The whole passage is: "There shall be none likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men." For there is one Mediator between God and Men, who is both God and Man—Mediator both in giving the Law and in taking on our body. Therefore none other can be likened unto Him, for He is One, born from God into God, and He it was through whom all things were created in heaven and earth, through whom times and worlds were made. Everything that exists, in short, owes its existence to His action. He is the one who instructs Abraham, who speaks with Moses, who testifies to Israel, who abides in the prophets, who was born through the Virgin from the Holy Spirit, who nails to the cross of His passion the powers that are our enemies, who slays death in hell, who strengthens the assurance of our hope by His Resurrection, who destroys the corruption of human flesh by the glory of His Body. Therefore none shall be likened unto Him. For these are the unique powers of God the Only-begotten. He alone was born from God, the blessed Possessor of such great privileges. No second god can be likened unto Him, for He is God from God, not born from any alien being. There is nothing new or strange or modern created in Him. When Israel hears that its God is one, and that no second god is likened—so that people might consider him God—to God who is God's Son, the revelation means that God the Father and God the Son are One altogether, not by confusion of Person but by unity of substance (ousia). For the prophet forbids us, because God the Son is God, to liken Him to some second deity.

42. As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:– This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men. For previously he had said, And He is Man, and Who shall know Him? Thus you have God seen on earth and dwelling among men. Now I ask you what sense you would assign to No one has seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18, when Jeremiah proclaims God seen on earth and dwelling among men? The Father confessedly cannot be seen except by the Son; Who then is This who was seen and dwelt among men? He must be our God, for He is God visible in human form, Whom men can handle. And take to heart the prophet's words, There shall be none other likened to Him. If you ask how this can be, listen to the remainder of the sentence, lest you be tempted to deny to the Father His share of the confession. Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One. The whole passage is, There shall be none likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men. For there is one Mediator between God and Men, Who is both God and Man; Mediator both in giving of the Law and in taking of our body. Therefore none other can be likened unto Him, for He is One, born from God into God, and He it was through Whom all things were created in heaven and earth, through Whom times and worlds were made. Everything, in fine, that exists owes its existence to His action. He it is that instructs Abraham, that speaks with Moses, that testifies to Israel, that abides in the prophets, that was born through the Virgin from the Holy Ghost, that nails to the cross of His passion the powers that are our foes, that slays death in hell, that strengthens the assurance of our hope by His Resurrection, that destroys the corruption of human flesh by the glory of His Body. Therefore none shall be likened unto Him. For these are the peculiar powers of God the Only-begotten; He alone was born from God, the blissful Possessor of such great prerogatives. No second god can be likened unto Him, for He is God from God, not born from any alien being. There is nothing new or strange or modern created in Him. When Israel hears that its God is one, and that no second god is likened, that men may deem him God, to God Who is God's Son, the revelation means that God the Father and God the Son are One altogether, not by confusion of Person but by unity of substance. For the prophet forbids us, because God the Son is God, to liken Him to some second deity.

The Lord's words, "I in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 14:11), confuse many minds, and understandably so, because human reason cannot provide any intelligible meaning for them. It seems impossible that one object should be both inside and outside another, or that (since it is established that the Beings we are discussing, though They do not dwell apart, retain their separate existence and condition) these Beings can mutually contain One Another, so that One should permanently surround and also be permanently surrounded by the Other, whom He nevertheless surrounds. This is a problem that human intelligence will never solve, and human investigation will never find an analogy for this condition of Divine existence. But what man cannot understand, God can be. I do not mean that simply because God asserts this, it immediately becomes intelligible to us. We must think for ourselves and come to understand the meaning of the words, "I in the Father, and the Father in Me": but this will depend on our success in grasping the truth that reasoning based on Divine realities can establish its conclusions, even though they seem to contradict the laws of the universe.

1. The words of the Lord, I in the Father, and the Father in Me John 14:11, confuse many minds, and not unnaturally, for the powers of human reason cannot provide them with any intelligible meaning. It seems impossible that one object should be both within and without another, or that (since it is laid down that the Beings of whom we are treating, though They do not dwell apart, retain their separate existence and condition) these Beings can reciprocally contain One Another, so that One should permanently envelope, and also be permanently enveloped by, the Other, whom yet He envelopes. This is a problem which the wit of man will never solve, nor will human research ever find an analogy for this condition of Divine existence. But what man cannot understand, God can be. I do not mean to say that the fact that this is an assertion made by God renders it at once intelligible to us. We must think for ourselves, and come to know the meaning of the words, I in the Father, and the Father in Me: but this will depend upon our success in grasping the truth that reasoning based upon Divine verities can establish its conclusions, even though they seem to contradict the laws of the universe.

In order to solve this very difficult problem as easily as possible, we must first master the knowledge that the Divine Scriptures give us about the Father and the Son, so that we can speak more precisely about familiar and well-known matters. The eternity of the Father, as we concluded after thorough discussion in the last book, goes beyond space, time, appearance, and all forms of human thought. He is outside and inside all things, He contains all things and cannot be contained by anything, cannot be changed by increase or decrease, is invisible, incomprehensible, full, perfect, eternal, not receiving anything He has from another, but even if anything is derived from Him, He remains complete and self-sufficient.

2. In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters. The eternity of the Father, as we concluded after full discussion in the last Book, transcends space, and time, and appearance, and all the forms of human thought. He is without and within all things, He contains all and can be contained by none, is incapable of change by increase or diminution, invisible, incomprehensible, full, perfect, eternal, not deriving anything that He has from another, but, if ought be derived from Him, still complete and self-sufficing.

The Unbegotten Father begot a Son from Himself before time existed. This was not from any pre-existing matter, because all things exist through the Son. It was not from nothing, because the Son comes from the Father's own self. It was not by way of childbirth, because in God there is no change or emptiness. It was not as a piece of Himself cut off, torn away, or stretched out, because God is passionless and bodiless. Only a being that can suffer and has a body could be treated that way, and as the Apostle says, in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In a way beyond comprehension or description, before time or worlds existed, He begot the Only-begotten from His own unbegotten substance, giving through love and power His whole Divinity to that Birth. Therefore He is the Only-begotten, perfect, eternal Son of the unbegotten, perfect, eternal Father. But those properties which He has because of the Body He took on are the result of His good will toward our salvation. For He, being invisible and bodiless and incomprehensible as the Son of God, took upon Himself just enough matter and lowliness to bring Himself within the range of our understanding, perception, and contemplation. This was an accommodation to our weakness rather than a giving up of His own proper attributes.

3. He therefore, the Unbegotten, before time was begot a Son from Himself; not from any pre-existent matter, for all things are through the Son; not from nothing, for the Son is from the Father's self; not by way of childbirth, for in God there is neither change nor void; not as a piece of Himself cut or torn off or stretched out, for God is passionless and bodiless, and only a possible and embodied being could so be treated, and, as the Apostle says, in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 Incomprehensibly, ineffably, before time or worlds, He begot the Only-begotten from His own unbegotten substance, bestowing through love and power His whole Divinity upon that Birth. Thus He is the Only-begotten, perfect, eternal Son of the unbegotten, perfect, eternal Father. But those properties which He has in consequence of the Body which He took, are the fruit of His goodwill toward our salvation. For He, being invisible and bodiless and incomprehensible, as the Son of God, took upon Him such a measure of matter and of lowliness as was needed to bring Him within the range of our understanding, and perception, and contemplation. It was a condescension to our feebleness rather than a surrender of His own proper attributes.

He, therefore, being the perfect Father's perfect Son, the Only-begotten Offspring of the unbegotten God, who has received all from Him who possesses all, being God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, says boldly, "The Father in Me, and I in the Father." For as the Father is Spirit, so is the Son Spirit; as the Father is God, so is the Son God; as the Father is Light, so is the Son Light. Thus those properties which are in the Father are the source of those with which the Son is endowed. That is, He is wholly Son of Him who is wholly Father—not brought in from outside, for before the Son nothing existed; not made from nothing, for the Son is from God; not a son partially, for the fullness of the Godhead is in the Son; not a Son in some respects, but in all. He is a Son according to the will of Him who had the power, in a manner which He alone knows. What is in the Father is in the Son also; what is in the Unbegotten is in the Only-begotten also. The One is from the Other, and they Two are a Unity—not Two made One, yet One in the Other, for that which is in Both is the same. The Father is in the Son, for the Son is from Him; the Son is in the Father, because the Father is His sole Origin; the Only-begotten is in the Unbegotten, because He is the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten. Thus mutually Each is in the Other, for as all is perfect in the Unbegotten Father, so all is perfect in the Only-begotten Son. This is the Unity which is in Son and Father, this the power, this the love. Our hope, and faith, and truth, and way, and life is not to dispute the Father's powers or to diminish the Son, but to reverence the mystery and majesty of His birth—to set the unbegotten Father above all rivalry, and count the Only-begotten Son as His equal in eternity and might, confessing concerning God the Son that He is from God.

4. He, therefore, being the perfect Father's perfect Son, the Only-begotten Offspring of the unbegotten God, who has received all from Him Who possesses all, being God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, says boldly, The Father in Me, and I in the Father. John 10:38 For as the Father is Spirit, so is the Son Spirit; as the Father is God, so is the Son God; as the Father is Light, so is the Son Light. Thus those properties which are in the Father are the source of those wherewith the Son is endowed; that is, He is wholly Son of Him Who is wholly Father; not imported from without, for before the Son nothing was; not made from nothing, for the Son is from God; not a son partially, for the fullness of the Godhead is in the Son; not a Son in some respects, but in all; a Son according to the will of Him who had the power, after a manner which He only knows. What is in the Father is in the Son also; what is in the Unbegotten is in the Only-begotten also. The One is from the Other, and they Two are a Unity; not Two made One, yet One in the Other, for that which is in Both is the same. The Father is in the Son, for the Son is from Him; the Son is in the Father, because the Father is His sole Origin; the Only-begotten is in the Unbegotten, because He is the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten. Thus mutually Each is in the Other, for as all is perfect in the Unbegotten Father, so all is perfect in the Only-begotten Son. This is the Unity which is in Son and Father, this the power, this the love; our hope, and faith, and truth, and way, and life is not to dispute the Father's powers or to depreciate the Son, but to reverence the mystery and majesty of His birth; to set the unbegotten Father above all rivalry, and count the Only-begotten Son as His equal in eternity and might, confessing concerning God the Son that He is from God.

Such powers exist in God—powers that our human reasoning cannot fully grasp, but which our faith is convinced of based on the clear evidence of His actions. We can find examples of this action in both the physical realm and the spiritual realm, demonstrated not through analogies that might illustrate the Birth, but through deeds that are marvelous yet understandable. At the wedding in Galilee, water was turned into wine. Do we have words to explain or senses to detect what process caused the change by which the bland taste of water vanished and was replaced by the full flavor of wine? It was not a mixture; it was a creation, and a creation that was not a beginning but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not produced by blending in a stronger substance; one existing thing ceased to be and a new thing came into existence. The bridegroom was worried, the household was in disarray, the celebration of the wedding feast was in jeopardy. Jesus is asked for help. He does not get up or make any effort; He accomplishes the work without exertion. Water is poured into the jars, wine is drawn out in the cups. What the servers who poured perceive contradicts what those who draw it out perceive. Those who poured expect water to be drawn out; those who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The time between pouring and drawing cannot account for any change in the nature of the liquid. The way this happens defies sight and sense, but the power of God is clearly shown in the outcome.

5. Such powers are there in God; powers which the methods of our reason cannot comprehend, but of which our faith, on the sure evidence of His action, is convinced. We shall find instances of this action in the bodily sphere as well as in the spiritual, its manifestation taking, not the form of an analogy which might illustrate the Birth, but of a deed marvellous yet comprehensible. On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.

A miracle of the same kind astonishes us in the case of the five loaves. Through their multiplication, five thousand men and countless women and children are saved from starvation, though the method escapes our ability to observe it. Five loaves are presented and broken. As the Apostles divide them, a continuous stream of newly created portions passes through their hands in a way they cannot explain. The loaf they are dividing does not grow smaller, yet their hands are constantly full of pieces. The speed of the process is too much for sight to follow. You track with your eye a hand full of portions, and meanwhile you see that what the other hand holds has not decreased, while all the time the pile of pieces grows larger. The servers are busy at their work, the eaters are occupied with eating. The hungry are satisfied, and the leftovers fill twelve baskets. Neither sight nor sense can uncover the method of such a remarkable miracle. What did not exist is created; what we see is beyond our understanding. Our only recourse is faith in God's omnipotence.

6. In the case of the five loaves a miracle of the same type excites our wonder. By their increase five thousand men and countless women and children are saved from hunger; the method eludes our powers of observation. Five loaves are offered and broken; while the Apostles are dividing them a succession of new-created portions passes, they cannot tell how, through their hands. The loaf which they are dividing grows no smaller, yet their hands are continually full of the pieces. The swiftness of the process baffles sight; you follow with the eye a hand full of portions, and meantime you see that the contents of the other hand are not diminished, and all the while the heap of pieces grows. The carvers are busy at their task, the eaters are hard at work; the hungry are satisfied, and the fragments fill twelve baskets. Sight or sense cannot discover the mode of so noteworthy a miracle. What was not existent is created; what we see passes our understanding. Our only resource is faith in God's omnipotence.

There is no deception in these miracles of God, no clever pretense intended to please or mislead. These works of the Son of God were not done from any desire to show off. He whom countless myriads of angels serve never deceived humanity. What could He possibly need from us, when everything we have was created through Him? Did He need praise from us—we who are now weighed down with sleep, now consumed by lust, now burdened with guilt from violence and bloodshed, now drunk from partying? He whom Archangels, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers praise in heaven with eternal and tireless voices, without sleep, pause, or sin? They praise Him because He, the Image of the Invisible God, created all their host in Himself, made the worlds, established the heavens, set the stars in place, fixed the earth, and laid the foundations of the deep. They praise Him because later in time He was born, conquered death, broke down the gates of hell, won for Himself a people to be His fellow-heirs, and lifted flesh from corruption up to the glory of eternity. There was nothing, then, that He could gain from us that would motivate Him to take on the splendor of these mysterious and inexplicable works, as if He needed our praise. But God foresaw how human sin and foolishness would be misled, and knew that disbelief would dare to pass judgment even on the things of God. Therefore He conquered presumption by signs of His power that must give even our boldest thoughts pause.

7. There is no deception in these miracles of God, no subtle pretence to please or to deceive. These works of the Son of God were done from no desire for self-display; He Whom countless myriads of angels serve never deluded man. What was there of ours that He could need, through Whom all that we have was created? Did He demand praise from us who now are heavy with sleep, now sated with lust, now laden with the guilt of riot and bloodshed, now drunken from revelling — He Whom Archangels, and Dominions, and Principalities, and Powers, without sleep or cessation or sin, praise in heaven with everlasting and unwearied voice? They praise Him because He, the Image of the Invisible God, created all their host in Himself, made the worlds, established the heavens, appointed the stars, fixed the earth, laid the foundations of the deep; because in after time He was born, He conquered death, broke the gates of hell, won for Himself a people to be His fellow-heirs, lifted flesh from corruption up to the glory of eternity. There was nothing, then, that He might gain from us, that could induce Him to assume the splendour of these mysterious and inexplicable works, as though He needed our praise. But God foresaw how human sin and folly would be misled, and knew that disbelief would dare to pass its judgment even on the things of God, and therefore He vanquished presumption by tokens of His power which must give pause to our boldest.

There are many who are wise by worldly standards, but whose wisdom God considers foolishness. They reject what we proclaim—God from God, True from True, Perfect from Perfect, One from One—as if we were teaching impossibilities. They hold firmly to certain logical conclusions they have worked out: Nothing can be born from one being alone, since every birth requires two parents. And if this Son is born from One, He must have received a portion of His Begetter. If He is only a part, then neither of the Two is perfect, because something is missing from the One from whom the Son came, and there cannot be fullness in One who consists of merely a portion of Another. Thus neither is perfect—the Begetter has lost His fullness, and the Begotten has not gained it. This is the worldly wisdom that God foresaw even in the prophet's time and condemned through him with these words: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and reject the understanding of the prudent. And the apostle says: Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the inquirer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For because in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For the Jews seek signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

8. For there are many of those wise men of the world whose wisdom is folly with God, who contradict our proclamation of God from God, True from True, Perfect from Perfect, One from One, as though we taught things impossible. They pin their faith to certain conclusions which they have reached by process of logic:– Nothing can be born of one, for every birth requires two parents, and If this Son be born of One He has received a part of His Begetter: if He be a part, then Neither of the Two is perfect, for something is missing from Him from Whom the Son issued, and there cannot be fullness in One Who consists of a portion of Another. Thus Neither is perfect, for the Begetter has lost His fullness, and the Begotten has not acquired it. This is that wisdom of the world which was foreseen by God even in the prophet's days, and condemned through him in the words, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and reject the understanding of the prudent. Isaiah 29:14 And the apostle says: Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the inquirer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For because in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom knew not God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews seek signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block and to the Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men 1 Corinthians 1:20-25.

The Son of God, therefore, having been given responsibility for humanity, first became human so that people might believe in him. He became a witness to divine things who came from among us, and he preached to us—weak and fleshly as we are—about God the Father through the weakness of the flesh, thus fulfilling the Father's will. As he himself says, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." This does not mean he himself was unwilling, but rather that he wanted to show his obedience as flowing from his Father's will, since his own will is to do his Father's will. This is the will to carry out the Father's will that he testifies to in these words: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you; even as you have given him power over all flesh, that whatever you have given him, he should give it eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know you the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I have glorified you upon earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do. And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was. I have manifested your name unto the men whom you have given me." In words that are short and few, he has revealed the entire task to which he was appointed and assigned. Yet those words, short and few as they are, provide the true faith's protection against every suggestion of the devil's cunning. Let us briefly consider the force of each separate phrase.

9. The Son of God, therefore, having the charge of mankind, was first made man, that men might believe in Him; that He might be to us a witness, sprung from ourselves, of things Divine, and preach to us, weak and carnal as we are, through the weakness of the flesh concerning God the Father, so fulfilling the Father's will, even as He says, I came not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. John 6:38 It was not that He Himself was unwilling, but that He might manifest His obedience as the result of His Father's will, for His own will is to do His Father's. This is that will to carry out the Father's will of which He testifies in the words: Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You; even as You have given Him power over all flesh, that whatsoever You have given Him, He should give it eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know You the only true God, and Him Whom You sent, Jesus Christ. I have glorified You upon earth, having accomplished the work which You gave Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me with Your own Self with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your Name unto the men whom You have given Me. In words short and few He has revealed the whole task to which He was appointed and assigned. Yet those words, short and few as they are, are the true faith's safeguard against every suggestion of the devil's cunning. Let us briefly consider the force of each separate phrase.

He says, Father the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. He says that the hour, not the day or the time, has come. An hour is a part of a day. What hour must this be? The hour, of course, of which He speaks to strengthen His disciples at the time of His passion: Look, the hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. This then is the hour in which He prays to be glorified by the Father, so that He Himself may glorify the Father. But what does He mean? Does One who is about to give glory look to receive it? Does One who is about to confer honor make request for Himself? Is He lacking the very thing which He is about to give back? Here let the world's philosophers, the wise men of Greece, block our path and spread their logical traps to ensnare the truth. Let them ask How? And From where? And Why? When they can find no answer, let us tell them that it is because God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. That is the reason why we in our foolishness understand things incomprehensible to the world's philosophers. The Lord had said, Father, the hour has come; He had revealed the hour of His passion, for these words were spoken at that very moment; and then He added, Glorify Your Son. But how was the Son to be glorified? He had been born of a virgin, from cradle and childhood He had grown to adulthood, through sleep and hunger and thirst and weariness and tears He had lived a human life: even now He was to be spat on, scourged, crucified. And why? These things were ordained for our assurance that in Christ is true man. But the shame of the cross is not ours; we are not sentenced to the scourge, nor defiled by spitting. The Father glorifies the Son; how? He is next nailed to the cross. Then what followed? The sun, instead of setting, fled. How so? It did not retreat behind a cloud, but abandoned its appointed path, and all the elements of the world felt that same shock of the death of Christ. The stars in their courses, to avoid being accomplices in the crime, escaped by putting themselves out from beholding the scene. What did the earth do? It trembled beneath the weight of the Lord hanging on the tree, protesting that it was powerless to confine Him who was dying. Yet surely rock and stone will not refuse Him a resting-place. Yes, they are split and broken, and their strength fails. They must confess that the rock-hewn tomb cannot imprison the Body which awaits its burial.

10. He says, Father the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. He says that the hour, not the day nor the time, has come. An hour is a fraction of a day. What hour must this be? The hour, of course, of which He speaks, to strengthen His disciples, at the time of His passion:– Lo, the hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. John 12:23 This then is the hour in which He prays to be glorified by the Father, that He Himself may glorify the Father. But what does He mean? Does One who is about to give glory look to receive it? Does One who is about to confer honour make request for Himself? Is He in want of the very thing which He is about to repay? Here let the world's philosophers, the wise men of Greece, beset our path, and spread their syllogistic nets to entangle the truth. Let them ask How? And Whence? And Why? When they can find no answer, let us tell them that it is because God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. 1 Corinthians 1:27 That is the reason why we in our foolishness understand things incomprehensible to the world's philosophers. The Lord had said, Father, the hour has come; He had revealed the hour of His passion, for these words were spoken at the very moment; and then He added, Glorify Your Son. But how was the Son to be glorified? He had been born of a virgin, from cradle and childhood He had grown to man's estate, through sleep and hunger and thirst and weariness and tears He had lived man's life: even now He was to be spitted on, scourged, crucified. And why? These things were ordained for our assurance that in Christ is pure man. But the shame of the cross is not ours; we are not sentenced to the scourge, nor defiled by spitting. The Father glorifies the Son; how? He is next nailed to the cross. Then what followed? The sun, instead of setting, fled. How so? It did not retire behind a cloud, but abandoned its appointed orbit, and all the elements of the world felt that same shock of the death of Christ. The stars in their courses, to avoid complicity in the crime, escaped by self-extinction from beholding the scene. What did the earth? It quivered beneath the burden of the Lord hanging on the tree, protesting that it was powerless to confine Him who was dying. Yet surely rock and stone will not refuse Him a resting-place. Yes, they are rent and cloven, and their strength fails. They must confess that the rock-hewn sepulchre cannot imprison the Body which awaits its burial.

And next? The centurion of the cohort, the guardian of the cross, cries out, "Truly this was the Son of God." Creation is set free by the mediation of this sin-offering; the very rocks lose their solidity and strength. Those who had nailed Him to the cross confess that truly this is the Son of God. The outcome justifies the assertion. The Lord had said, "Glorify Your Son." He had asserted, by that word "Your," that He was God's Son not in name only, but in nature. Many of us are sons of God; He is Son in another sense. For He is God's true and own Son, by origin and not by adoption, not by name only but in truth, born and not created. So, after He was glorified, that confession touched the truth; the centurion confessed Him the true Son of God, so that no believer might doubt a fact which even the servant of His persecutors could not deny.

11. And next? The centurion of the cohort, the guardian of the cross, cries out, Truly this was the Son of God. Matthew 27:54 Creation is set free by the mediation of this Sin-offering; the very rocks lose their solidity and strength. They who had nailed Him to the cross confess that truly this is the Son of God. The outcome justifies the assertion. The Lord had said, Glorify Your Son. He had asserted, by that word Your, that He was God's Son not in name only, but in nature. Multitudes of us are sons of God; He is Son in another sense. For He is God's true and own Son, by origin and not by adoption, not by name only but in truth, born and not created. So, after He was glorified, that confession touched the truth; the centurion confessed Him the true Son of God, that no believer might doubt a fact which even the servant of His persecutors could not deny.

But perhaps some people may think that He lacked the glory for which He prayed, and that His desire to be glorified by a Greater shows a lack of power. Who would deny that the Father is the greater—the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He who wills than He who obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness: The Father is greater than I. This is a fact we must recognize, but we must be careful that unskilled thinkers do not let the majesty of the Father obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuring is forbidden by this very glory for which the Son prays, because the prayer, Father glorify Your Son, is completed by, That the Son may glorify You. So there is no lack of power in the Son, who, when He has received this glory, will return it in glory. But why, if He were not lacking, did He make the prayer? No one makes a request except for something he needs. Or can it be that the Father is also lacking? Or has He given His glory away so carelessly that He needs to have it returned to Him by the Son? No—the One has never been lacking, nor has the Other needed to ask, and yet Each shall give to the Other. So the prayer for glory to be given and paid back is neither a robbery of the Father nor a lessening of the Son, but a demonstration of the power of one Godhead present in Both. The Son prays that He may be glorified by the Father; the Father considers it no humiliation to be glorified by the Son. The exchange of glory given and received proclaims the unity of power in Father and in Son.

12. But perhaps some may suppose that He was destitute of that glory for which He prayed, and that His looking to be glorified by a Greater is evidence of want of power. Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness:– The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognise, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuration is forbidden by this same glory for which the Son prays; for the prayer, Father glorify Your Son, is completed by, That the Son may glorify You. Thus there is no lack of power in the Son, Who, when He has received this glory, will make His return for it in glory. But why, if He were not in want, did He make the prayer? No one makes request except for something which he needs. Or can it be that the Father too is in want? Or has He given His glory away so recklessly that He needs to have it returned Him by the Son? No; the One has never been in want, nor the Other needed to ask, and yet Each shall give to the Other. Thus the prayer for glory to be given and to be paid back is neither a robbery of the Father nor a depreciation of the Son, but a demonstration of the power of one Godhead resident in Both. The Son prays that He may be glorified by the Father; the Father deems it no humiliation to be glorified by the Son. The exchange of glory given and received proclaims the unity of power in Father and in Son.

We must next determine what this glorifying is and where it comes from. God, I am certain, cannot change. His eternity does not allow for any defect or improvement, any gain or any loss. It belongs to Him alone that what He is, He has been from all eternity. What He has been from all eternity, His nature makes it impossible for Him ever to cease being. How then can He receive glory—something He fully possesses and whose supply does not decrease—when there is no new glory He can obtain and none that He has lost and can recover? We reach an impasse. But the Evangelist does not leave us stranded, even though our reason has shown itself powerless. To tell us what return of glory the Son would make to the Father, he gives these words: Even as You have given Him power over all flesh, that whatsoever You have given Him He may give it eternal life. And this is life eternal that they should know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. The Father, then, is glorified through the Son by being made known to us. And this was the glory: that the Son, being made flesh, received from Him power over all flesh and the responsibility of restoring eternal life to us—temporary beings weighed down by the body. Eternal life for us resulted not from work accomplished but from inherent power; not through a new creation but simply through knowledge of God was the glory of that eternity to be obtained. Nothing was added to God's glory; it had not decreased and so could not be refilled. But He is glorified through the Son in the sight of us who are ignorant, exiled, defiled, dwelling in hopeless death and lawless darkness—glorified because the Son, by virtue of that power over all flesh which the Father gave Him, was to give us eternal life. It is through this work of the Son that the Father is glorified. So when the Son received all things from the Father, the Father glorified Him; and conversely, when all things were made through the Son, He glorified the Father. The return of glory given lies in this: all the glory which the Son has is the glory of the Father, since everything He has is the Father's gift. For the glory of the one who carries out a charge reflects back to the glory of the one who gave it, the glory of the Begotten to the glory of the Begetter.

13. We must next ascertain what and whence this glorifying is. God, I am sure, is subject to no change; His eternity admits not of defect or amendment, of gain or of loss. It is the character of Him alone, that what He is, He is from everlasting. What He from everlasting is, it is by His nature impossible that He should ever cease to be. How then can He receive glory, a thing which He fully possesses, and of which His store does not diminish; there being no fresh glory which He can obtain, and none that He has lost and can recover? We are brought to a standstill. But the Evangelist does not fail us, though our reason has displayed its helplessness. To tell us what return of glory it was that the Son should make to the Father, he gives the words: Even as You have given Him power over all flesh, that whatsoever You have given Him He may give it eternal life. And this is life eternal that they should know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. The Father, then, is glorified through the Son, by His being made known to us. And the glory was this, that the Son, being made flesh, received from Him power over all flesh, and the charge of restoring eternal life to us, ephemeral beings burdened with the body. Eternal life for us was the result not of work done, but of innate power; not by a new creation, but simply by knowledge of God, was the glory of that eternity to be acquired. Nothing was added to God's glory; it had not decreased, and so could not be replenished. But He is glorified through the Son in the sight of us, ignorant, exiled, defiled, dwelling in hopeless death and lawless darkness; glorified inasmuch as the Son, by virtue of that power over all flesh which the Father gave Him, was to bestow on us eternal life. It is through this work of the Son that the Father is glorified. So when the Son received all things from the Father, the Father glorified Him; and conversely, when all things were made through the Son, He glorified the Father. The return of glory given lies herein, that all the glory which the Son has is the glory of the Father, since everything He has is the Father's gift. For the glory of Him who executes a charge redounds to the glory of Him Who gave it, the glory of the Begotten to the glory of the Begetter.

Eternal life consists of what? His own words tell us: "That they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent." Is there any doubt or difficulty here, or any inconsistency? Life consists in knowing the true God; but simply knowing Him does not grant it. What, then, does He add? "And Jesus Christ Whom You have sent." In "You, the only true God," the Son gives the honor due to His Father; by adding "And Jesus Christ Whom You have sent," He joins Himself with the true Godhead. The believer in his confession draws no line between the Two, for his hope of life rests in Both, and indeed, the true God is inseparable from Him Whose Name follows in the creed. Therefore when we read "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent," these terms of Sender and Sent are not meant, under any appearance of distinction or separation, to convey a difference between the true Godhead of Father and Son, but to guide the devout confession of Them as Begetter and Begotten.

14. But in what does eternity of life consist? His own words tell us:– That they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. Is there any doubt or difficulty here, or any inconsistency? It is life to know the true God; but the bare knowledge of Him does not give it. What, then, does He add? And Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. In You, the only true God, the Son pays the honour due to His Father; by the addition, And Jesus Christ Whom You have sent, He associates Himself with the true Godhead. The believer in his confession draws no line between the Two, for his hope of life rests in Both, and indeed, the true God is inseparable from Him Whose Name follows in the creed. Therefore when we read, That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent, these terms of Sender and of Sent are not intended, under any semblance of distinction or discrimination, to convey a difference between the true Godhead of Father and of Son, but to be a guide to the devout confession of Them as Begetter and Begotten.

15. And so the Son glorifies the Father fully and finally in the words that follow: "I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do." All the Father's praise comes from the Son, for every praise given to the Son is praise of the Father, since everything He accomplished is what the Father had willed. The Son of God is born as man, but the power of God is in the virgin birth. The Son of God is seen as man, but God is present in His human actions. The Son of God is nailed to the cross, but on the cross God conquers human death. Christ, the Son of God, dies, but all flesh is made alive in Christ. The Son of God is in hell, but man is carried back to heaven. The degree to which we praise Christ for these His works will match the praise we bring to Him from Whom Christ's Godhead comes. These are the ways in which the Father glorifies the Son on earth, and in return the Son reveals by works of power—to the ignorance of the heathen and to the foolishness of the world—Him from Whom He is. This exchange of glory, given and received, implies no increase in the Godhead, but means the praises rendered for the knowledge granted to those who had lived in ignorance of God. What, indeed, could there be which the Father, from Whom are all things, did not richly possess? In what was the Son lacking, in Whom all the fullness of the Godhead had been pleased to dwell? The Father is glorified on earth because the work which He had commanded is finished.

15. And so the Son glorifies the Father fully and finally in the words which follow, I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. All the Father's praise is from the Son, for every praise bestowed upon the Son is praise of the Father, since all that He accomplished is what the Father had willed. The Son of God is born as man; but the power of God is in the virgin-birth. The Son of God is seen as man; but God is present in His human actions. The Son of God is nailed to the cross; but on the cross God conquers human death. Christ, the Son of God, dies; but all flesh is made alive in Christ. The Son of God is in hell; but man is carried back to heaven. In proportion to our praise of Christ for these His works, will be the praise we bring to Him from Whom Christ's Godhead is. These are the ways in which the Father glorifies the Son on earth; and in return the Son reveals by works of power to the ignorance of the heathen and to the foolishness of the world, Him from Whom He is. This exchange of glory, given and received, implies no augmentation of the Godhead, but means the praises rendered for the knowledge granted to those who had lived in ignorance of God. What, indeed, could there be which the Father, from Whom are all things, did not richly possess? In what was the Son lacking, in Whom all the fullness of the Godhead had been pleased to dwell? The Father is glorified on earth because the work which He had commanded is finished.

Now let us examine what glory the Son expects to receive from the Father, and then our explanation will be complete. The passage continues: I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Your own Self with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name unto men. The Father is glorified through the Son's works, because through them He is recognized as God, as Father of God the Only-begotten, who for our salvation willed that His Son should be born as man, even from a virgin. That Son's entire life, completed in the Passion, was consistent with the humiliation of the virgin birth. Therefore, because the Son of God, completely perfect and born from everlasting in the fullness of the Godhead, had now through incarnation become Man and was ready for His death, He prays that He may be glorified with God, just as He was glorifying His Father on earth. At that moment the powers of God were being glorified in the flesh before the eyes of a world that did not know Him. But what is this glory with the Father for which He asks? It is, of course, the glory which He had with Him before the world existed. He had the fullness of the Godhead and still has it, for He is God's Son. But He who was the Son of God had also become the Son of man, for The Word was made flesh. He had not lost His former being, but He had become what He was not before. He had not abandoned His own position, yet He had taken ours. He prays that the nature which He had assumed may be raised to the glory which He had never given up. Therefore, since the Son is the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and the Word was God, and was in the beginning with God, and the Word was Son before the foundation of the world, this Son, now incarnate, prayed that flesh might be to the Father what the Son had been. He prayed that flesh, born in time, might receive the splendor of the everlasting glory, that the corruption of the flesh might be swallowed up and transformed into the power of God and the purity of the Spirit. This is His prayer to God, the Son's confession of the Father, the entreaty of that flesh in which all will see Him on the Judgment-day, pierced and bearing the marks of the cross. This is the flesh in which His glory was shown beforehand on the Mount, in which He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, in which Paul saw Him and Stephen worshiped Him.

16. Next let us see what this glory is which the Son expects to receive from the Father; and then our exposition will be complete. The sequel is, I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Your own Self with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name unto men. It is, then, by the Son's works that the Father is glorified, in that He is recognised as God, as Father of God the Only-begotten, Who for our salvation willed that His Son should be born as man, even of a virgin; that Son Whose whole life, consummated in the Passion, was consistent with the humiliation of the virgin birth. Thus, because the Son of God, all-perfect and born from everlasting in the fullness of the Godhead, had now by incarnation become Man and was ready for His death, He prays that He may be glorified with God, even as He was glorifying His Father on the earth; for at that moment the powers of God were being glorified in the flesh before the eyes of a world that knew Him not. But what is this glory with the Father, for which He looks? It is that, of course, which He had with Him before the world was. He had the fullness of the Godhead; He has it still, for He is God's Son. But He Who was the Son of God had become the Son of man also, for The Word was made flesh. He had not lost His former being, but He had become what He was not before; He had not abdicated His own position, yet He had taken ours; He prays that the nature which He had assumed may be promoted to the glory which He had never renounced. Therefore, since the Son is the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and the Word was God, and was in the beginning with God, and the Word was Son before the foundation of the world; this Son, now incarnate, prayed that flesh might be to the Father what the Son had been. He prayed that flesh, born in time, might receive the splendour of the everlasting glory, that the corruption of the flesh might be swallowed up, transformed into the power of God and the purity of the Spirit. It is His prayer to God, the Son's confession of the Father, the entreaty of that flesh wherein all shall see Him on the Judgment-day, pierced and bearing the marks of the cross; of that flesh wherein His glory was foreshown upon the Mount, wherein He ascended to heaven and is set down at the right hand of God, wherein Paul saw Him, and Stephen paid Him worship.

The name Father has been revealed to people in this way. Now we need to ask: What is this Father's own name? But surely the name of God has never been unknown. Moses heard it from the bush, Genesis announces it at the beginning of the creation story, the Law proclaimed it and the prophets praised it, world history has made humanity familiar with it—even the pagans have worshiped it, though wrapped in falsehood. People have never been left ignorant of God's name. And yet they truly were ignorant. For no one knows God unless he confesses Him as Father, Father of the Only-begotten Son, and also confesses the Son as Son—not by division or expansion or emanation, but born of Him as Son of Father, ineffably and incomprehensibly, keeping the fullness of that Godhead from which and in which He was born as true and infinite and perfect God. This is what the fullness of the Godhead means. If any of these things is missing, there will not be that fullness which was pleased to dwell in Him. This is the Son's message, His revelation to people in their ignorance. The Father is glorified through the Son when people recognize that He is Father of a Son so divine.

17. The name Father has thus been revealed to men; the question arises, What is this Father's own name? Yet surely the name of God has never been unknown. Moses heard it from the bush, Genesis announces it at the beginning of the history of creation, the Law has proclaimed and the prophets extolled it, the history of the world has made mankind familiar with it; the very heathen have worshipped it under a veil of falsehood. Men have never been left in ignorance of the name of God. And yet they were, in very truth, in ignorance. For no man knows God unless He confess Him as Father, Father of the Only-begotten Son, and confess also the Son a Son by no partition or extension or procession, but born of Him, as Son of Father, ineffably and incomprehensibly, and retaining the fullness of that Godhead from which and in which He was born as true and infinite and perfect God. This is what the fullness of the Godhead means. If any of these things be lacking, there will not be that fullness which was pleased to dwell in Him. This is the message of the Son, His revelation to men in their ignorance. The Father is glorified through the Son when men recognise that He is Father of a Son so Divine.

The Son, wanting to assure us of the truth of His divine birth, has appointed His works to serve as an illustration, so that from the ineffable power displayed in ineffable deeds we may learn the lesson of the ineffable birth. For instance, when water was made wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand men, besides women and children, and twelve baskets were filled with the fragments, we see a fact though we cannot understand it; a deed is done though it baffles our reason; the process cannot be followed, though the result is obvious. It is foolish to intrude in a spirit of criticism when the matter we are investigating is such that we cannot probe it to the bottom. For just as the Father is ineffable because He is Unbegotten, so is the Son ineffable because He is the Only-begotten, since the Begotten is the Image of the Unbegotten. Now it is by the use of our senses and of language that we have to form our conception of an image; and it must be by the same means that we form our idea of what the image represents. But in this case we, whose faculties can deal only with visible and tangible things, are straining after the invisible and striving to grasp the impalpable. Yet we take no shame to ourselves, we reproach ourselves with no irreverence, when we doubt and criticize the mysteries and powers of God. How is He the Son? Where is He from? What did the Father lose by His birth? Of what portion of the Father was He born? So we ask; yet all the while there has been confronting us the evidence of works done to assure us that God's action is not limited by our power of comprehending His methods.

18. The Son, wishing to assure us of the truth of this, His Divine birth, has appointed His works to serve as an illustration, that from the ineffable power displayed in ineffable deeds we may learn the lesson of the ineffable birth. For instance, when water was made wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand men, beside women and children, and twelve baskets were filled with the fragments, we see a fact though we cannot understand it; a deed is done though it baffles our reason; the process cannot be followed, though the result is obvious. It is folly to intrude in the spirit of carping, when the matter into which we enquire is such that we cannot probe it to the bottom. For even as the Father is ineffable because He is Unbegotten, so is the Son ineffable because He is the Only-begotten, since the Begotten is the Image of the Unbegotten. Now it is by the use of our senses and of language that we have to form our conception of an image; and it must be by the same means that we form our idea of that which the image represents. But in this case we, whose faculties can deal only with visible and tangible things, are straining after the invisible, and striving to grasp the impalpable. Yet we take no shame to ourselves, we reproach ourselves with no irreverence, when we doubt and criticise the mysteries and powers of God. How is He the Son? Whence is He? What did the Father lose by His birth? Of what portion of the Father was He born? So we ask; yet all the while there has been confronting us the evidence of works done to assure us that God's action is not limited by our power of comprehending His methods.

19. You ask how the Son was born, as the Spirit teaches? I will ask you a question about physical things. I am not asking how He was born of a virgin; I am only asking whether her flesh, while preparing His flesh for birth, experienced any loss. Certainly she did not conceive Him in the ordinary way, or endure the shame of human sexual relations, in order to bear Him. Yet she bore Him, complete in His human body, without losing any of her own completeness. Surely faithfulness requires that we should regard as possible with God something which we see became possible through His power in the case of a human being.

19. You ask what was the manner in which, as the Spirit teaches, the Son was born? I will put a question to you as to things corporal. I ask not in what manner He was born of a virgin; I ask only whether her flesh, in the course of bringing His flesh to readiness for birth, suffered any loss. Assuredly she did not conceive Him in the common way, or suffer the shame of human intercourse, in order to bear Him: yet she bore Him, complete in His human Body, without loss of her own completeness. Surely piety requires that we should regard as possible with God a thing which we see became possible through his power in the case of a human being.

But you, whoever you are who would investigate the unsearchable and seriously form an opinion about the mysteries and powers of God—I turn to you for advice and ask you to enlighten me, an unskilled and simple believer of everything God says, about a situation I am going to mention. I listen to the Lord's words and, since I believe what is recorded, I am certain that after His Resurrection He repeatedly offered Himself in the Body to the sight of crowds of unbelievers. He certainly did so to Thomas, who had insisted that he would not believe unless he handled His wounds. His words are, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe." The Lord descends to the level even of our weak understanding; to satisfy the doubts of unbelieving minds He performs a miracle of His invisible power. You, my critic of the ways of heaven, explain His action if you can. The disciples were in a locked room; they had met and held their gathering in secret since the Passion of the Lord. The Lord presents Himself to strengthen Thomas's faith by meeting his challenge; He gives him His Body to feel, His wounds to handle. He who would be recognized as having suffered wounds must necessarily produce the body in which those wounds were received. I ask at what point in the walls of that locked house the Lord bodily entered. The Apostle has recorded the circumstances with careful precision: Jesus came when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst. Did He penetrate through bricks and mortar, or through solid woodwork, substances whose very nature is to block passage? For there He stood in bodily presence; there was no suggestion of deception. Let the eye of your mind follow His path as He enters; let your intellectual vision accompany Him as He passes into that locked dwelling. There is no breach in the walls, no door has been unbarred; yet look, He stands in the midst, He whose power no barrier can resist. You are a critic of things invisible; I ask you to explain a visible event. Everything remains solid as it was; no body is capable of working itself through the gaps in wood and stone. The Body of the Lord does not scatter itself, to come together again after a disappearance; yet where does He come from, He who is standing in the midst? Your senses and your words are powerless to account for it; the fact is certain, but it lies beyond the realm of human explanation. If, as you say, our account of the Divine birth is a lie, then prove that this account of the Lord's entrance is a fiction. If we assume that an event did not happen because we cannot discover how it was done, we make the limits of our understanding into the limits of reality. But the certainty of the evidence proves the falsehood of our denial. The Lord stood in a locked house in the midst of the disciples; the Son was born of the Father. Do not deny that He stood because your limited intelligence cannot determine how He came there; renounce a disbelief in God the Only-begotten and perfect Son of God the Unbegotten and perfect Father, which is based only on the inability of sense and speech to comprehend the transcendent miracle of that birth.

20. But you, whoever you are that would seek into the unsearchable, and in all seriousness form an opinion upon the mysteries and powers of God — I turn to you for counsel, and beg you to enlighten me, an unskilled and simple believer of all that God says, as to a circumstance which I am about to mention. I listen to the Lord's words and, since I believe what is recorded, I am sure that after His Resurrection He offered Himself repeatedly in the Body to the sight of multitudes of unbelievers. At any rate, He did so to Thomas who had protested that he would not believe unless he handled His wounds. His words are, Unless I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe. John 20:25 The Lord stoops to the level even of our feeble understanding; to satisfy the doubts of unbelieving minds He works a miracle of His invisible power. Do you, my critic of the ways of heaven, explain His action if you can. The disciples were in a closed room; they had met and held their assembly in secret since the Passion of the Lord. The Lord presents Himself to strengthen the faith of Thomas by meeting his challenge; He gives him His Body to feel, His wounds to handle. He, indeed, who would be recognised as having suffered wounds must needs produce the body in which those wounds were received. I ask at what point in the walls of that closed house the Lord bodily entered. The Apostle has recorded the circumstances with careful precision; Jesus came when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst. Did He penetrate through bricks and mortar, or through stout woodwork, substances whose very nature it is to bar progress? For there He stood in bodily presence; there was no suspicion of deceit. Let the eye of your mind follow His path as He enters; let your intellectual vision accompany Him as He passes into that closed dwelling. There is no breach in the walls, no door has been unbarred; yet lo, He stands in the midst Whose might no barrier can resist. You are a critic of things invisible; I ask you to explain a visible event. Everything remains firm as it was; no body is capable of insinuating itself through the interstices of wood and stone. The Body of the Lord does not disperse itself, to come together again after a disappearance; yet whence comes He Who is standing in the midst? Your senses and your words are powerless to account for it; the fact is certain, but it lies beyond the region of human explanation. If, as you say, our account of the Divine birth is a lie, then prove that this account of the Lord's entrance is a fiction. If we assume that an event did not happen, because we cannot discover how it was done, we make the limits of our understanding into the limits of reality. But the certainty of the evidence proves the falsehood of our contradiction. The Lord stood in a closed house in the midst of the disciples; the Son was born of the Father. Deny not that He stood, because your puny wits cannot ascertain how He came there; renounce a disbelief in God the Only-begotten and perfect Son of God the Unbegotten and perfect Father, which is based only on the incapacity of sense and speech to comprehend the transcendent miracle of that birth.

Indeed, the entire structure of nature itself supports us against the irreverence of doubting God's works and powers. Yet our unbelief strikes out even against obvious truth. In our rage, we attempt to tear even God down from His throne. If we could, we would climb to heaven by physical strength, throw the orderly movements of the sun and stars into chaos, disrupt the rising and falling of the tides, stop rivers at their sources or reverse the flow of their waters, shake the very foundations of the world—all in the complete irreverence of our rage against God's fatherly work. It is fortunate that our physical limitations keep us within more restrained boundaries. Certainly, we do not hide the harm we would cause if we were able. In one area we are free, and so with blasphemous arrogance we twist the truth and turn our weapons against the words of God.

21. Nay more, the whole constitution of nature would bear us out against the impiety of doubting the works and powers of God. And yet our disbelief tilts even against obvious truth; we strive in our fury to pluck even God from His throne. If we could, we would climb by bodily strength to heaven, would fling into confusion the ordered courses of sun and stars, would disarrange the ebb and flow of tides, check rivers at their source or make their waters flow backward, would shake the foundations of the world, in the utter irreverence of our rage against the paternal work of God. It is well that our bodily limitations confine us within more modest bounds. Assuredly, there is no concealment of the mischief we would do if we could. In one respect we are free; and so with blasphemous insolence we distort the truth and turn our weapons against the words of God.

The Son has said, "Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men." What reason is there for denunciation or fury here? Do you deny the Father? The Son's primary purpose was to enable us to know the Father. But in fact you do deny Him when you claim the Son was not born of Him. Yet why should He have the name of Son if He is, like others, simply an arbitrary creation of God? I could feel awe of God as Creator of Christ just as much as Founder of the universe. It would be an exercise of power worthy of Him to be the Maker of Him Who made Archangels and Angels, things visible and things invisible, heaven and earth and the whole creation around us. But the work the Lord came to do was not to enable you to recognize God's omnipotence as Creator of all things, but to enable you to know Him as the Father of that Son Who addresses you. In heaven there are Powers beside Himself, Powers mighty and eternal. There is but one Only-begotten Son, and the difference between Him and them is not merely one of degree of might, but that they all were made through Him. Since He is the true and only Son, let us not make Him a bastard by asserting that He was made out of nothing. You hear the name Son—believe that He is the Son. You hear the name Father—fix it in your mind that He is the Father. Why surround these names with doubt and ill will and hostility? The things of God are provided with names which give a true indication of the realities. Why force an arbitrary meaning upon their obvious sense? Father and Son are spoken of—doubt not that the words mean what they say. The end and aim of the revelation of the Son is that you should know the Father. Why frustrate the labors of the Prophets, the Incarnation of the Word, the Virgin's travail, the effect of miracles, the cross of Christ? It was all spent upon you, it is all offered to you, that through it all Father and Son may be manifest to you. And you replace the truth by a theory of arbitrary action, of creation or adoption. Turn your thoughts to the warfare, the conflict waged by Christ. He describes it thus: "Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men." He does not say, "You have created the Creator of all the heavens," or "You have made the Maker of the whole earth." He says, "Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men." Accept your Savior's gift of knowledge. Be assured that there is a Father Who begot, a Son Who was born—born in the truth of His Nature of the Father, Who is. Remember that the revelation is not of the Father manifested as God, but of God manifested as the Father.

22. The Son has said, Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men. What reason is there for denunciation or fury here? Do you deny the Father? Why, it was the primary purpose of the Son to enable us to know the Father. But in fact you do deny Him when, according to you, the Son was not born of Him. Yet why should He have the name of Son if He be, as others are, an arbitrary creation of God? I could feel awe of God as Creator of Christ as well as Founder of the universe; it were an exercise of power worthy of Him to be the Maker of Him Who made Archangels and Angels, things visible and things invisible, heaven and earth and the whole creation around us. But the work which the Lord came to do was not to enable you to recognise the omnipotence of God as Creator of all things, but to enable you to know Him as the Father of that Son Who addresses you. In heaven there are Powers beside Himself, Powers mighty and eternal; there is but one Only-begotten Son, and the difference between Him and them is not one of mere degree of might, but that they all were made through Him. Since He is the true and only Son, let us not make Him a bastard by asserting that He was made out of nothing. You hear the name Son; believe that He is the Son. You hear the name Father; fix it in your mind that He is the Father. Why surround these names with doubt and illwill and hostility? The things of God are provided with names which give a true indication of the realities; why force an arbitrary meaning upon their obvious sense? Father and Son are spoken of; doubt not that the words mean what they say. The end and aim of the revelation of the Son is that you should know the Father. Why frustrate the labours of the Prophets, the Incarnation of the Word, the Virgin's travail, the effect of miracles, the cross of Christ? It was all spent upon you, it is all offered to you, that through it all Father and Son may be manifest to you. And you replace the truth by a theory of arbitrary action, of creation or adoption. Turn your thoughts to the warfare, the conflict waged by Christ. He describes it thus:– Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men. He does not say, You have created the Creator of all the heavens, or You have made the Maker of the whole earth. He says, Father, I have manifested Your Name unto men. Accept your Saviour's gift of knowledge. Be assured that there is a Father Who begot, a Son Who was born; born in the truth of His Nature of the Father, Who is. Remember that the revelation is not of the Father manifested as God, but of God manifested as the Father.

You hear the words, "I and the Father are one." Why do you tear the Son away from the Father? They are a unity: an absolute Existence having all things in perfect communion with that absolute Existence from whom He comes. When you hear the Son saying, "I and the Father are one," match your understanding of the facts to the Persons. Accept the statement that the Begetter and the Begotten make about themselves. Believe that they are one, even as they are also Begetter and Begotten. Why deny their common nature? Why attack their true divinity? You hear again, "The Father in me, and I in the Father." That this is true of the Father and the Son is demonstrated by the Son's works. Our science cannot wrap one body inside another or pour one into another, like water into wine. But we confess that in both there is equality of power and fullness of the Godhead. For the Son has received all things from the Father. He is the likeness of God, the image of His substance. The words "image of His substance" distinguish between Christ and the one from whom He comes, but only to establish their distinct existence, not to teach a difference of nature. And the meaning of "Father in Son and Son in Father" is that there is the perfect fullness of the Godhead in both. The Father is not diminished by the Son's existence, nor is the Son a broken-off piece of the Father. An image implies its original; likeness is a relative term. Now nothing can be like God unless it has its source in Him. A perfect likeness can be reflected only from what it represents. An accurate resemblance forbids the assumption of any element of difference. Do not disturb this likeness. Make no separation where truth shows no difference, for He who said, "Let us make man after our image and likeness," by those words "our likeness" revealed the existence of Beings, each like the other. Do not touch, do not handle, do not pervert. Hold fast to the names that teach the truth. Hold fast to the Son's declaration about Himself. I do not want you to flatter the Son with praises of your own invention. It is well with you if you are satisfied with the written word.

23. You hear the words, I and the Father are one. John 10:30 Why do you rend and tear the Son away from the Father? They are a unity: an absolute Existence having all things in perfect communion with that absolute Existence, from Whom He is. When you hear the Son saying, I and the Father are one, adjust your view of facts to the Persons; accept the statement which Begetter and Begotten make concerning Themselves. Believe that They are One, even as They are also Begetter and Begotten. Why deny the common nature? Why impugn the true Divinity? You hear again, The Father in Me, and I in the Father. John 10:38 That this is true of Father and of Son is demonstrated by the Son's works. Our science cannot envelope body in body, or pour one into another, as water into wine; but we confess that in Both is equivalence of power and fullness of the Godhead. For the Son has received all things from the Father; He is the Likeness of God, the Image of His substance. The words, Image of His substance Hebrews 1:3, discriminate between Christ and Him from Whom He is, but only to establish Their distinct existence, not to teach a difference of nature; and the meaning of Father in Son and Son in Father is that there is the perfect fullness of the Godhead in Both. The Father is not impaired by the Son's existence, nor is the Son a mutilated fragment of the Father. An image implies its original; likeness is a relative term. Now nothing can be like God unless it have its source in Him; a perfect likeness can be reflected only from that which it represents; an accurate resemblance forbids the assumption of any element of difference. Disturb not this likeness; make no separation where truth shows no variance, for He Who said, Let us make man after our image and likeness Genesis 1:26, by those words Our likeness revealed the existence of Beings, Each like the Other. Touch not handle not, pervert not. Hold fast the Names which teach the truth, hold fast the Son's declaration of Himself. I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.

Again, we must not place such blind confidence in human reasoning that we imagine we have complete knowledge of the things we think about, or that the ultimate problem is solved as soon as we have formed a neat and consistent theory. Finite minds cannot conceive the Infinite. A being that depends on another for its existence cannot attain perfect knowledge either of its Creator or of itself, because its self-awareness is shaped by its circumstances, and there are limits its perception cannot cross. Its activity is not self-caused but comes from the Creator, and a being dependent on a Creator has complete possession of none of its faculties, since its origin lies outside itself. Therefore, by an unavoidable law, it is foolish for such a being to claim perfect knowledge of anything. Its powers have limits it cannot change, and only while it is under the delusion that its tiny boundaries extend as far as infinity can it make the empty boast of possessing wisdom. For it is incapable of wisdom, since its knowledge is limited to the range of its perception and shares the weakness of its dependent existence. And so this pretense of a finite nature boasting that it possesses the wisdom that springs only from infinite knowledge earns the scorn and ridicule of the Apostle, who calls its wisdom foolishness. He says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in the language of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but unto them that are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the enquirer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, God decreed through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews indeed a stumbling-block and to Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men." Thus all unbelief is foolishness, for it takes whatever wisdom its own finite perception can reach and, measuring infinity by that small scale, concludes that what it cannot understand must be impossible. Unbelief is the result of limited capacity engaged in argument. People are certain that an event never happened because they have decided it could not happen.

24. Again, we must not repose so blind a confidence in human intellect as to imagine that we have complete knowledge of the objects of our thought, or that the ultimate problem is solved as soon as we have formed a symmetrical and consistent theory. Finite minds cannot conceive the Infinite; a being dependent for its existence upon another cannot attain to perfect knowledge either of its Creator or of itself, for its consciousness of self is colored by its circumstances, and bounds are set which its perception cannot pass. Its activity is not self-caused, but due to the Creator, and a being dependent on a Creator has perfect possession of none of its faculties, since its origin lies outside itself. Hence by an inexorable law it is folly for that being to say that it has perfect knowledge of any matter; its powers have limits which it cannot modify, and only while it is under the delusion that its petty bounds are coterminous with infinity can it make the empty boast of possessing wisdom. For of wisdom it is incapable, its knowledge being limited to the range of its perception, and sharing the impotence of its dependent existence. And therefore this masquerade of a finite nature boasting that it possesses the wisdom which springs only from infinite knowledge earns the scorn and ridicule of the Apostle, who calls its wisdom folly. He says, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in the language of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but unto them that are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the enquirer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, God decreed through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews indeed a stumbling-block and to Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men. 1 Corinthians 1:17-25 Thus all unbelief is foolishness, for it takes such wisdom as its own finite perception can attain, and, measuring infinity by that petty scale, concludes that what it cannot understand must be impossible. Unbelief is the result of incapacity engaged in argument. Men are sure that an event never happened, because they have made up their minds that it could not happen.

The Apostle understood that human thinking narrowly assumes that whatever it does not know cannot be truth. That is why he says he does not speak in the language of knowledge, to prevent his preaching from being in vain. To avoid being seen as a preacher of foolishness, he adds that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. He knew that unbelievers believe the only true knowledge is what forms their own wisdom, and since their wisdom only recognizes things within their limited view, the other wisdom—which alone is divine and perfect—appears foolish to them. So their foolishness actually lies in that weak imagination they mistake for wisdom. This is why the very things that seem foolish to those who are perishing are the power of God to those who are being saved. Those who are saved never use their own inadequate abilities as a standard but instead attribute to God's actions the omnipotence of heaven. God rejects the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent in this sense: precisely because they recognize their own foolishness, salvation is granted to those who believe. Unbelievers declare everything beyond their understanding to be foolish, while believers leave to God's power and majesty the choice of the mysteries through which salvation is given. There is no foolishness in the things of God. The foolishness lies in that human wisdom which demands signs and wisdom from God as a condition for belief. It is the foolishness of the Jews to demand signs—they have some knowledge of God's Name through long familiarity with the Law, but the offense of the cross repels them. The foolishness of the Greeks is to demand wisdom—with Gentile folly and human philosophy they seek the reason why God was lifted up on the cross. And because these things have been hidden in a mystery out of consideration for the weakness of our mental powers, this foolishness of Jews and Greeks turns into unbelief. They denounce as unworthy of reasonable belief truths that their minds are inherently incapable of understanding. But because the world's wisdom was so foolish—for previously, through God's wisdom it did not know God, meaning the splendor of the universe and the wonderful order He planned for His handiwork taught it no reverence for its Creator—God was pleased to save those who believe through the preaching of foolishness. That is, through faith in the cross He makes everlasting life the destiny of mortals, so that the self-confidence of human wisdom might be put to shame and salvation found where people thought foolishness lived. For Christ, who is foolishness to Gentiles and offense to Jews, is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, because what seems weak and foolish to human understanding in the things of God surpasses in true wisdom and might the thoughts and powers of earth.

25. Hence the Apostle, familiar with the narrow assumption of human thought that what it does not know is not truth, says that he does not speak in the language of knowledge, lest his preaching should be in vain. To save himself from being regarded as a preacher of foolishness he adds that the word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish. He knew that the unbelievers held that the only true knowledge was that which formed their own wisdom, and that, since their wisdom was cognisant only of matters which lay within their narrow horizon, the other wisdom, which alone is Divine and perfect, seemed foolishness to them. Thus their foolishness actually consisted, in that feeble imagination which they mistook for wisdom. Hence it is that the very things which to them that perish are foolishness are the power of God to them that are saved; for these last never use their own inadequate faculties as a measure, but attribute to the Divine activities the omnipotence of heaven. God rejects the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent in this sense, that just because they recognise their own foolishness, salvation is granted to them that believe. Unbelievers pronounce the verdict of foolishness on everything that lies beyond their ken, while believers leave to the power and majesty of God the choice of the mysteries wherein salvation is bestowed. There is no foolishness in the things of God; the foolishness lies in that human wisdom which demands of God, as the condition of belief, signs and wisdom. It is the foolishness of the Jews to demand signs; they have a certain knowledge of the Name of God through long acquaintance with the Law, but the offense of the cross repels them. The foolishness of the Greeks is to demand wisdom; with Gentile folly and the philosophy of men they seek the reason why God was lifted up on the cross. And because, in consideration for the weakness of our mental powers, these things have been hidden in a mystery, this foolishness of Jews and Greeks turns to unbelief; for they denounce, as unworthy of reasonable credence, truths which their mind is inherently incapable of comprehending. But, because the world's wisdom was so foolish — for previously through God's wisdom it knew not God, that is, the splendour of the universe, and the wonderful order which He planned for His handiwork, taught it no reverence for its Creator — God was pleased through the preaching of foolishness to save them that believe, that is, through the faith of the cross to make everlasting life the lot of mortals; that so the self-confidence of human wisdom might be put to shame, and salvation found where men had thought that foolishness dwelt. For Christ, Who is foolishness to Gentiles, and offense to Jews, is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God; because what seems weak and foolish to human apprehension in the things of God transcends in true wisdom and might the thoughts and the powers of earth.

Therefore, we must not judge God's actions by human abilities. Those who are His creation must not sit in judgment over their Creator. We must embrace foolishness in order to gain wisdom—not the foolishness of reckless conclusions, but the foolishness of a humble awareness of our own weakness. In this way, the evidence of God's power will teach us truths that earthly philosophy's arguments cannot reach. For when we become fully aware of our own foolishness and have experienced the helplessness and poverty of our reason, then through the guidance of Divine Wisdom we will be taught the wisdom of God. We will set no limits on His limitless majesty and power, nor will we confine the Lord of nature to nature's laws. We can be certain that for us the one true faith concerning God is that which He is both the Author and the Witness of.

26. And therefore the action of God must not be canvassed by human faculties; the Creator must not be judged by those who are the work of His hands. We must clothe ourselves in foolishness that we may gain wisdom; not in the foolishness of hazardous conclusions, but in the foolishness of a modest sense of our own infirmity, that so the evidence of God's power may teach us truths to which the arguments of earthly philosophy cannot attain. For when we are fully conscious of our own foolishness, and have felt the helplessness and destitution of our reason, then through the counsels of Divine Wisdom we shall be initiated into the wisdom of God; setting no bounds to boundless majesty and power, nor tying the Lord of nature down to nature's laws; sure that for us the one true faith concerning God is that of which He is at once the Author and the Witness.

Believers have always found their satisfaction in that Divine utterance, which we heard recited from the Gospel at the moment when that Power, which attests to it, was given to us: Go now and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. What element in the mystery of man's salvation is not included in those words? What is forgotten, what left in darkness? Everything is full, as from the Divine fullness; perfect, as from the Divine perfection. The passage contains the exact words to be used, the essential acts, the sequence of processes, an insight into the Divine nature. He commanded them to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost—that is, with confession of the Creator and of the Only-begotten, and of the Gift. For God the Father is One, from Whom are all things; and our Lord Jesus Christ the Only-begotten, through Whom are all things, is One; and the Spirit, God's Gift to us, Who pervades all things, is also One. Thus all are arranged according to powers possessed and benefits conferred—the One Power from Whom all, the One Offspring through Whom all, the One Gift Who gives us perfect hope. Nothing can be found lacking in that supreme Union which embraces, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, infinity in the Eternal, His Likeness in His express Image, our enjoyment of Him in the Gift.

1. Believers have always found their satisfaction in that Divine utterance, which our ears heard recited from the Gospel at the moment when that Power, which is its attestation, was bestowed upon us:– Go now and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Matthew 28:19-20 What element in the mystery of man's salvation is not included in those words? What is forgotten, what left in darkness? All is full, as from the Divine fullness; perfect, as from the Divine perfection. The passage contains the exact words to be used, the essential acts, the sequence of processes, an insight into the Divine nature. He bade them baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is with confession of the Creator and of the Only-begotten, and of the Gift. For God the Father is One, from Whom are all things; and our Lord Jesus Christ the Only-begotten, through Whom are all things, is One; and the Spirit, God's Gift to us, Who pervades all things, is also One. Thus all are ranged according to powers possessed and benefits conferred — the One Power from Whom all, the One Offspring through Whom all, the One Gift Who gives us perfect hope. Nothing can be found lacking in that supreme Union which embraces, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, infinity in the Eternal, His Likeness in His express Image, our enjoyment of Him in the Gift.

Believers have always drawn satisfaction from that divine statement we heard read from the Gospel just when the Power it testifies to was given to us: "Go now and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and, lo, I am with you always…"

But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to address forbidden topics, to climb dangerous heights, to speak things that cannot be spoken, to enter territory we should not enter. Faith should obey the commandments in silence, worshiping the Father, honoring the Son alongside Him, and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead, we must push the inadequate resources of our language to express thoughts that are too great for words. Other people's errors force us into the error of daring to put into human language truths that ought to remain hidden in the silent worship of the heart.

2. But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought in silence to fulfil the commandments, worshipping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Ghost, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart.

Many people have taken the clear words of Holy Scripture and imposed their own arbitrary interpretations instead of accepting the true and only meaning, defying what the words plainly say. Heresy exists in the meaning someone assigns to the text, not in the written word itself; the guilt belongs to the interpreter, not to the text. Is truth not indestructible? When we hear the name Father, doesn't that name necessarily involve sonship? The Holy Spirit is mentioned by name; must He not exist? We can no more separate fatherhood from the Father or sonship from the Son than we can deny the existence in the Holy Spirit of that gift which we receive. Yet people with twisted minds throw the whole matter into doubt and confusion, foolishly reversing the plain meaning of words and stripping the Father of His fatherhood because they want to strip the Son of His sonship. They remove the fatherhood by claiming that the Son is not a Son by physis; for a son is not of the physis of his father when the begetter and begotten do not have the same properties, and he is no son whose being is different from that of the father and unlike it. Yet in what sense is God a Father (as He is), if He has not begotten in His Son that same substance and physis which are His own?

3. For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text. Is not truth indestructible? When we hear the name Father, is not sonship involved in that Name? The Holy Ghost is mentioned by name; must He not exist? We can no more separate fatherhood from the Father or sonship from the Son than we can deny the existence in the Holy Ghost of that gift which we receive. Yet men of distorted mind plunge the whole matter in doubt and difficulty, fatuously reversing the clear meaning of words, and depriving the Father of His fatherhood because they wish to strip the Son of His sonship. They take away the fatherhood by asserting that the Son is not a Son by nature; for a son is not of the nature of his father when begetter and begotten have not the same properties, and he is no son whose being is different from that of the father, and unlike it. Yet in what sense is God a Father (as He is), if He have not begotten in His Son that same substance and nature which are His own?

Since they cannot change the facts that are recorded, they apply new principles and theories of human invention to them. Sabellius, for instance, makes the Son an extension of the Father, and turns the faith in this matter into something about words rather than reality, for he makes the same Person both Son to Himself and also Father. Ebion allows no beginning to the Son of God except from Mary, and presents Him not as first God and then man, but as first man then God. He declares that the Virgin did not receive into herself One who already existed, who had been in the beginning God the Word dwelling with God, but that through the agency of the Word she bore Flesh. By 'Word' he means not the nature of the pre-existent Only-begotten God, but only the sound of a raised voice. Similarly, certain teachers of our own day claim that the Image and Wisdom and Power of God was produced out of nothing, and in time. They do this to protect God, regarded as Father of the Son, from being lowered to the Son's level. They fear that this birth of the Son from Him would deprive Him of His glory, and so they come to God's rescue by calling His Son a creature made out of nothing, so that God may continue in solitary perfection without a Son born of Himself and sharing His nature. No wonder their doctrine of the Holy Spirit is different from ours, when they dare to subject the Giver of that Holy Spirit to creation, and change, and non-existence. In this way they destroy the consistency and completeness of the mystery of the faith. They break up the absolute unity of God by assigning differences of nature where all is clearly common to each. They deny the Father by robbing the Son of His true Sonship. They deny the Holy Spirit by being blind to the facts that we possess Him and that Christ gave Him. They betray poorly instructed souls to ruin by their boast of the logical perfection of their doctrine. They deceive their hearers by emptying terms of their meaning, though the Names remain to witness to the truth. I pass over the pitfalls of other heresies—Valentinian, Marcionite, Manichee and the rest. From time to time they catch the attention of some foolish souls and prove fatal by the very infection of their contact, one plague as destructive as another once the poison of their teaching has found its way into the hearer's thoughts.

4. Since, therefore, they cannot make any change in the facts recorded, they bring novel principles and theories of man's device to bear upon them. Sabellius, for instance, makes the Son an extension of the Father, and the faith in this regard a matter of words rather than of reality, for he makes one and the same Person, Son to Himself and also Father. Hebion allows no beginning to the Son of God except from Mary, and represents Him not as first God and then man, but as first man then God; declares that the Virgin did not receive into herself One previously existent, Who had been in the beginning God the Word dwelling with God, but that through the agency of the Word she bore Flesh; the 'Word' meaning in his opinion not the nature of the pre-existent Only-begotten God, but only the sound of an uplifted voice. Similarly certain teachers of our present day assert that the Image and Wisdom and Power of God was produced out of nothing, and in time. They do this to save God, regarded as Father of the Son, from being lowered to the Son's level. They are fearful lest this birth of the Son from Him should deprive Him of His glory, and therefore come to God's rescue by styling His Son a creature made out of nothing, in order that God may live on in solitary perfection without a Son born of Himself and partaking His nature. What wonder that their doctrine of the Holy Ghost should be different from ours, when they presume to subject the Giver of that Holy Ghost to creation, and change, and non- existence. Thus do they destroy the consistency and completeness of the mystery of the faith. They break up the absolute unity of God by assigning differences of nature where all is clearly common to Each; they deny the Father by robbing the Son of His true Sonship; they deny the Holy Ghost in their blindness to the facts that we possess Him and that Christ gave Him. They betray ill-trained souls to ruin by their boast of the logical perfection of their doctrine; they deceive their hearers by emptying terms of their meaning, though the Names remain to witness to the truth. I pass over the pitfalls of other heresies, Valentinian, Marcionite, Manichee and the rest. From time to time they catch the attention of some foolish souls and prove fatal by the very infection of their contact; one plague as destructive as another when once the poison of their teaching has found its way into the hearer's thoughts.

Their treason puts us in a difficult and dangerous position: we must make a definite pronouncement on this serious and complex matter, going beyond what Scripture explicitly states. The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do everything they can to cast doubt on their meaning. We may not add to the prescribed form, yet we must set limits to their freedom to interpret it however they wish. Since their malice, inspired by the devil's cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while keeping the Names that convey the truth, we must emphasize the truth that those Names convey. We must proclaim—exactly as we find them in the words of Scripture—the majesty and functions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and thereby prevent the heretics from stripping these Names of their association with Divine character, and force them by means of these very Names to use terms according to their proper meaning. I cannot understand what kind of mindset our opponents have, who twist the truth, darken the light, divide what is indivisible, tear what is unharmed, and dissolve the perfect unity. It may seem trivial to them to tear up Perfection, to make laws for Omnipotence, to limit Infinity; as for me, the task of answering them fills me with anxiety. My brain spins, my intellect is stunned, my very words must confess—not that I am a poor speaker, but that I am speechless. Yet a desire to undertake the task forces itself upon me; it means standing against the proud, guiding those who wander, and warning the ignorant. But the subject is inexhaustible; I can see no limit to my venture of speaking about God in terms more precise than He Himself has used. He has assigned the Names—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—which inform us of the Divine nature. Words cannot express, feeling cannot embrace, and reason cannot grasp the results of inquiry carried any further; all is ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible. Language is exhausted by the magnitude of the theme, the splendor of its brilliance blinds the gazing eye, the intellect cannot encompass its boundless extent. Still, under the necessity laid upon us, with a prayer for pardon to Him whose attributes these are, we will venture, enquire, and speak; and moreover—it is the only promise that in so grave a matter we dare to make—we will accept whatever conclusion He indicates.

5. Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter. The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do their utmost to involve the meaning in doubt. We may not on this account add to the appointed form, yet we must set a limit to their license of interpretation. Since their malice, inspired by the devil's cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while it retains the Names which convey the truth, we must emphasise the truth which those Names convey. We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning. I cannot conceive what manner of mind our opponents have, who pervert the truth, darken the light, divide the indivisible, rend the scatheless, dissolve the perfect unity. It may seem to them a light thing to tear up Perfection, to make laws for Omnipotence, to limit Infinity; as for me, the task of answering them fills me with anxiety; my brain whirls, my intellect is stunned, my very words must be a confession, not that I am weak of utterance, but that I am dumb. Yet a wish to undertake the task forces itself upon me; it means withstanding the proud, guiding the wanderer, warning the ignorant. But the subject is inexhaustible; I can see no limit to my venture of speaking concerning God in terms more precise than He Himself has used. He has assigned the Names — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — which are our information of the Divine nature. Words cannot express or feeling embrace or reason apprehend the results of enquiry carried further; all is ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible. Language is exhausted by the magnitude of the theme, the splendour of its effulgence blinds the gazing eye, the intellect cannot compass its boundless extent. Still, under the necessity that is laid upon us, with a prayer for pardon to Him Whose attributes these are, we will venture, enquire and speak; and moreover — it is the only promise that in so grave a matter we dare to make — we will accept whatever conclusion He shall indicate.

The Father is the one from whom all existence originates. He is the source of all things in Christ and through Christ. Unlike everything else, he exists by himself. He does not derive his being from outside himself, but possesses it from himself and in himself. He is infinite, because nothing contains him and he contains all things. He is eternally unconditioned by space, because he has no limits. He is eternally before time, because time is his creation. Let your imagination reach out to what you think might be God's farthest boundary, and you will find him present there. Strain as hard as you can, and there is always a further horizon to strain toward. Infinity is his property, just as the power to make such an effort is yours. Words will fail you, but his being will not be limited. Or again, go back through the pages of history, and you will find him always present. Even if numbers fail to express how far into the past you have gone, God's eternity is not reduced. Prepare your mind to comprehend him as a whole. He escapes you. God as a whole has left something within your grasp, but this something is inseparably bound up in his entirety. So you have missed the whole, since only a part remains in your hands—no, not even a part, because you are dealing with a whole that you have failed to divide. A part implies division; a whole is undivided, and God is everywhere and wholly present wherever he is. Therefore reason cannot cope with him, since no point of observation can be found outside him and since eternity is eternally his. This is a true statement of the mystery of that unfathomable nature which is expressed by the name Father: God invisible, ineffable, infinite. Let us confess by our silence that words cannot describe him. Let our senses admit they are defeated in trying to grasp him, and reason is defeated in trying to define him. Yet he has, as we said, in Father a name to indicate his nature. He is an unconditioned Father. He does not, as human beings do, receive the power of fatherhood from an external source. He is unbegotten, everlasting, inherently eternal. Only the Son knows him, for no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him, nor does anyone know the Son except the Father. Each has perfect and complete knowledge of the other. Therefore, since no one knows the Father except the Son, let our thoughts about the Father be one with the thoughts of the Son, the only faithful witness who reveals him to us.

6. It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself. He is infinite, for nothing contains Him and He contains all things; He is eternally unconditioned by space, for He is illimitable; eternally anterior to time, for time is His creation. Let imagination range to what you may suppose is God's utmost limit, and you will find Him present there; strain as you will there is always a further horizon towards which to strain. Infinity is His property, just as the power of making such effort is yours. Words will fail you, but His being will not be circumscribed. Or again, turn back the pages of history, and you will find Him ever present; should numbers fail to express the antiquity to which you have penetrated, yet God's eternity is not diminished. Gird up your intellect to comprehend Him as a whole; He eludes you. God, as a whole, has left something within your grasp, but this something is inextricably involved in His entirety. Thus you have missed the whole, since it is only a part which remains in your hands; nay, not even a part, for you are dealing with a whole which you have failed to divide. For a part implies division, a whole is undivided, and God is everywhere and wholly present wherever He is. Reason, therefore, cannot cope with Him, since no point of contemplation can be found outside Himself and since eternity is eternally His. This is a true statement of the mystery of that unfathomable nature which is expressed by the Name 'Father:' God invisible, ineffable, infinite. Let us confess by our silence that words cannot describe Him; let sense admit that it is foiled in the attempt to apprehend, and reason in the effort to define. Yet He has, as we said, in 'Father' a name to indicate His nature; He is a Father unconditioned. He does not, as men do, receive the power of paternity from an external source. He is unbegotten, everlasting, inherently eternal. To the Son only is He known, for no one knows the Father save the Son and him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him, nor yet the Son save the Father. Matthew 11:27 Each has perfect and complete knowledge of the Other. Therefore, since no one knows the Father save the Son, let our thoughts of the Father be at one with the thoughts of the Son, the only faithful Witness, Who reveals Him to us.

It is easier for me to feel this about the Father than to put it into words. I am well aware that no words are adequate to describe His attributes. We must feel that He is invisible, incomprehensible, and eternal. But to say that He is self-existent, self-originating, and self-sustained—that He is invisible, incomprehensible, and immortal—all this acknowledges His glory, hints at our meaning, and sketches our thoughts. Yet speech is powerless to tell us what God is; words cannot express the reality. When you hear that He is self-existent, human reason cannot explain such independence. We can find objects that uphold and objects that are upheld, but what exists in this way is clearly distinct from what causes its existence. Again, if you hear that He is self-originating, no instance can be found where the giver of the gift of life is identical with the life that is given. If you hear that He is immortal, then there is something that does not spring from Him and with which He has, by His very nature, no contact—and indeed, death is not the only thing that the word "immortal" claims as independent of God. If you hear that He is incomprehensible, that is as much as saying He is non-existent, since contact with Him is impossible. If you say He is invisible, then a being that does not visibly exist cannot be sure of its own existence. Thus our confession of God fails because of the defects of language; the best combination of words we can devise cannot indicate the reality and the greatness of God. The perfect knowledge of God is to know Him in such a way that we are sure we must not be ignorant of Him, yet cannot describe Him. We must believe, must apprehend, must worship; and such acts of devotion must stand in place of definition.

7. It is easier for me to feel this concerning the Father than to say it. I am well aware that no words are adequate to describe His attributes. We must feel that He is invisible, incomprehensible, eternal. But to say that He is self-existent and self-originating and self-sustained, that He is invisible and incomprehensible and immortal; all this is an acknowledgment of His glory, a hint of our meaning, a sketch of our thoughts, but speech is powerless to tell us what God is, words cannot express the reality. You hear that He is self-existent; human reason cannot explain such independence. We can find objects which uphold, and objects which are upheld, but that which thus exists is obviously distinct from that which is the cause of its existence. Again, if you hear that He is self-originating, no instance can be found in which the giver of the gift of life is identical with the life that is given. If you hear that He is immortal, then there is something which does not spring from Him and with which He has, by His very nature, no contact; and, indeed, death is not the only thing which this word ' immortal ' claims as independent of God. If you hear that He is incomprehensible, that is as much as to say that He is non-existent, since contact with Him is impossible. If you say that He is invisible, a being that does not visibly exist cannot be sure of its own existence. Thus our confession of God fails through the defects of language; the best combination of words we can devise cannot indicate the reality and the greatness of God. The perfect knowledge of God is so to know Him that we are sure we must not be ignorant of Him, yet cannot describe Him. We must believe, must apprehend, must worship; and such acts of devotion must stand in lieu of definition.

We have now left the dangers of a shoreless coast and entered the storms of the open sea. We can neither safely go forward nor safely go back, yet the path ahead has greater difficulties than the one behind. The Father is what He is, and as He is revealed, so we must believe. The mind pulls back in fear from speaking about the Son; with every word I am afraid I might fall into heresy. For He is the Offspring of the Unbegotten, One from One, true from true, living from living, perfect from perfect; the Power of Power, the Wisdom of Wisdom, the Glory of Glory, the Likeness of the invisible God, the Image of the Unbegotten Father. Yet how can we understand that the Only-begotten is the Offspring of the Unbegotten? Again and again the Father declares from heaven, This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased. This is no splitting or separation, for He who begot is without passions, and He who was born is the Image of the invisible God and testifies, The Father is in Me and I in the Father. It is no mere adoption, for He is the true Son of God and declares, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. Nor did He come into existence by obeying a command as created things did, for He is the Only-begotten of the One God; and He has life in Himself, just as He who begot Him has life, for He says, As the Father has life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son to have life in Himself. Nor is there a portion of the Father residing in the Son, for the Son testifies, All things that the Father has are Mine, and again, And all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and the Apostle testifies, For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and by the nature of things a portion cannot possess the whole. He is the perfect Son of the perfect Father, for He Who has all has given all to Him. Yet we must not think that the Father did not give because He still possesses, or that He has lost because He gave to the Son.

8. We have now exchanged the perils of a harbourless coast for the storms of the open sea. We can neither safely advance nor safely retreat, yet the way that lies before us has greater hardships than that which lies behind. The Father is what He is, and as He is manifested, so we must believe. The mind shrinks in dread from treating of the Son; at every word I tremble lest I be betrayed into treason. For He is the Offspring of the Unbegotten, One from One, true from true, living from living, perfect from perfect; the Power of Power, the Wisdom of Wisdom, the Glory of Glory, the Likeness of the invisible God, the Image of the Unbegotten Father. Yet in what sense can we conceive that the Only-begotten is the Offspring of the Unbegotten? Repeatedly the Father cries from heaven, This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased. It is no rending or severance, for He that begot is without passions, and He that was born is the Image of the invisible God and bears witness, The Father is in Me and I in the Father. John 10:38 It is no mere adoption, for He is the true Son of God and cries, He that has seen Me has seen the Father also. Nor did He come into existence in obedience to a command as did created things, for He is the Only-begotten of the One God; and He has life in Himself, even as He that begot Him has life, for He says, As the Father has life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son to have life in Himself. Nor is there a portion of the Father resident in the Son, for the Son bears witness, All things that the Father has are Mine, and again, And all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and the Apostle testifies, For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily Colossians 2:9; and by the nature of things a portion cannot possess the whole. He is the perfect Son of the perfect Father, for He Who has all has given all to Him. Yet we must not imagine that the Father did not give, because He still possesses, or that He has lost, because He gave to the Son.

The way this birth happens is therefore a secret known only to the Father and the Son. If anyone blames his own personal limitations for his failure to solve the mystery—even though he is certain that Father and Son stand in these relations to each other—he will be even more troubled to hear me confess my own ignorance. I too am in the dark, yet I ask no questions. I find comfort in the fact that Archangels share my ignorance, that Angels have not heard the explanation, that worlds do not contain it, that no prophet has discovered it and no Apostle searched for it, that the Son Himself has not revealed it. Let such pathetic complaints stop. Whoever you are who search into these mysteries, I do not tell you to continue your exploration of height and breadth and depth. Instead, I ask you to accept patiently your ignorance of the mode of divine generation, since you do not even know how God's creatures come into existence. Answer me this one question: Do your senses give you any evidence that you yourself were begotten? Can you explain the process by which you became a father? I am not asking where you got your perception, how you obtained life, where your reason comes from, what the nature of your senses of smell, touch, sight, and hearing is. The fact that we use all these is evidence that they exist. What I am asking is: How do you give them to your children? How do you implant the senses, give light to the eyes, establish the mind? Tell me, if you can. You have, then, powers that you do not understand; you give gifts that you cannot comprehend. You are calmly indifferent to the mysteries of your own being, yet profanely impatient about ignorance concerning the mysteries of God's.

9. The manner of this birth is therefore a secret confined to the Two. If any one lays upon his personal incapacity his failure to solve the mystery, in spite of the certainty that Father and Son stand to Each Other in those relations, he will be still more pained at the ignorance to which I confess. I, too, am in the dark, yet I ask no questions. I look for comfort to the fact that Archangels share my ignorance, that Angels have not heard the explanation, and worlds do not contain it, that no prophet has espied it and no Apostle sought for it, that the Son Himself has not revealed it. Let such pitiful complaints cease. Whoever you are that search into these mysteries, I do not bid you resume your exploration of height and breadth and depth; I ask you rather to acquiesce patiently in your ignorance of the mode of Divine generation, seeing that you know not how His creatures come into existence. Answer me this one question:– Do your senses give you any evidence that you yourself were begotten? Can you explain the process by which you became a father? I do not ask whence you drew perception, how you obtained life, whence your reason comes, what is the nature of your senses of smell, touch, sight, hearing; the fact that we have the use of all these is the evidence that they exist. What I ask is:– How do you give them to your children? How do you ingraft the senses, lighten the eyes, implant the mind? Tell me, if you can. You have, then, powers which you do not understand, you impart gifts which you cannot comprehend. You are calmly indifferent to the mysteries of your own being, profanely impatient of ignorance concerning the mysteries of God's.

Listen then to the Unbegotten Father, listen to the Only-begotten Son. Hear his words: The Father is greater than I, and I and the Father are one, and He that has seen me has seen the Father also, and The Father is in me and I in the Father, and I went out from the Father, and Who is in the bosom of the Father, and Whatsoever the Father has he has delivered to the Son, and The Son has life in himself, even as the Father has in himself. Hear in these words the Son, the Image, the Wisdom, the Power, the Glory of God. Next, notice the Holy Spirit proclaiming Who shall declare his generation? Note the Lord's assurance: No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and he to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Enter into the mystery, plunge into the darkness that surrounds that birth, where you will be alone with God the Unbegotten and God the Only-begotten. Make your start, continue, persevere. I know that you will not reach the goal, but I will rejoice at your progress. For he who devoutly walks an endless road, though he reaches no conclusion, will benefit from his efforts. Reason will fail for lack of words, but when it comes to a halt it will be the better for the effort made.

10. Listen then to the Unbegotten Father, listen to the Only-begotten Son. Hear His words, The Father is greater than I John 14:28, and I and the Father are One, and He that has seen Me has seen the Father also, and The Father is in Me and I in the Father, and I went out from the Father, and Who is in the bosom of the Father, and Whatsoever the Father has He has delivered to the Son, and The Son has life in Himself, even as the Father has in Himself. John 5:26 Hear in these words the Son, the Image, the Wisdom, the Power, the Glory of God. Next mark the Holy Ghost proclaiming Who shall declare His generation Isaiah 53:8? Note the Lord's assurance, No one knows the Son save the Father, neither does any know the Father save the Son and He to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Matthew 11:27 Penetrate into the mystery, plunge into the darkness which shrouds that birth, where you will be alone with God the Unbegotten and God the Only-begotten. Make your start, continue, persevere. I know that you will not reach the goal, but I shall rejoice at your progress. For He who devoutly treads an endless road, though he reach no conclusion, will profit by his exertions. Reason will fail for want of words, but when it comes to a stand it will be the better for the effort made.

11. The Son draws His life from that Father who truly has life: the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten, Offspring from Parent, Living from Living. As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself. The Son is perfect from Him who is perfect, for He is whole from Him who is whole. This is not a division or separation, for Each is in the Other, and the fullness of the Godhead is in the Son. Incomprehensible is begotten of Incomprehensible, for no one else knows Them, but Each knows the Other. Invisible is begotten of Invisible, for the Son is the Image of the invisible God, and whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father also. There is a distinction, for They are Father and Son—not that Their Divinity is different in kind, for Both are One, God of God, One God Only-begotten of One God Unbegotten. They are not two Gods, but One of One; not two Unbegotten, for the Son is born of the Unborn. There is no diversity, for the life of the living God is in the living Christ. This is what I have decided to say concerning the nature of Their Divinity—not imagining that I have managed to produce a complete summary of the faith, but recognizing that the subject is inexhaustible. "So faith," you object, "has no service to perform, since there is nothing it can comprehend." Not so. The proper service of faith is to grasp and confess the truth that it is incapable of fully comprehending its Object.

11. The Son draws His life from that Father Who truly has life; the Only begotten from the Unbegotten, Offspring from Parent, Living from Living. As the Father has life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself. John 5:26 The Son is perfect from Him that is perfect, for He is whole from Him that is whole. This is no division or severance, for Each is in the Other, and the fullness of the Godhead is in the Son. Incomprehensible is begotten of Incomprehensible, for none else knows Them, but Each knows the Other; Invisible is begotten of Invisible, for the Son is the Image of the invisible God, and he that has seen the Son has seen the Father also. There is a distinction, for They are Father and Son; not that Their Divinity is different in kind, for Both are One, God of God, One God Only begotten of One God Unbegotten. They are not two Gods, but One of One; not two Unbegotten, for the Son is born of the Unborn. There is no diversity, for the life of the living God is in the living Christ. So much I have resolved to say concerning the nature of their Divinity; not imagining that I have succeeded in making a summary of the faith, but recognising that the theme is inexhaustible. So faith, you object, has no service to render, since there is nothing that it can comprehend. Not so; the proper service of faith is to grasp and confess the truth that it is incompetent to comprehend its Object.

I must say something more about the mysterious generation of the Son—or rather, this "something more" is everything. I tremble, I hesitate, my abilities fail me, I don't know where to begin. I cannot tell the time of the Son's birth, yet it would be impious not to be certain of the fact itself. Whom shall I ask for help? Whom shall I call on? From what books shall I borrow the language needed to explain such a difficult problem? Should I search through Greek philosophy? No! I have read, "Where is the wise man? Where is the inquirer of this world?" In this matter, then, the philosophers of the world and the wise men of paganism are silent, for they have rejected the wisdom of God. Should I turn to the scribe of the law? He is in darkness, for the cross of Christ is an offense to him. Should I perhaps ask you to close your eyes to heresy and pass it by in silence, on the grounds that we show sufficient reverence to the One we preach if we simply believe that lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the lame ran, the paralyzed stood, the blind in general received sight, the man born blind was given eyes, demons were driven out, the sick recovered, and the dead lived? The heretics confess all this, and yet they perish.

12. It remains to say something more concerning the mysterious generation of the Son; or rather this something more is everything. I quiver, I linger, my powers fail, I know not where to begin. I cannot tell the time of the Son's birth; it were impious not to be certain of the fact. Whom shall I entreat? Whom shall I call to my aid? From what books shall I borrow the terms needed to state so hard a problem? Shall I ransack the philosophy of Greece? No! I have read, Where is the wise? Where is the enquirer of this world 1 Corinthians 1:20? In this matter, then, the world's philosophers, the wise men of paganism, are dumb: for they have rejected the wisdom of God. Shall I turn to the Scribe of the law? He is in darkness, for the Cross of Christ is an offense to him. Shall I, perchance, bid you shut your eyes to heresy, and pass it by in silence, on the ground that sufficient reverence is shown to Him Whom we preach if we believe that lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the lame ran, the palsied stood, the blind (in general) received sight, the blind from his birth had eyes given to him, devils were routed, the sick recovered, the dead lived. The heretics confess all this, and perish.

Look now at something no less miraculous than lame people running, blind people seeing, the flight of demons, or life from the dead. Standing beside me to guide me through the difficulties I have outlined is a poor fisherman—ignorant, uneducated, fishing lines in hand, clothes dripping, feet muddy, every inch a sailor. Consider and decide whether it would be a greater feat to raise the dead or to give an untrained mind knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." What does this "In the beginning was" mean? He reaches backward across the expanses of time; centuries are left behind, ages are canceled. Fix in your mind whatever date you want for this beginning—you miss the mark, because even then He of whom we are speaking already was. Survey the universe, note carefully what is written of it: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." This word "beginning" fixes the moment of creation; you can assign a date to an event that is definitely stated to have happened in the beginning. But this fisherman of mine, unlettered and unread, is not bound by time, not daunted by its immensity; he pierces beyond the beginning. For his "was" has no limit of time and no commencement; the uncreated Word was in the beginning.

13. Look now to see a thing not less miraculous than lame men running, blind men seeing, the flight of devils, the life from the dead. There stands by my side, to guide me through the difficulties which I have enunciated, a poor fisherman, ignorant, uneducated, fishing-lines in hand, clothes dripping, muddy feet, every inch a sailor. Consider and decide whether it were the greater feat to raise the dead or impart to an untrained mind the knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, In the beginning was the Word. John 1:1 What means this In the beginning was? He ranges backward over the spaces of time, centuries are left behind, ages are cancelled. Fix in your mind what date you will for this beginning; you miss the mark, for even then He, of Whom we are speaking, was. Survey the universe, note well what is written of it, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 This word beginning fixes the moment of creation; you can assign its date to an event which is definitely stated to have happened in the beginning. But this fisherman of mine, unlettered and unread, is untrammelled by time, undaunted by its immensity; he pierces beyond the beginning. For his was has no limit of time and no commencement; the uncreated Word was in the beginning.

14. But perhaps we will find that our fisherman has departed from the terms of the problem he set out to solve. He has freed the Word from the limitations of time; but something that is free lives its own life and owes obedience to no one. So let us pay close attention to what comes next: "And the Word was with God." We discover that the Word, which existed before the beginning, exists with God unconditioned by time. The Word that was, is with God. The one we cannot find when we search for his origin in time is present all along with the Creator of time. This time our fisherman has escaped; perhaps he will fall victim to the difficulties that still lie ahead of him.

14. But perhaps we shall find that our fisherman has been guilty of departure from the terms of the problem proposed for solution. He has set the Word free from the limitations of time; that which is free lives its own life and is bound to no obedience. Let us, therefore, pay our best attention to what follows:– And the Word was with God. We find that it is with God that the Word, Which was before the beginning, exists unconditioned by time. The Word, Which was, is with God. He Who is absent when we seek for His origin in time is present all the while with the Creator of time. For this once our fisherman has escaped; perhaps he will succumb to the difficulties which await him.

15. You will argue that a word is simply the sound of a voice—a naming of things, an expression of thoughts. Yet this Word was with God and was in the beginning; the expression of the eternal Thinker's thoughts must be eternal. For now I will give you a brief answer on the fisherman's behalf, until we see what defense he makes for his own simplicity. The nature of a word is that it is first a potentiality, then a past event; it exists only while it is being heard. How can we say "In the beginning was the Word" when a word neither exists before nor continues after a specific point in time? Can we even say there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker's mouth nonexistent until they are spoken and vanished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of speaking there is a change from the sound that begins a word to the sound that ends it. That is the reply that suggests itself to me as a bystander. But your opponent the Fisherman has his own answer. He will begin by reproving you for your inattention. Even if your unpracticed ear failed to catch the first clause, "In the beginning was the Word," why complain about what comes next, "And the Word was with God"? Did you hear "And the Word was in God"—the pronouncement of some profound philosophy? Or does your provincial dialect make no distinction between "in" and "with"? The assertion is that what was in the beginning was with, not in, Another. But I will not argue from the beginning of the sentence; what follows can take care of itself. Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: "And the Word was God." Your argument that the Word is the sound of a voice, the expression of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound; a Being, not a speech; God, not a nonentity.

15. For you will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thoughts. This Word was with God, and was in the beginning; the expression of the eternal Thinker's thoughts must be eternal. For the present I will give you a brief answer of my own on the fisherman's behalf, till we see what defense he has to make for his own simplicity. The nature, then, of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, In the beginning was the Word, when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker's mouth non-existent until they are spoken, and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound which commences to that which ends a word. Such is the reply that suggests itself to me as a bystander. But your opponent the Fisherman has an answer of his own. He will begin by reproving you for your inattention. Even though your unpractised ear failed to catch the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, why complain of the next, And the Word was with God? Was it And the Word was in God that you heard — the dictum of some profound philosophy? Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that Which was in the beginning was with, not in, Another. But I will not argue from the beginning of the sentence; the sequel can take care of itself. Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: — And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.

But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, "And the Word was God"; yet I, whom the prophets have taught that God is One. To save me from further fears, give me, friend Fisherman, a fuller imparting of this great mystery. Show that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. He continues, "He was in the beginning with God." This phrase "He was in the beginning" removes the limit of time; the word "God" shows that He is more than a voice; that "He was with God" proves that He neither encroaches nor is encroached upon, for His identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and He is clearly stated to be present with the One Unbegotten God as God, His One and Only-begotten Son.

16. But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, And the Word was God; I, whom the prophets have taught that God is One. To save me from further fears, give me, friend Fisherman, a fuller imparting of this great mystery. Show that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. He continues, He was in the beginning with God. This He was in the beginning removes the limit of time; the word God shows that He is more than a voice; that He is with God proves that He neither encroaches nor is encroached upon, for His identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and He is clearly stated to be present with the One Unbegotten God as God, His One and Only-begotten Son.

We are still waiting, Fisherman, for your full description of the Word. Perhaps He was in the beginning, but maybe He did not exist before the beginning. I will answer this on my Fisherman's behalf as well. The Word could not be other than He was; that "was" is unconditional and unlimited. But what does the Fisherman say for himself? All things were made through Him. Therefore, since nothing exists apart from Him through Whom the universe came into being, He, the Author of all things, must have an immeasurable existence. For time is a cognizable and divisible measure of extension—not in space, but in duration. All things are from Him, without exception; therefore time itself is His creature.

17. We are still waiting, Fisherman, for your full description of the Word. He was in the beginning, it may be said, but perhaps He was not before the beginning. To this also I will furnish a reply on my Fisherman's behalf. The Word could not be other than He was; that was is unconditional and unlimited. But what says the Fisherman for himself? All things were made through Him. Thus, since nothing exists apart from Him through Whom the universe came into being, He, the Author of all things, must have an immeasurable existence. For time is a cognisable and divisible measure of extension, not in space, but in duration. All things are from Him, without exception; time then itself is His creature.

But, Fisherman, someone will object that you are being reckless and extravagant in your language. They will say that "All things were made through Him" needs to be qualified. After all, there is the Unbegotten, who was made by no one, and there is also the Son, who was begotten from the Unborn Father. This statement "All things" seems unguarded, allowing for no exceptions. While we fall silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, you interrupt with "And without Him was nothing made." You have restored the Author of the Godhead to His proper place while at the same time proclaiming that He has a Companion. From your statement that nothing was made without Him, I learn that He was not alone. The One through whom the work was done is one person; the One without whom it was not done is another person. A distinction is being drawn between the Creator and the Companion.

18. But, my Fisherman, the objection will be raised that you are reckless and extravagant in your language; that All things were made through Him needs qualification. There is the Unbegotten, made of none; there is also the Son, begotten of the Unborn Father. This All things is an unguarded statement, admitting no exceptions. While we are silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, do you break in with, And without Him was nothing made. You have restored the Author of the Godhead to His place, while proclaiming that He has a Companion. From your saying that nothing was made without Him, I learn that He was not alone. He through Whom the work was done is One; He without Whom it was not done is Another: a distinction is drawn between Creator and Companion.

My reverence for the One Unbegotten Creator troubled me, in case your broad claim that all things were made by the Word had included Him as well. You removed my fears with your statement "Without Him was nothing made." Yet this same "Without Him was nothing made" creates a new problem and confusion. If that's the case, then there was something made by that Other—not made, it's true, without Him. If the Other did make anything, even if the Word was present when it happened, then it cannot be true that "through Him all things were made." Being the Creator's companion is one thing; being the Creator Himself is quite another. I could have found my own answers to the earlier objections, but in this case, Fisherman, I can only turn immediately to your words: "All things were made through Him." And now I understand, because the Apostle has explained it to me: "Things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all are through Him and in Him" (Colossians 1:16).

19. Reverence for the One Unbegotten Creator distressed me, lest in your sweeping assertion that all things were made by the Word you had included Him. You have banished my fears by your Without Him was nothing made. Yet this same Without Him was nothing made brings trouble and distraction. There was, then, something made by that Other; not made, it is true, without Him. If the Other did make anything, even though the Word were present at the making, then it is untrue that through Him all things were made. It is one thing to be the Creator's Companion, quite another to be the Creator's Self. I could find answers of my own to the previous objections; in this case, Fisherman, I can only turn at once to your words, All things were made through Him. And now I understand, for the Apostle has enlightened me:– Things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all are through Him and in Him Colossians 1:16.

Since all things were made through Him, help us understand what was made not without Him. That which was made in Him is life. What was made in Him was certainly not made without Him, because what was made in Him was also made through Him. All things were created in Him and through Him. They were created in Him because He was born as God the Creator. Again, nothing that was made in Him was made without Him, because God the Begotten was life and was born as Life, not made life after His birth. There are not two elements in Him, one inborn and one added later. There is no gap in His case between birth and maturity. None of the things created in Him was made without Him, for He is the Life that made their creation possible. Moreover, God, the Son of God, became God by virtue of His birth, not after He was born. Being born the Living from the Living, the True from the True, the Perfect from the Perfect, He was born in full possession of His powers. He did not need to learn later what His birth was, but was conscious of His Godhead by the very fact that He was born as God of God. "I and the Father are One" are the words of the Only-begotten Son of the Unbegotten. It is the voice of the One God proclaiming Himself to be Father and Son—Father speaking in the Son and Son in the Father. Hence also "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also"; hence "All that the Father has, He has given to the Son"; hence "As the Father has life in Himself so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself"; hence "No one knows the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father"; hence "In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

20. Since, then, all things were made through Him, come to our help and tell us what it was that was made not without Him. That which was made in Him is life. That which was made in Him was certainly not made without Him; for that which was made in Him was also made through Him. All things were created in Him and through Him. Colossians 1:16 They were created in Him, for He was born as God the Creator. Again, nothing that was made in Him was made without Him, for the reason that God the Begotten was life, and was born as Life, not made life after His birth; for there are not two elements in Him, one inborn and one afterwards conferred. There is no interval in His case between birth and maturity. None of the things that were created in Him was made without Him, for He is the Life which made their creation possible. Moreover God, the Son of God, became God by virtue of His birth, not after He was born. Being born the Living from the Living, the True from the True, the Perfect from the Perfect, He was born in full possession of His powers. He needed not to learn in after time what His birth was, but was conscious of His Godhead by the very fact that He was born as God of God. I and the Father are One John 10:30, are the words of the Only-begotten Son of the Unbegotten. It is the voice of the One God proclaiming Himself to be Father and Son; Father speaking in the Son and Son in the Father. Hence also He that has seen Me has seen the Father also; hence All that the Father has, He has given to the Son; hence As the Father has life in Himself so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself; hence No one knows the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father Matthew 11:27; hence In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

This Life is the Light of humanity, the Light that shines in the darkness. To console us regarding the inability to describe His generation that the prophet speaks of, the Fisherman adds, "And the darkness did not comprehend Him." Human reason alone was defeated and silenced; the Fisherman who rested on the Lord's chest was taught to express the mystery. His language is not ordinary language, for he deals with things that are not of this world. Let us understand what it is, if there is any teaching you can draw from his words beyond their plain meaning; if you can express in different terms the truth we have drawn out, make them known. If there is none—indeed, because there are none—let us reverently accept this teaching of the fisherman and recognize in his words the oracles of God. Let us hold fast in worship to the true confession of Father and Son, Unbegotten and Only-begotten ineffably, Whose majesty surpasses all expression and all understanding. Let us, like John, rest on the chest of the Lord Jesus, so that we too may understand and proclaim the mystery.

21. This Life is the Light of men, the Light which lightens the darkness. To comfort us for that powerlessness to describe His generation of which the prophet speaks Isaiah 53:8, the Fisherman adds, And the darkness comprehended Him not. John 1:4 The language of unaided reason was baffled and silenced; the Fisherman who lay on the bosom of the Lord was taught to express the mystery. His language is not the world's language, for He deals with things that are not of the world. Let us know what it is, if there be any teaching that you can extract from his words, more than their plain sense conveys; if you can translate into other terms the truth we have elicited, publish them abroad. If there be none — indeed, because there are none — let us accept with reverence this teaching of the fisherman, and recognise in his words the oracles of God. Let us cling in adoration to the true confession of Father and Son, Unbegotten and Only-begotten ineffably, Whose majesty defies all expression and all perception. Let us, like John, lie on the bosom of the Lord Jesus, that we too may understand and proclaim the mystery.

This faith, and every part of it, is impressed upon us by the evidence of the Gospels, by the teaching of the Apostles, and by the futility of the treacherous attacks that heretics make on every side. The foundation stands firm and unshaken in the face of winds, rains, and torrents. Storms cannot overthrow it, dripping waters cannot hollow it out, and floods cannot sweep it away. Its excellence is proved by the failure of countless assaults to damage it. Certain remedies are so compounded as to be valuable not merely against some single disease but against all—they are universally effective. So it is with the Catholic faith. It is not a medicine for some special illness, but for every ill. Virulence cannot master it, numbers cannot defeat it, and complexity cannot baffle it. One and unchanging, it faces and conquers all its enemies. It is marvelous that one form of words should contain a remedy for every disease, a statement of truth to confront every contrivance of falsehood. Let heresy gather its forces and every sect come forth to battle. Let our answer to their challenge be this: there is One Unbegotten God the Father, and One Only-begotten Son of God, perfect Offspring of perfect Parent. The Son was begotten by no lessening of the Father or subtraction from His Substance, but He Who possesses all things begot an all-possessing Son—a Son not emanating nor proceeding from the Father, but compact of and inherent in the whole Divinity of Him Who, wherever He is present, is present eternally. He is One free from time, unlimited in duration, since by Him all things were made, and indeed, He could not be confined within a limit created by Himself. Such is the Catholic and Apostolic Faith which the Gospel has taught us and we affirm.

22. This faith, and every part of it, is impressed upon us by the evidence of the Gospels, by the teaching of the Apostles, by the futility of the treacherous attacks which heretics make on every side. The foundation stands firm and unshaken in face of winds and rains and torrents; storms cannot overthrow it, nor dripping waters hollow it, nor floods sweep it away. Its excellence is proved by the failure of countless assaults to impair it. Certain remedies are so compounded as to be of value not merely against some single disease but against all; they are of universal efficacy. So it is with the Catholic faith. It is not a medicine for some special malady, but for every ill; virulence cannot master, nor numbers defeat, nor complexity baffle it. One and unchanging it faces and conquers all its foes. Marvellous it is that one form of words should contain a remedy for every disease, a statement of truth to confront every contrivance of falsehood. Let heresy muster its forces and every sect come forth to battle. Let our answer to their challenge be that there is One Unbegotten God the Father, and One Only-begotten Son of God, perfect Offspring of perfect Parent; that the Sun was begotten by no lessening of the Father or subtraction from His Substance, but that He Who possesses all things begot an all-possessing Son; a Son not emanating nor proceeding from the Father, but compact of, and inherent in, the whole Divinity, of Him Who wherever He is present is present eternally; One free from time, unlimited in duration, since by Him all things were made, and, indeed, He could not be confined within a limit created by Himself. Such is the Catholic and Apostolic Faith which the Gospel has taught us and we avow.

Let Sabellius, if he dares, confuse Father and Son as two names with one meaning, making them not a Unity but One Person. He will receive a prompt answer from the Gospels, not once or twice, but repeated often: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. He will hear the words, The Father is greater than I, and I go to the Father, and Father, I thank You, and Glorify Me, Father, and You are the Son of the living God. Let Ebion try to undermine the faith, who allows the Son of God no existence before the Virgin's womb, and sees in Him the Word only after His life as flesh had begun. We will tell him to read again, Father, glorify Me with Your own Self with that glory which I had with You before the world was, and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and All things were made through Him, and He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. Let the preachers whose apostleship is of the newest fashion—an apostleship of Antichrist—come forward and pour their mockery and insult upon the Son of God. They must hear, I came out from the Father and The Son in the Father's bosom, and I and the Father are One, and I in the Father, and the Father in Me. And finally, if they become angry, as the Jews did, because Christ claimed God as His own Father, making Himself equal with God, they must accept the answer He gave the Jews: Believe My works, that the Father is in Me and I in the Father. Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blessed rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth: You are the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection that twisted cleverness or bitter treachery may bring against the truth.

23. Let Sabellius, if he dare, confound Father and Son as two names with one meaning, making of them not Unity but One Person. He shall have a prompt answer from the Gospels, not once or twice, but often repeated, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. He shall hear the words, The Father is greater than I John 14:28, and I go to the Father, and Father, I thank You, and Glorify Me, Father, and You are the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:17 Let Hebion try to sap the faith, who allows the Son of God no life before the Virgin's womb, and sees in Him the Word only after His life as flesh had begun. We will bid him read again, Father, glorify Me with Your own Self with that glory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5, and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and All things were made through Him, and He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. Let the preachers whose apostleship is of the newest fashion — an apostleship of Antichrist — come forward and pour their mockery and insult upon the Son of God. They must hear, I came out from the Father and The Son in the Father's bosom, and I and the Father are One, and I in the Father, and the Father in Me. And lastly, if they be wrath, as the Jews were, that Christ should claim God for His own Father, making Himself equal with God, they must take the answer which He gave the Jews, Believe My works, that the Father is in Me and I in the Father. Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, You are the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16 On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth.

In what remains we have the appointment of the Father's will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world—these things are our salvation. For the sake of humanity the Son of God was born of the Virgin and of the Holy Spirit. In this process He ministered to Himself. By His own power—the power of God—which overshadowed her, He planted the beginning of His Body and entered the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did this so that by His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly nature, and that through this union there might come into being a sanctified Body of all humanity. In this way, through that Body which He chose to take on, all humanity might be hidden in Him, and He in return, through His invisible existence, might be reproduced in all. Thus the invisible Image of God did not scorn the shame that marks the beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage: through conception, birth, crying, the cradle, and each successive humiliation.

24. In what remains we have the appointment of the Father's will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world; these things are our salvation. For the sake of mankind the Son of God was born of the Virgin and of the Holy Ghost. In this process He ministered to Himself; by His own power — the power of God — which overshadowed her He sowed the beginning of His Body, and entered on the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did it that by His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly nature, and that through this commingling there might come into being a hallowed Body of all humanity; that so through that Body which He was pleased to assume all mankind might be hid in Him, and He in return, through His unseen existence, be reproduced in all. Thus the invisible Image of God scorned not the shame which marks the beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage; through conception, birth, wailing, cradle and each successive humiliation.

What worthy return can we make for such great condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin's womb and grew and took on the form of poor humanity. He who upholds the universe, within whom and through whom are all things, was brought forth by ordinary childbirth. He at whose voice archangels and angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are dissolved, was heard in the cries of an infant. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, whom sight and feeling and touch cannot measure, was wrapped in a cradle. If anyone considers all this unworthy of God, the greater must he acknowledge his debt for the benefit received, the less such condescension befits the majesty of God. He by whom man was made had nothing to gain by becoming man; it was our gain that God was incarnate and dwelt among us, making all flesh his home by taking upon himself the flesh of One. We were raised because he was lowered; shame to him was glory to us. He, being God, made flesh his dwelling place, and we in return are lifted anew from the flesh to God.

25. What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin's womb and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was wrapped in a cradle. If any man deem all this unworthy of God, the greater must he own his debt for the benefit conferred the less such condescension befits the majesty of God. He by Whom man was made had nothing to gain by becoming Man; it was our gain that God was incarnate and dwelt among us, making all flesh His home by taking upon Him the flesh of One. We were raised because He was lowered; shame to Him was glory to us. He, being God, made flesh His residence, and we in return are lifted anew from the flesh to God.

But in case refined minds are troubled by the cradle and crying, the birth and conception, we must give God the glory that each of these contains, so that we may approach His self-humbling with souls properly filled with awareness of His right to rule, and not forget His majesty in His condescension. Let us observe, therefore, who attended His conception. An angel speaks to Zechariah; fertility is given to the barren woman; the priest comes out mute from the place of incense; John breaks forth into speech while still confined within his mother's womb; an angel blesses Mary and promises that she, a virgin, will be the mother of the Son of God. Conscious of her virginity, she is troubled by this difficult thing; the angel explains to her the mighty working of God, saying, "The Holy Spirit shall come from above into you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you." The Holy Spirit, descending from above, made holy the Virgin's womb, and breathing into it (for "The Spirit blows where it wills"), mingled Himself with the fleshly physis of man, and forcibly and powerfully annexed that foreign domain. And in case failure should result from weakness of the human structure, the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin, strengthening her feebleness in the form of a cloud cast around her, so that the shadow, which was the might of God, might fortify her bodily frame to receive the procreative power of the Spirit. Such is the glory of the conception.

26. But lest perchance fastidious minds be exercised by cradle and wailing, birth and conception, we must render to God the glory which each of these contains, that we may approach His self-abasement with souls duly filled with His claim to reign, and not forget His majesty in His condescension. Let us note, therefore, who were attendant on His conception. An Angel speaks to Zacharias; fertility is given to the barren; the priest comes forth dumb from the place of incense; John bursts forth into speech while yet confined within his mother's womb; an Angel blesses Mary and promises that she, a virgin, shall be the mother of the Son of God. Conscious of her virginity, she is distressed at this hard thing; the Angel explains to her the mighty working of God, saying, The Holy Ghost shall come from above into you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Luke 1:35 The Holy Ghost, descending from above, hallowed the Virgin's womb, and breathing therein (for The Spirit blows where it lists John 3:8), mingled Himself with the fleshly nature of man, and annexed by force and might that foreign domain. And, lest through weakness of the human structure failure should ensue, the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin, strengthening her feebleness in semblance of a cloud cast round her, that the shadow, which was the might of God, might fortify her bodily frame to receive the procreative power of the Spirit. Such is the glory of the conception.

Now let us consider the glory that accompanies the birth, the crying, and the cradle. The Angel tells Joseph that the Virgin will bear a Son, and that Son will be named Emmanuel, which means God with us. The Spirit foretells it through the prophet, the Angel testifies to it: He who is born is God with us. The light of a new star shines for the Magi; a heavenly sign leads the Lord of heaven. An Angel brings the shepherds news that Christ the Lord is born, the Savior of the world. A multitude of the heavenly host gather together to sing praise for that birth; the rejoicing of the divine company proclaims the completion of the mighty work. Then glory to God in heaven and peace on earth to people of good will is announced. And now the Magi come and worship Him wrapped in swaddling clothes; after a life devoted to mystical rites of empty philosophy they bow the knee before a Baby laid in His cradle. Thus the Magi bow down to reverence the weaknesses of infancy; His cries are greeted by the heavenly joy of angels; the Spirit who inspired the prophet, the announcing Angel, the light of the new star—all serve around Him. In this way the Holy Spirit's descent and the overshadowing power of the Most High brought Him to His birth. The inward reality is vastly different from the outward appearance; the eye sees one thing, the soul another. A virgin gives birth; her child is of God. An Infant cries; angels are heard in praise. There are rough swaddling clothes; God is being worshiped. The glory of His Majesty is not lost when He takes on the lowliness of flesh.

27. And now let us consider the glory which accompanies the birth, the wailing and the cradle. The Angel tells Joseph that the Virgin shall bear a Son, and that Son shall be named Emmanuel, that is, God with us. The Spirit foretells it through the prophet, the Angel bears witness; He that is born is God with us. The light of a new star shines forth for the Magi; a heavenly sign escorts the Lord of heaven. An Angel brings to the shepherds the news that Christ the Lord is born, the Saviour of the world. A multitude of the heavenly host flock together to sing the praise of that childbirth; the rejoicing of the Divine company proclaims the fulfilment of the mighty work. Then glory to God in heaven, and peace on earth to men of good will is announced. And now the Magi come and worship Him wrapped in swaddling clothes; after a life devoted to mystic rites of vain philosophy they bow the knee before a Babe laid in His cradle. Thus the Magi stoop to reverence the infirmities of Infancy; its cries are saluted by the heavenly joy of angels; the Spirit Who inspired the prophet, the heralding Angel, the light of the new star, all minister around Him. In such wise was it that the Holy Ghost's descent and the overshadowing power of the Most High brought Him to His birth. The inward reality is widely different from the outward appearance; the eye sees one thing, the soul another. A virgin bears; her child is of God. An Infant wails; angels are heard in praise. There are coarse swaddling clothes; God is being worshipped. The glory of His Majesty is not forfeited when He assumes the lowliness of flesh.

The same was true throughout His life on earth. The entire time He spent in human form was devoted to doing the works of God. I don't have space for all the details, but it's enough to say this: in all the varied acts of power and healing that He performed, one fact stands out clearly—He was man by virtue of the flesh He had taken on, and God by the evidence of the works He did.

28. So was it also during His further life on earth. The whole time which He passed in human form was spent upon the works of God. I have no space for details; it must suffice to say that in all the varied acts of power and healing which He wrought, the fact is conspicuous that He was man by virtue of the flesh He had taken, God by the evidence of the works He did.

I should not remain silent about the Holy Spirit, yet I have no need to speak. Still, for the sake of those who are ignorant, I cannot hold back. There is no need to speak because we are required to confess Him, since He proceeds from the Father and the Son. For my part, I think it is wrong to debate whether He exists. He does exist, because He is given, received, and retained. He is joined with the Father and Son in our confession of faith and cannot be excluded from a true confession of the Father and Son. Remove one part, and the whole faith is damaged. If anyone asks what we mean by this conclusion, both he and we have read the words of the Apostle: "Because you are sons of God, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6), and "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you have been sealed" (Ephesians 4:30), and again, "But we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are given to us by God" (1 Corinthians 2:12), and also "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is in you. But if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9), and further, "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies for the sake of His Spirit which dwells in you." Therefore, since He exists, and is given, and is possessed, and is of God, let those who slander Him take refuge in silence. When they ask, "Through whom is He? For what purpose does He exist? Of what nature is He?" we answer that He is the one through whom all things exist and from whom all things come, and that He is the Spirit of God, God's gift to the faithful. If our answer displeases them, their displeasure must also fall on the Apostles and Prophets, who spoke of Him exactly as we have spoken. And furthermore, the Father and the Son must also suffer the same displeasure.

29. Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son. For my own part, I think it wrong to discuss the question of His existence. He does exist, inasmuch as He is given, received, retained; He is joined with Father and Son in our confession of the faith, and cannot be excluded from a true confession of Father and Son; take away a part, and the whole faith is marred. If any man demand what meaning we attach to this conclusion, he, as well as we, has read the words of the Apostle, Because you are sons of God, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father Galatians 4:6, and Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in Whom you have been sealed Ephesians 4:30, and again, But we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are given unto us by God 1 Corinthians 2:12, and also But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God is in you. But if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His Romans 8:9, and further, But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies for the sake of His Spirit which dwells in you. Wherefore since He is, and is given, and is possessed, and is of God, let His traducers take refuge in silence. When they ask, Through Whom is He? To what end does He exist? Of what nature is He? We answer that He it is through Whom all things exist, and from Whom are all things, and that He is the Spirit of God, God's gift to the faithful. If our answer displease them, their displeasure must also fall upon the Apostles and the Prophets, who spoke of Him exactly as we have spoken. And furthermore, Father and Son must incur the same displeasure.

The reason some people remain ignorant or uncertain about this, I believe, is that they notice this third name—the Holy Spirit—is often used to refer to the Father or the Son. There is no problem with this, because whether we are speaking of the Father or the Son, He is Spirit and He is holy.

30. The reason, I believe, why certain people continue in ignorance or doubt is that they see this third Name, that of the Holy Spirit, often used to signify the Father or the Son. No objection need be raised to this; whether it be Father or Son, He is Spirit, and He is holy.

But the Gospel words, "For God is Spirit," require careful examination regarding their meaning and purpose. Every statement has an earlier cause and a goal that must be discovered by studying what it means. We must keep this in mind so that, based on the words "God is Spirit," we don't deny not only the Name but also the work and gift of the Holy Spirit. The Lord was speaking with a Samaritan woman, for He had come to be the Redeemer for all humanity. After He had spoken at length about the living water, her five husbands, and the man she was then with who was not her husband, the woman responded, "Lord, I see that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you say that Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." The Lord replied, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such people to worship Him. For God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in the Spirit and in truth, for God is Spirit." We see that the woman, her mind filled with inherited tradition, thought that God had to be worshiped either on a mountain, as in Samaria, or in a temple, as in Jerusalem. For Samaria, in disobedience to the Law, had chosen a site on the mountain for worship, while the Jews considered the temple founded by Solomon the home of their religion, and the prejudices of both restricted the all-embracing and unlimited God to the top of a hill or the roof of a building. God is invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable. The Lord said that the time had come when God would be worshiped neither on a mountain nor in a temple. For Spirit cannot be enclosed or limited; it is present everywhere in space and time, and fully present under all conditions. Therefore, He said, the true worshipers are those who will worship in the Spirit and in truth. And those who are to worship God the Spirit in the Spirit will have the One as the means and the Other as the object of their reverence, for each of the Two stands in a different relationship to the worshiper. The words "God is Spirit" do not change the fact that the Holy Spirit has His own Name and that He is the Gift to us. The woman who confined God to a hill or temple was told that God contains all things and is self-contained: that He, the Invisible and Incomprehensible, must be worshiped by invisible and incomprehensible means. The given gift and the object of reverence were clearly shown when Christ taught that God, being Spirit, must be worshiped in the Spirit, and revealed what freedom and knowledge, what unlimited scope for adoration, existed in this worship of God, the Spirit, in the Spirit.

31. But the words of the Gospel, For God is Spirit John 4:24, need careful examination as to their sense and their purpose. For every saying has an antecedent cause and an aim which must be ascertained by study of the meaning. We must bear this in mind lest, on the strength of the words, God is Spirit, we deny not only the Name, but also the work and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Lord was speaking with a woman of Samaria, for He had come to be the Redeemer for all mankind. After He had discoursed at length of the living water, and of her five husbands, and of him whom she then had who was not her husband, the woman answered, Lord, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. The Lord replied, Woman, believe Me, the hour comes when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. You worship that which you know not; we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth; for the Father seeks such to worship Him. For God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in the Spirit and in truth, for God is Spirit. We see that the woman, her mind full of inherited tradition, thought that God must be worshipped either on a mountain, as at Samaria, or in a temple, as at Jerusalem; for Samaria in disobedience to the Law had chosen a site upon the mountain for worship, while the Jews regarded the temple founded by Solomon as the home of their religion, and the prejudices of both confined the all-embracing and illimitable God to the crest of a hill or the vault of a building. God is invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable; the Lord said that the time had come when God should be worshipped neither on mountain nor in temple. For Spirit cannot be cabined or confined; it is omnipresent in space and time, and under all conditions present in its fullness. Therefore, He said, they are the true worshippers who shall worship in the Spirit and in truth. And these who are to worship God the Spirit in the Spirit shall have the One for the means, the Other for the object, of their reverence: for Each of the Two stands in a different relation to the worshipper. The words, God is Spirit, do not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit has a Name of His own, and that He is the Gift to us. The woman who confined God to hill or temple was told that God contains all things and is self-contained: that He, the Invisible and Incomprehensible must be worshipped by invisible and incomprehensible means. The imparted gift and the object of reverence were clearly shown when Christ taught that God, being Spirit, must be worshipped in the Spirit, and revealed what freedom and knowledge, what boundless scope for adoration, lay in this worship of God, the Spirit, in the Spirit.

The Apostle's words have a similar meaning: "For the Lord is Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." To make his meaning clear, he has distinguished between the Spirit who exists and the One whose Spirit He is—between the Owner and what He owns. "He" and "His" have different meanings. So when he says "The Lord is Spirit," he reveals God's infinite nature. When he adds "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," he points to the One who belongs to God, for He is the Spirit of the Lord, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The Apostle makes this statement not because his argument requires it, but for the sake of clarity. For the Holy Spirit is everywhere one and the same, enlightening all the patriarchs and prophets and the whole assembly under the Law, inspiring John even in his mother's womb, given in due time to the Apostles and other believers so that they might recognize the truth granted to them.

32. The words of the Apostle are of like purport; For the Lord is Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17 To make his meaning clear he has distinguished between the Spirit, Who exists, and Him Whose Spirit He is Proprietor and Property, He and His are different in sense. Thus when he says, The Lord is Spirit he reveals the infinity of God; when He adds, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, he indicates Him Who belongs to God; for He is the Spirit of the Lord, and Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The Apostle makes the statement not from any necessity of his own argument, but in the interests of clearness. For the Holy Ghost is everywhere One, enlightening all patriarchs and prophets and the whole company of the Law, inspiring John even in his mother's womb, given in due time to the Apostles and other believers, that they might recognise the truth vouchsafed them.

Let us hear from our Lord's own words what the work of the Holy Spirit is within us. He says, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. For it is expedient for you that I go: if I go I will send you the Advocate." And again, "I will ask the Father and He shall send you another Advocate, that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth. He shall guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear He shall speak, and He shall declare to you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall take of Mine." These words were spoken to show how multitudes would enter the kingdom of heaven. They contain an assurance of the goodwill of the Giver and of the manner and terms of the Gift. They tell how, because our weak minds cannot comprehend the Father or the Son, our faith—which finds God's incarnation hard to believe—shall be enlightened by the gift of the Holy Spirit, the bond of union and the source of light.

33. Let us hear from our Lord's own words what is the work of the Holy Ghost within us. He says, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12 For it is expedient for you that I go: if I go I will send you the Advocate. And again, I will ask the Father and He shall send you another Advocate, that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. He shall guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear He shall speak, and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall take of Mine. These words were spoken to show how multitudes should enter the kingdom of heaven; they contain an assurance of the goodwill of the Giver, and of the mode and terms of the Gift. They tell how, because our feeble minds cannot comprehend the Father or the Son, our faith which finds God's incarnation hard of credence shall be illumined by the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Bond of union and the Source of light.

The next step is naturally to listen to the Apostle's account of the powers and functions of this Gift. He says, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the children of God. For you received not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father," and again, "For no man by the Spirit of God says anathema to Jesus, and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit." He adds, "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, and diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord, and diversities of workings, but the same God, Who works all things in all. But to each one is given the enlightenment of the Spirit, to profit withal. Now to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings in the One Spirit, to another workings of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues. But all these works the One and same Spirit." Here we have a statement of the purpose and results of the Gift, and I cannot conceive what doubt can remain after so clear a definition of His origin, His action, and His powers.

34. The next step naturally is to listen to the Apostle's account of the powers and functions of this Gift. He says, As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the children of God. For you received not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father Romans 8:14-15; and again, For no man by the Spirit of God says anathema to Jesus, and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 12:3; and he adds, Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, and diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord, and diversities of workings, but the same God, Who works all things in all. But to each one is given the enlightenment of the Spirit, to profit withal. Now to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings in the One Spirit, to another workings of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues. But all these works the One and same Spirit. Here we have a statement of the purpose and results of the Gift; and I cannot conceive what doubt can remain, after so clear a definition of His Origin, His action and His powers.

Let us use this great blessing and seek personal experience of this essential Gift. The Apostle says in words I've already quoted, "But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are given to us by God." We receive Him, then, so that we may know. The faculties of the human body will lie dormant if they aren't used. The eye cannot fulfill its purpose without light, whether natural or artificial; the ear will not know its function unless it hears some voice or sound; the nostrils will be unaware of their purpose unless they breathe in some scent. This doesn't mean the faculty is absent just because it's never used, but rather that there will be no experience of its existence. In the same way, the soul of man, unless it has received the gift of the Spirit through faith, will have the inborn ability to understand God but will lack the light of knowledge. That Gift, which is in Christ, is one, yet offered—and offered fully—to all. It is denied to no one and given to each person according to how willing they are to receive it. Its treasures are greater the more earnestly one desires to earn them. This gift remains with us until the end of the world: the comfort during our waiting, the guarantee (through the blessings He gives) of the hope that will be ours, the light of our minds, the sun of our souls. We must seek and earn this Holy Spirit, and then hold fast to Him through faith and obedience to God's commands.

35. Let us therefore make use of this great benefit, and seek for personal experience of this most needful Gift. For the Apostle says, in words I have already cited, But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are given unto us by God. We receive Him, then, that we may know. Faculties of the human body, if denied their exercise, will lie dormant. The eye without light, natural or artificial, cannot fulfil its office; the ear will be ignorant of its function unless some voice or sound be heard; the nostrils unconscious of their purpose unless some scent be breathed. Not that the faculty will be absent, because it is never called into use, but that there will be no experience of its existence. So, too, the soul of man, unless through faith it have appropriated the gift of the Spirit, will have the innate faculty of apprehending God, but be destitute of the light of knowledge. That Gift, which is in Christ, is One, yet offered, and offered fully, to all; denied to none, and given to each according to the measure of his willingness to receive; its stores the richer, the more earnest the desire to earn them. This gift is with us unto the end of the world, the solace of our waiting, the assurance, by the favours which He bestows, of the hope that shall be ours, the light of our minds, the sun of our souls. This Holy Spirit we must seek and must earn, and then hold fast by faith and obedience to the commands of God.

When I was searching for a way of life suitable to human abilities and righteous in itself—whether prompted by nature or discovered through the inquiries of wise teachers—by which I might achieve some result worthy of that divine gift of understanding given to us, many things came to mind that are generally thought to make life both useful and desirable. Especially that which now, as always in the past, is considered most desirable—leisure combined with wealth—presented itself to my thinking. One without the other seemed more a source of harm than an opportunity for good, since leisure in poverty is felt to be almost an exile from life itself, while wealth possessed amid worry is itself a burden, made worse by the deeper shame suffered by someone who loses, after having possessed, the things most wished for and sought after. And yet, although these two include the highest and best of life's luxuries, they seem not far removed from the ordinary pleasures of animals which, as they wander through shady places rich in grass, enjoy both their freedom from work and the abundance of their food. For if this is considered the best and most complete way to live a human life, then it follows that we and the whole unreasoning animal world share one common goal, though our ranges of feeling differ, since all of them, in that generous provision and complete leisure which nature gives, have full opportunity for enjoyment without worry about possessing things.

1. When I was seeking an employment adequate to the powers of human life and righteous in itself, whether prompted by nature or suggested by the researches of the wise, whereby I might attain to some result worthy of that Divine gift of understanding which has been given us, many things occurred to me which in general esteem were thought to render life both useful and desirable. And especially that which now, as always in the past, is regarded as most to be desired, leisure combined with wealth, came before my mind. The one without the other seemed rather a source of evil than an opportunity for good, for leisure in poverty is felt to be almost an exile from life itself, while wealth possessed amid anxiety is in itself an affliction, rendered the worse by the deeper humiliation which he must suffer who loses, after possessing, the things that most are wished and sought. And yet, though these two embrace the highest and best of the luxuries of life, they seem not far removed from the normal pleasures of the beasts which, as they roam through shady places rich in herbage, enjoy at once their safety from toil and the abundance of their food. For if this be regarded as the best and most perfect conduct of the life of man, it results that one object is common, though the range of feelings differ, to us and the whole unreasoning animal world, since all of them, in that bounteous provision and absolute leisure which nature bestows, have full scope for enjoyment without anxiety for possession.

I believe that most people have rejected for themselves and criticized in others this acceptance of a thoughtless, animal-like existence for no other reason than that nature itself has taught them that it is unworthy of human beings to consider themselves born only to satisfy their greed and laziness, brought into life with no higher purpose of glorious action or beautiful achievement, and that this life itself was given without any possibility of progressing toward immortality. Such a life, indeed, we would confidently say does not deserve to be considered a gift from God, since, tortured by pain and burdened with hardship, it exhausts itself from the empty mind of infancy to the confusion of old age. I believe that people, prompted by nature itself, have elevated themselves through teaching and practice to the virtues we call patience and temperance and forbearance, convinced that right living means right action and right thought, and that the immortal God has not given life only for it to end in death. For no one can believe that the Giver of good has bestowed the pleasant experience of life so that it might be darkened by the gloomy fear of dying.

2. I believe that the mass of mankind have spurned from themselves and censured in others this acquiescence in a thoughtless, animal life, for no other reason than that nature herself has taught them that it is unworthy of humanity to hold themselves born only to gratify their greed and their sloth, and ushered into life for no high aim of glorious deed or fair accomplishment, and that this very life was granted without the power of progress towards immortality; a life, indeed, which then we should confidently assert did not deserve to be regarded as a gift of God, since, racked by pain and laden with trouble, it wastes itself upon itself from the blank mind of infancy to the wanderings of age. I believe that men, prompted by nature herself, have raised themselves through teaching and practice to the virtues which we name patience and temperance and forbearance, under the conviction that right living means right action and right thought, and that Immortal God has not given life only to end in death; for none can believe that the Giver of good has bestowed the pleasant sense of life in order that it may be overcast by the gloomy fear of dying.

And yet, though I could not accuse their advice of being foolish and useless—their counsel to keep the soul free from blame and to avoid life's troubles through foresight, escape them through skill, or endure them with patience—still I could not regard these men as competent guides to lead me to the good and happy life. Their teachings were commonplace, no higher than natural human impulse. Animal instinct could not fail to understand them, and anyone who understood but disobeyed would have fallen into a madness worse than animal irrationality. Moreover, my soul was eager not merely to do those things whose neglect brings shame and suffering, but to know the God and Father who had given this great gift, to whom it felt it owed its whole self, whose service was its true honor, on whom all its hopes were fixed, in whose loving-kindness, as in a safe home and harbor, it could rest amid all the troubles of this anxious life. It was inflamed with a passionate desire to apprehend Him or to know Him.

3. And yet, though I could not tax with folly and uselessness this counsel of theirs to keep the soul free from blame, and evade by foresight or elude by skill or endure with patience the troubles of life, still I could not regard these men as guides competent to lead me to the good and happy Life. Their precepts were platitudes, on the mere level of human impulse; animal instinct could not fail to comprehend them, and he who understood but disobeyed would have fallen into an insanity baser than animal unreason. Moreover, my soul was eager not merely to do the things, neglect of which brings shame and suffering, but to know the God and Father Who had given this great gift, to Whom, it felt, it owed its whole self, Whose service was its true honour, on Whom all its hopes were fixed, in Whose lovingkindness, as in a safe home and haven, it could rest amid all the troubles of this anxious life. It was inflamed with a passionate desire to apprehend Him or to know Him.

Some of these teachers presented large groups of questionable deities, and believing that divine beings engage in sexual activity, they told stories of births and family lines from god to god. Others claimed there were greater and lesser gods, ranked according to their power. Some denied the existence of any gods at all and limited their reverence to a nature that, in their view, came into being through random movements and collisions driven by chance. In contrast, many followed the common belief in God's existence but declared Him careless and unconcerned with human affairs. Again, some worshipped the actual physical and visible forms of created things in the elements of earth and air. Finally, some placed their gods inside images of humans or animals—whether tame or wild—or of birds or snakes, and they confined the Lord of the universe and Father of infinity within these narrow prisons of metal, stone, or wood. I was certain these could not be teachers of truth, because even though they agreed in the absurdity, filthiness, and impiety of their practices, they disagreed about the essential points of their senseless beliefs. My soul was torn among all these competing claims, yet it still pushed forward on that beneficial path that leads inevitably to the true knowledge of God. It could not accept that God would worthily be described as neglecting a world He Himself created, or that deities with gender and lines of parents and offspring were compatible with the pure and mighty nature of the Godhead. Rather, it was convinced that what is Divine and eternal must be one, without distinction of sex, because that which is self-existent cannot have left outside itself anything superior to itself. Therefore omnipotence and eternity belong to One alone, because omnipotence cannot have degrees of strength or weakness, and eternity cannot have priority or succession. In God we must worship absolute eternity and absolute power.

4. Some of these teachers brought forward large households of dubious deities, and under the persuasion that there is a sexual activity in divine beings narrated births and lineages from god to god. Others asserted that there were gods greater and less, of distinction proportionate to their power. Some denied the existence of any gods whatever, and confined their reverence to a nature which, in their opinion, owes its being to chance-led vibrations and collisions. On the other hand, many followed the common belief in asserting the existence of a God, but proclaimed Him heedless and indifferent to the affairs of men. Again, some worshipped in the elements of earth and air the actual bodily and visible forms of created things; and, finally, some made their gods dwell within images of men or of beasts, tame or wild, of birds or of snakes, and confined the Lord of the universe and Father of infinity within these narrow prisons of metal or stone or wood. These, I was sure, could be no exponents of truth, for though they were at one in the absurdity, the foulness, the impiety of their observances, they were at variance concerning the essential articles of their senseless belief. My soul was distracted amid all these claims, yet still it pressed along that profitable road which leads inevitably to the true knowledge of God. It could not hold that neglect of a world created by Himself was worthily to be attributed to God, or that deities endowed with sex, and lines of begetters and begotten, were compatible with the pure and mighty nature of the Godhead. Nay, rather, it was sure that that which is Divine and eternal must be one without distinction of sex, for that which is self-existent cannot have left outside itself anything superior to itself. Hence omnipotence and eternity are the possession of One only, for omnipotence is incapable of degrees of strength or weakness, and eternity of priority or succession. In God we must worship absolute eternity and absolute power.

While my mind was dwelling on these and many similar thoughts, I happened upon the books that, according to the tradition of the Hebrew faith, were written by Moses and the prophets. In them I found words spoken by God the Creator testifying about himself: "I Am that I Am," and again, "He that is has sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14). I confess I was amazed to find in them such an exact statement about God that it expressed, in terms best suited to human understanding, an otherwise unattainable insight into the mystery of the Divine nature. For no property of God that the mind can grasp is more characteristic of him than existence, since existence in the absolute sense cannot be attributed to what will come to an end or to what has had a beginning. He who now combines continuous being with the possession of perfect happiness could not have been non-existent in the past, nor can he be non-existent in the future, for whatever is Divine can neither be brought into being nor destroyed. Therefore, since God's eternity is inseparable from himself, it was fitting for him to reveal this one thing—that he is—as the assurance of his absolute eternity.

5. While my mind was dwelling on these and on many like thoughts, I chanced upon the books which, according to the tradition of the Hebrew faith, were written by Moses and the prophets, and found in these words spoken by God the Creator testifying of Himself ' I Am that I Am, and again, He that is has sent me unto you Exodus 3:14.' I confess that I was amazed to find in them an indication concerning God so exact that it expressed in the terms best adapted to human understanding an unattainable insight into the mystery of the Divine nature. For no property of God which the mind can grasp is more characteristic of Him than existence, since existence, in the absolute sense, cannot be predicated of that which shall come to an end, or of that which has had a beginning, and He who now joins continuity of being with the possession of perfect felicity could not in the past, nor can in the future, be non-existent; for whatsoever is Divine can neither be originated nor destroyed. Wherefore, since God's eternity is inseparable from Himself, it was worthy of Him to reveal this one thing, that He is, as the assurance of His absolute eternity.

These words "I Am that I Am" were clearly adequate to indicate God's infinity. But in addition, we needed to grasp the working of His majesty and power. While absolute existence belongs uniquely to Him who, remaining eternally, had no beginning in any distant past, we hear another utterance worthy of Himself coming from the eternal and Holy God, who says, "Who holds the heaven in His palm and the earth in His hand," and again, "The heaven is My throne and the earth is the footstool of My feet. What house will you build Me or what shall be the place of My rest?" The whole heaven is held in God's palm, the whole earth grasped in His hand. Now God's word, as profitable as it is to the passing thought of a pious mind, reveals a deeper meaning to the patient student than to the casual hearer. For this heaven which is held in God's palm is also His throne, and the earth which is grasped in His hand is also the footstool beneath His feet. This was not written so that from throne and footstool—metaphors drawn from the posture of sitting—we should conclude that He has spatial extension, like a body, for that which is His throne and footstool is also held in hand and palm by that infinite Omnipotence. It was written so that in all born and created things God might be known within them and without, overshadowing and indwelling, surrounding all and spreading through all, since palm and hand, which hold, reveal the might of His external control, while throne and footstool, by supporting one who sits, display the submission of outward things to One within who, Himself outside them, encloses all in His grasp, yet dwells within the external world which is His own. In this way God, from within and from without, controls and relates to the universe; being infinite He is present in all things, and in Him who is infinite all are included. My soul, absorbed in the pursuit of truth, took its delight in devout thoughts such as these. For it seemed that God's greatness so far exceeded the mental powers of His handiwork that however far the limited mind of man might stretch in the risky attempt to define Him, the gap was not lessened between the finite nature which struggled and the boundless infinity that lay beyond its grasp. I had come through reverent reflection on my own part to understand this, but I found it confirmed by the prophet's words: "Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from Your face? If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I go down into hell, You are there also; if I have taken my wings before dawn and made my dwelling in the uttermost parts of the sea, You are there. For there Your hand shall guide me and Your right hand shall hold me." There is no space where God is not; space does not exist apart from Him. He is in heaven, in hell, beyond the seas; dwelling in all things and surrounding all. Thus He embraces, and is embraced by, the universe, confined to no part of it but spreading through all.

6. For such an indication of God 's infinity the words ' I Am that I Am ' were clearly adequate; but, in addition, we needed to apprehend the operation of His majesty and power. For while absolute existence is peculiar to Him Who, abiding eternally, had no beginning in a past however remote, we hear again an utterance worthy of Himself issuing from the eternal and Holy God, Who says, Who holds the heaven in His palm and the earth in His hand Isaiah 40:12, and again, The heaven is My throne and the earth is the footstool of My feet. What house will you build Me or what shall be the place of My rest? The whole heaven is held in the palm of God, the whole earth grasped in His hand. Now the word of God, profitable as it is to the cursory thought of a pious mind, reveals a deeper meaning to the patient student than to the momentary hearer. For this heaven which is held in the palm of God is also His throne, and the earth which is grasped in His hand is also the footstool beneath His feet. This was not written that from throne and footstool, metaphors drawn from the posture of one sitting, we should conclude that He has extension in space, as of a body, for that which is His throne and footstool is also held in hand and palm by that infinite Omnipotence. It was written that in all born and created things God might be known within them and without, overshadowing and indwelling, surrounding all and interfused through all, since palm and hand, which hold, reveal the might of His external control, while throne and footstool, by their support of a sitter, display the subservience of outward things to One within Who, Himself outside them, encloses all in His grasp, yet dwells within the external world which is His own. In this wise does God, from within and from without, control and correspond to the universe; being infinite He is present in all things, in Him Who is infinite all are included. In devout thoughts such as these my soul, engrossed in the pursuit of truth, took its delight. For it seemed that the greatness of God so far surpassed the mental powers of His handiwork, that however far the limited mind of man might strain in the hazardous effort to define Him, the gap was not lessened between the finite nature which struggled and the boundless infinity that lay beyond its ken, I had come by reverent reflection on my own part to understand this, but I found it confirmed by the words of the prophet, Whither shall I go from Your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Your face? If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I go down into hell, You are there also; if I have taken my wings before dawn and made my dwelling in the uttermost parts of the sea (You are there). For there Your hand shall guide me and Your right hand shall hold me. There is no space where God is not; space does not exist apart from Him. He is in heaven, in hell, beyond the seas; dwelling in all things and enveloping all. Thus He embraces, and is embraced by, the universe, confined to no part of it but pervading all.

Therefore, although my soul found joy in grasping this majestic and unfathomable Mind, because it could worship as its own Father and Creator so limitless an Infinity, it still sought with even greater eagerness to know the true nature of its infinite and eternal Lord. It wanted to be able to believe that this immeasurable Deity was clothed in splendor fitting the beauty of His wisdom. Then, while the devout soul was confused and lost because of its own weakness, it received from the prophet's voice this excellently expressed comparison for God: "By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He has made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned" (Wisdom 13:5). The Creator of great things is supreme in greatness, and the Creator of beautiful things is supreme in beauty. Since the work surpasses our thoughts, the Maker must surpass all thought. Thus heaven and air and earth and seas are beautiful, and the whole universe is beautiful too, as the Greeks agree, who call it kosmos (order) because of its beautiful arrangement. But if our thought can evaluate this beauty of the universe by a natural instinct—an instinct like what we see in certain birds and beasts whose voice, though it falls below the level of our understanding, still has a meaning clear to them even though they cannot articulate it, and in which, since all speech expresses some thought, there lies a meaning clear to themselves—must not the Lord of this universal beauty be recognized as Himself most beautiful amid all the beauty that surrounds Him? For though the splendor of His eternal glory exceeds our mind's best powers, our mind cannot fail to see that He is beautiful. We must truly confess that God is most beautiful, and that with a beauty which, though it transcends our comprehension, forces itself upon our perception.

7. Therefore, although my soul drew joy from the apprehension of this august and unfathomable Mind, because it could worship as its own Father and Creator so limitless an Infinity, yet with a still more eager desire it sought to know the true aspect of its infinite and eternal Lord, that it might be able to believe that that immeasurable Deity was apparelled in splendour befitting the beauty of His wisdom. Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet's voice this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He has made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned. Wisdom 13:5 The Creator of great things is supreme in greatness, of beautiful things in beauty. Since the work transcends our thoughts, all thought must be transcended by the Maker. Thus heaven and air and earth and seas are fair: fair also the whole universe, as the Greeks agree, who from its beautiful ordering call it κόσμος, that is, order. But if our thought can estimate this beauty of the universe by a natural instinct — an instinct such as we see in certain birds and beasts whose voice, though it fall below the level of our understanding, yet has a sense clear to them though they cannot utter it, and in which, since all speech is the expression of some thought, there lies a meaning patent to themselves — must not the Lord of this universal beauty be recognised as Himself most beautiful amid all the beauty that surrounds Him? For though the splendour of His eternal glory overtax our mind's best powers, it cannot fail to see that He is beautiful. We must in truth confess that God is most beautiful, and that with a beauty which, though it transcend our comprehension, forces itself upon our perception.

My mind, filled with these conclusions it had reached through its own thinking and the teaching of Scripture, rested confidently—as if on some peaceful watchtower—upon that glorious truth. It recognized that its true nature made it capable of offering only one kind of homage to its Creator, and no other, whether greater or lesser: the homage of being convinced that His greatness is too vast for our comprehension but not for our faith. For a reasonable faith is related to reason and accepts its help, even though that same reason cannot grasp the vastness of eternal Omnipotence.

8. Thus my mind, full of these results which by its own reflection and the teaching of Scripture it had attained, rested with assurance, as on some peaceful watchtower, upon that glorious conclusion, recognising that its true nature made it capable of one homage to its Creator, and of none other, whether greater or less; the homage namely of conviction that His is a greatness too vast for our comprehension but not for our faith. For a reasonable faith is akin to reason and accepts its aid, even though that same reason cannot cope with the vastness of eternal Omnipotence.

Underlying all these thoughts was an instinctive hope that strengthened my assertion of the faith—a hope in some perfect blessedness to be earned hereafter through devout thoughts about God and an upright life, like a reward awaiting a victorious warrior. For true faith in God would go unrewarded if the soul were destroyed by death and extinguished when bodily life ends. Even reason alone argued that it would be unworthy of God to bring man into existence with some share of His thought and wisdom, only to impose the sentence of life taken away and eternal death—to create him out of nothing to take his place in the world, only so that once he has taken it he may perish. For on the only rational theory of creation, its purpose was that non-existent things should come into being, not that existing things should cease to be.

9. Beneath all these thoughts lay an instinctive hope, which strengthened my assertion of the faith, in some perfect blessedness hereafter to be earned by devout thoughts concerning God and upright life; the reward, as it were, that awaits the triumphant warrior. For true faith in God would pass unrewarded, if the soul be destroyed by death, and quenched in the extinction of bodily life. Even unaided reason pleaded that it was unworthy of God to usher man into an existence which has some share of His thought and wisdom, only to await the sentence of life withdrawn and of eternal death; to create him out of nothing to take his place in the World, only that when he has taken it he may perish. For, on the only rational theory of creation, its purpose was that things non-existent should come into being, not that things existing should cease to be.

My soul was weighed down with fear for both itself and the body. It held firm to a true conviction and devout loyalty to the true faith concerning God, but had developed deep anxiety about itself and the physical dwelling that, it believed, must share in its destruction. While in this condition, in addition to knowing the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, it learned the truths taught by the Apostle in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. That which was made in Him is life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not apprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness of the light. That was the true light, which gives light to every person who comes into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own things, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But to as many as received Him He gave power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His Name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. Here the soul advances beyond what its natural capacities can achieve and is taught more about God than it had imagined. It learns that its Creator is God of God; it hears that the Word is God and was with God in the beginning. It comes to understand that the Light of the world was present in the world and that the world did not know Him; that He came to His own possession and those who were His own did not receive Him; but that those who do receive Him advance to be sons of God through their faith, being born not from physical union nor from bodily conception nor from bodily desire, but from God; finally, it learns that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and that His glory was seen, which, as of the Only-begotten from the Father, is perfect through grace and truth.

10. Yet my soul was weighed down with fear both for itself and for the body. It retained a firm conviction, and a devout loyalty to the true faith concerning God, but had come to harbour a deep anxiety concerning itself and the bodily dwelling which must, it thought, share its destruction. While in this state, in addition to its knowledge of the teaching of the Law and Prophets, it learned the truths taught by the Apostle in the Gospel — In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made. That which was made in Him is life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light. That was the true light, which lightens every man that comes into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own things, and they that were His own received Him not. But to as many as received Him He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His Name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-14 Here the soul makes an advance beyond the attainment of its natural capacities, is taught more than it had dreamed concerning God. For it learns that its Creator is God of God; it hears that the Word is God and was with God in the beginning. It comes to understand that the Light of the world was abiding in the world and that the world knew Him not; that He came to His own possession and that they that were His own received Him not; but that they who do receive Him by virtue of their faith advance to be sons of God, being born not of the embrace of the flesh nor of the conception of the blood nor of bodily desire, but of God; finally, it learns that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and that His glory was seen, which, as of the Only-begotten from the Father, is perfect through grace and truth.

My soul, trembling and distressed, found in this a hope wider than it had imagined. First it came to know God the Father. Then it learned that the eternity, infinity, and beauty which, by the light of natural reason, it had attributed to its Creator also belonged to God the Only-begotten. It did not scatter its faith among many gods, for it heard that He is God of God. Nor did it fall into the error of attributing a different nature to this God of God, for it learned that He is full of grace and truth. Nor did my soul perceive anything contrary to reason in God of God, since He was revealed as having been in the beginning God with God. It saw that very few attain to the knowledge of this saving faith, though its reward is great, for even His own did not receive Him, though those who receive Him are promoted to be sons of God by a birth not of the flesh but of faith. It also learned that this sonship to God is not compulsory but possible, for while the divine gift is offered to all, it is not an inevitably imprinted inheritance but a prize awarded to willing choice. And lest this very truth—that whoever wills may become a son of God—should shake the weakness of our faith (for we most desire but least expect what is so great that we find it hard to hope for), God the Word became flesh, so that through His Incarnation our flesh might attain to union with God the Word. And lest we should think that this incarnate Word was someone other than God the Word, or that His flesh was from a body different from ours, He dwelt among us so that by His dwelling He might be known as the indwelling God, and by His dwelling among us, known as God incarnate in no other flesh than our own. Moreover, though He condescended to take our flesh, He was not without His own attributes, for He, the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, is fully possessed of His own attributes and truly endowed with ours.

11. Herein my soul, trembling and distressed, found a hope wider than it had imagined. First came its introduction to the knowledge of God the Father. Then it learned that the eternity and infinity and beauty which, by the light of natural reason, it had attributed to its Creator belonged also to God the Only-begotten. It did not disperse its faith among a plurality of deities, for it heard that He is God of God; nor did it fall into the error of attributing a difference of nature to this God of God, for it learned that He is full of grace and truth. Nor yet did my soul perceive anything contrary to reason in God of God, since He was revealed as having been in the beginning God with God. It saw that there are very few who attain to the knowledge of this saving faith, though its reward be great, for even His own received Him not though they who receive Him are promoted to be sons of God by a birth, not of the flesh but of faith. It learned also that this sonship to God is not a compulsion but a possibility, for, while the Divine gift is offered to all, it is no heredity inevitably imprinted but a prize awarded to willing choice. And lest this very truth that whosoever will may become a son of God should stagger the weakness of our faith (for most we desire, but least expect, that which from its very greatness we find it hard to hope for), God the Word became flesh, that through His Incarnation our flesh might attain to union with God the Word. And lest we should think that this incarnate Word was some other than God the Word, or that His flesh was of a body different from ours, He dwelt among us that by His dwelling He might be known as the indwelling God, and, by His dwelling among us, known as God incarnate in no other flesh than our own, and moreover, though He had condescended to take our flesh, not destitute of His own attributes; for He, the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, is fully possessed of His own attributes and truly endowed with ours.

My soul gladly welcomed this teaching about the divine mysteries. It was now drawing near to God through the flesh, called to be born again through faith, and given the freedom and power to attain heavenly rebirth. It was aware of the love of its Father and Creator, and certain that He would not destroy a creature He had called from nothing into life. My soul could recognize how far these truths lie beyond human mental vision, because human reason—which deals with ordinary objects of thought—can conceive of nothing existing beyond what it perceives within itself or can create from itself. My soul measured God's mighty works, accomplished on the scale of His eternal omnipotence, not by its own powers of perception but by limitless faith. Therefore it refused to disbelieve, simply because it could not understand, that God was in the beginning with God, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Instead, it kept in mind the truth that the power to understand would come with the will to believe.

12. This lesson in the Divine mysteries was gladly welcomed by my soul, now drawing near through the flesh to God, called to new birth through faith, entrusted with liberty and power to win the heavenly regeneration, conscious of the love of its Father and Creator, sure that He would not annihilate a creature whom He had summoned out of nothing into life. And it could estimate how high are these truths above the mental vision of man; for the reason which deals with the common objects of thought can conceive of nothing as existent beyond what it perceives within itself or can create out of itself. My soul measured the mighty workings of God, wrought on the scale of His eternal omnipotence, not by its own powers of perception but by a boundless faith; and therefore refused to disbelieve, because it could not understand, that God was in the beginning with God, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, but bore in mind the truth that with the will to believe would come the power to understand.

The soul receives an additional lesson in complete devotion to the holy faith to prevent it from wandering into the errors of pagan philosophy. The Apostle teaches this in inspired words: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the word, and not after Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are made full in Him, Which is the Head of all principality and power; in Whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body, of the flesh, but with the circumcision of Christ; buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also you have risen again through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead. And you, when you were dead in sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has quickened with Him, having forgiven you all your sins, blotting out the bond which was against us by its ordinances, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the Cross; and having put off the flesh He made a show of powers openly, triumphing over them through confidence in Himself." Firm faith rejects the empty sophistries of philosophical speculation. Truth refuses to be defeated by these deceptive tricks of human foolishness and enslaved by lies. It will not confine God within the boundaries that limit our ordinary reason, nor judge Christ according to the basic principles of the world, since in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, in such a way that any attempts by the earthly mind to understand Him are defeated by His immeasurable eternity and omnipotence. My soul understood Him as One who, drawing us up to share in His own divine nature, has now freed us from the obligation of physical observances. Unlike the symbolic Law, He has not initiated us into rituals that mutilate the flesh, but His purpose is that our spirit, circumcised from vice, should purify all the natural abilities of the body by refraining from sin. We are buried with His death in Baptism so we may return to eternal life, since rebirth into life is death to our former life. Dying to our sins, we are born again to immortality, just as He gave up His immortality to die for us, so we should awaken from death to immortality with Him. He took upon Himself the flesh in which we have sinned so that by wearing our flesh He might forgive sins—a flesh He shares with us by wearing it, not by sinning in it. Through death He erased the sentence of death, so that by creating our race anew in Himself He might remove the penalty imposed by the former Law. He allowed them to nail Him to the cross so He might nail to the curse of the cross and destroy all the curses under which the world is condemned. He suffered as a man to the fullest extent so He might put the powers to shame. Scripture had foretold that He who is God would die, and that the victory and triumph of those who trust in Him rests on the fact that He, who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die so that mortals might gain eternity. These acts of God, performed in ways beyond our understanding, cannot be grasped by our natural abilities, because the work of the Infinite and Eternal can only be understood by an infinite intelligence. Therefore, just as the truths that God became man, that the Immortal died, that the Eternal was buried, do not belong to the rational order but are a unique work of power, so also it is an effect not of intellect but of omnipotence that He who is man is also God, that He who died is immortal, that He who was buried is eternal. We, then, are raised together by God in Christ through His death. But since in Christ there is the fullness of the Godhead, we have in this a revelation of God the Father joining to raise us in Him who died, and we must confess that Christ Jesus is none other than God in all the fullness of the Deity.

13. And lest the soul should stray and linger in some delusion of heathen philosophy, it receives this further lesson of perfect loyalty to the holy faith, taught by the Apostle in words inspired:– Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the word, and not after Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are made full in Him, Which is the Head of all principality and power; in Whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body, of the flesh, but with the circumcision of Christ; buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also you have risen again through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead. And you, when you were dead in sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has quickened with Him, having forgiven you all your sins, blotting out the bond which was against us by its ordinances, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the Cross; and having put off the flesh He made a show of powers openly, triumphing over them through confidence in Himself. Colossians 2:8-15 Steadfast faith rejects the vain subtleties of philosophic enquiry; truth refuses to be vanquished by these treacherous devices of human folly, and enslaved by falsehood. It will not confine God within the limits which barred our common reason, nor judge after the rudiments of the world concerning Christ, in Whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in such wise that the utmost efforts of the earthly mind to comprehend Him are baffled by that immeasurable Eternity and Omnipotence. My soul judged of Him as One Who, drawing us upward to partake of His own Divine nature, has loosened henceforth the bond of bodily observances Who, unlike the Symbolic Law, has initiated us into no rites of mutilating the flesh, but Whose purpose is that our spirit, circumcised from vice, should purify all the natural faculties of the body by abstinence from sin, that we being buried with His Death in Baptism may return to the life of eternity (since regeneration to life is death to the former life), and dying to our sins be born again to immortality, that even as He abandoned His immortality to die for us, so should we awaken from death to immortality with Him. For He took upon Him the flesh in which we have sinned that by wearing our flesh He might forgive sins; a flesh which He shares with us by wearing it, not by sinning in it. He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity. These deeds of God, wrought in a manner beyond our comprehension, cannot, I repeat, be understood by our natural faculties, for the work of the Infinite and Eternal can only be grasped by an infinite intelligence. Hence, just as the truths that God became man, that the Immortal died that the Eternal was buried, do not belong to the rational order but are an unique work of power, so on the other hand it is an effect not of intellect but of omnipotence that He Who is man is also God, that He Who died is immortal, that He Who was buried is eternal. We, then, are raised together by God in Christ through His death. But, since in Christ there is the fullness of the Godhead, we have herein a revelation of God the Father joining to raise us in Him Who died; and we must confess that Christ Jesus is none other than God in all the fullness of the Deity.

In this calm confidence of safety, my soul gladly and hopefully found its rest, and I feared death so little that it seemed only a name for eternal life. The life of this present body was so far from seeming a burden or affliction that I regarded it as children regard their alphabet, sick people their medicine, shipwrecked sailors their swim, young people the training for their profession, or future commanders their first campaign—that is, as an endurable submission to present necessities that carries the promise of a blessed immortality. Furthermore, I began to proclaim those truths in which my soul had personal faith, as a duty of the episcopate that had been laid upon me, using my office to promote the salvation of all people.

14. In this calm assurance of safety did my soul gladly and hopefully take its rest, and feared so little the interruption of death, that death seemed only a name for eternal life. And the life of this present body was so far from seeming a burden or affliction that it was regarded as children regard their alphabet, sick men their draught, shipwrecked sailors their swim, young men the training for their profession, future commanders their first campaign; that is, as an endurable submission to present necessities, bearing the promise of a blissful immortality. And further, I began to proclaim those truths in which my soul had a personal faith, as a duty of the episcopate which had been laid upon me, employing my office to promote the salvation of all men.

While I was occupied in this way, certain deceptions appeared from rash and wicked people who were without hope for themselves and showed no mercy toward others. They made their own weak nature the standard for measuring God's nature and power. They did not claim to have reached unlimited knowledge of unlimited things, but rather that they had brought all knowledge, which was previously undefined, within the range of ordinary human reasoning, and had set the boundaries of the faith. But the true work of religion is a service of obedience. These people were careless about their own weakness and reckless about divine realities, and they set out to correct and improve God's own teaching.

15. While I was thus engaged there came to light certain fallacies of rash and wicked men, hopeless for themselves and merciless towards others, who made their own feeble nature the measure of the might of God's nature. They claimed, not that they had ascended to an infinite knowledge of infinite things, but that they had reduced all knowledge, undefined before, within the scope of ordinary reason, and fixed the limits of the faith. Whereas the true work of religion is a service of obedience; and these were men heedless of their own weakness, reckless of Divine realities, who undertook to improve upon the teaching of God.

Not to mention the empty speculations of other heretics—though I will not keep silent about them when my argument provides an opportunity—there are those who corrupt the faith of the Gospel by denying the birth of God the Only-begotten while pretending to uphold the One God. They claim there was an extension of God into man, not a descent. They say that He who was Son of Man during the time He took our flesh had not been, and was not then, Son of God. They deny any divine birth in His case, instead asserting an identity between Begetter and Begotten. To maintain what they consider perfect loyalty to God's unity, they claim there was unbroken continuity in the Incarnation—the Father extending Himself into the Virgin and being born as His own Son. Others, by contrast, are heretics because there is no salvation apart from Christ, who in the beginning was God the Word with God. These deny He was born and declare He was merely created. They hold that birth would confess Him to be true God, while creation proves His Godhead unreal. Though this explanation contradicts faith in the unity of God when examined as a precise definition, they think it might pass as figurative language. They reduce His true birth to the level of a creation, both in name and in belief, to cut Him off from the divine unity so that, as a creature called into being, He cannot claim the fullness of the Godhead, which is not His by true birth.

16. Not to touch upon the vain enquiries of other heretics — concerning whom however, when the course of my argument gives occasion, I will not be silent — there are those who tamper with the faith of the Gospel by denying, under the cloak of loyalty to the One God, the birth of God the Only-begotten. They assert that there was an extension of God into man, not a descent; that He, Who for the season that He took our flesh was Son of Man, had not been previously, nor was then, Son of God; that there was no Divine birth in His case, but an identity of Begetter and Begotten; and (to maintain what they consider a perfect loyalty to the unity of God) that there was an unbroken continuity in the Incarnation, the Father extending Himself into the Virgin, and Himself being born as His own Son. Others, on the contrary ( heretics, because there is no salvation apart from Christ, Who in the beginning was God the Word with God), deny that He was born and declare that He was merely created. Birth, they hold, would confess Him to be true God, while creation proves His Godhead unreal; and though this explanation be a fraud against the faith in the unity of God, regarded as an accurate definition, yet they think it may pass muster as figurative language. They degrade, in name and in belief, His true birth to the level of a creation, to cut Him off from the Divine unity, that, as a creature called into being, He may not claim the fullness of the Godhead, which is not His by a true birth.

My soul has burned to answer these insane attacks. I remember that the very heart of a saving faith is belief not merely in God, but in God as a Father; not merely in Christ, but in Christ as the Son of God; in him not as a creature, but as God the Creator, born of God. My main goal is to use the clear statements of prophets and evangelists to refute the insanity and ignorance of people who use the unity of God (in itself a devout and beneficial confession) as a cover for their denial either that God was born in Christ, or else that he is truly God. Their purpose is to isolate a solitary God at the center of the faith by making Christ, though mighty, only a creature—because, they claim, a birth of God expands the believer's faith into trust in more than one god. But we, taught by God to confess neither two Gods nor a solitary God, will present the evidence of the Gospels and the prophets for our confession of God the Father and God the Son, united but not confused in our faith. We will not admit they are identical, nor allow as a compromise that Christ is God in some imperfect sense; for God, born of God, cannot be the same as his Father, since he is his Son, nor can he be different in nature.

17. My soul has been burning to answer these insane attacks. I call to mind that the very centre of a saving faith is the belief not merely in God, but in God as a Father; not merely in Christ, but in Christ as the Son of God; in Him, not as a creature, but as God the Creator, born of God. My prime object is by the clear assertions of prophets and evangelists to refute the insanity and ignorance of men who use the unity of God (in itself a pious and profitable confession) as a cloak for their denial either that in Christ God was born, or else that He is very God. Their purpose is to isolate a solitary God at the heart of the faith by making Christ, though mighty, only a creature; because, so they allege, a birth of God widens the believer's faith into a trust in more gods than one. But we, divinely taught to confess neither two Gods nor yet a solitary God, will adduce the evidence of the Gospels and the prophets for our confession of God the Father and God the Son, united, not confounded, in our faith. We will not admit Their identity nor allow, as a compromise, that Christ is God in some imperfect sense; for God, born of God, cannot be the same as His Father, since He is His Son, nor yet can He be different in nature.

If you are someone whose strong faith and desire for a truth unknown to the world and its philosophers moves you to read what I write, you must remember to reject the weak and groundless guesses of worldly thinking. With a humble willingness to learn, you must break down the obstacles of prejudice and incomplete knowledge. What is needed are the new abilities of a reborn mind. Each person must have his understanding enlightened by the heavenly gift given to the soul. First, he must take his stand on the sure foundation (hypostasis) of God, as the holy prophet Jeremiah says, so that when he is about to hear about that nature (substantia), he may expand his thoughts until they are worthy of the subject. He must not set up some arbitrary standard for himself, but must think in terms of infinity. And again, though he may be aware that he shares in the Divine nature, as the holy apostle Peter says in his second letter, he must not measure the Divine nature by the limits of his own nature. Instead, he must measure God's statements about Himself by the standard of God's own glorious self-revelation. The best student is one who does not read his own thoughts into the book, but lets the book reveal its own meaning. He draws out the book's meaning rather than bringing his own into it, and he does not force onto its words a meaning he had already decided was right before he even opened its pages. Since we are going to discuss the things of God, let us acknowledge that God has complete knowledge of Himself, and let us bow with humble reverence to His words. For the One Whom we can only know through His own words is the proper witness concerning Himself.

18. And you, whose warmth of faith and passion for a truth unknown to the world and its philosophers shall prompt to read me, must remember to eschew the feeble and baseless conjectures of earthly minds, and in devout willingness to learn must break down the barriers of prejudice and half- knowledge. The new faculties of the regenerate intellect are needed; each must have his understanding enlightened by the heavenly gift imparted to the soul. First he must take his stand upon the sure ground [ substantia = ὑποστάσει] of God, as holy Jeremiah says, that since he is to hear about that nature [substantia] he may expand his thoughts till they are worthy of the theme, not fixing some arbitrary standard for himself, but judging as of infinity. And again, though he be aware that he is partaker of the Divine nature, as the holy apostle Peter says in his second Epistle, yet he must not measure the Divine nature by the limitations of his own, but gauge God's assertions concerning Himself by the scale of His own glorious self-revelation. For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself.

If in our discussion of the nature and birth of God we use certain analogies, no one should assume that these comparisons are perfect and complete. There can be no comparison between God and earthly things, yet the weakness of our understanding forces us to look for illustrations from a lower realm to explain what we mean about higher subjects. Our daily experience shows how what we know about ordinary matters helps us form conclusions about unfamiliar topics. We should therefore view any comparison as something that helps people understand rather than as an accurate description of God, since it hints at the meaning we're looking for rather than fully capturing it. Don't think such a comparison is too bold when it places physical and spiritual natures side by side, or invisible things alongside tangible ones, since it admits it's a necessary aid for the weakness of the human mind and asks not to be condemned for being an imperfect analogy. Following this principle, I continue with my task, planning to use the terms Scripture provides while illustrating my argument with examples drawn from human life.

19. If in our discussion of the nature and birth of God we adduce certain analogies, let no one suppose that such comparisons are perfect and complete. There can be no comparison between God and earthly things, yet the weakness of our understanding forces us to seek for illustrations from a lower sphere to explain our meaning about loftier themes. The course of daily life shows how our experience in ordinary matters enables us to form conclusions on unfamiliar subjects. We must therefore regard any comparison as helpful to man rather than as descriptive of God, since it suggests, rather than exhausts, the sense we seek. Nor let such a comparison be thought too bold when it sets side by side carnal and spiritual natures, things invisible and things palpable, since it avows itself a necessary aid to the weakness of the human mind, and deprecates the condemnation due to an imperfect analogy. On this principle I proceed with my task, intending to use the terms supplied by God, yet coloring my argument with illustrations drawn from human life.

I have organized the entire work with a logical arrangement of its books to benefit the reader. I made it my goal not to publish an incomplete and poorly thought-out treatise, so that its disorganized presentation wouldn't resemble the chaotic noise of a crowd of peasants. Just as no one can climb a steep cliff unless there are protruding ledges to help them reach the top, I have laid out here in sequence the basic outline of our climb, guiding our challenging argument along the easiest route. I am not carving steps into the rock face, but rather smoothing it into a gentle incline, so that the traveler can reach the heights almost without feeling the effort.

20. And first, I have so laid out the plan of the whole work as to consult the advantage of the reader by the logical order in which its books are arranged. It has been my resolve to publish no half-finished and ill-considered treatise, lest its disorderly array should resemble the confused clamour of a mob of peasants. And since no one can scale a precipice unless there be jutting ledges to aid his progress to the summit, I have here set down in order the primary outlines of our ascent leading our difficult course of argument up the easiest path; not cutting steps in the face of the rock, but levelling it to a gentle slope, that so the traveller, almost without a sense of effort may reach the heights.

After this first book, the second book explains the mystery of the divine birth, so that those who will be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit may know the true Names. They should not be confused about their meaning but accurately informed about both the fact and the meaning, and so receive full assurance that the words they use contain the true Names, and that those Names express the truth.

21. Thus, after the present first book, the second expounds the mystery of the Divine birth, that those who shall be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may know the true Names, and not be perplexed about their sense but accurately informed as to fact and meaning, and so receive full assurance that in the words which are used they have the true Names, and that those Names involve the truth.

After this brief and straightforward teaching about the Trinity, the third book moves forward—steadily, though gradually. By presenting the greatest examples of His power, it brings within faith's understanding that statement, which is in itself beyond our comprehension: "I in the Father and the Father in Me" (John 10:38), which Christ speaks concerning Himself. In this way, truth that exceeds human understanding becomes accessible to faith that is equipped with reason and knowledge. We must not doubt God's Word about Himself, nor can we assume that devout reason is unable to grasp His power.

22. After this short and simple discourse concerning the Trinity, the third book makes further progress, sure though slow. Citing the greatest instances of His power, it brings within the range of faith's understanding that saying, in itself beyond our comprehension, I in the Father and the Father in Me John 10:38, which Christ utters concerning Himself. Thus truth beyond the dull wit of man is the prize of faith equipped with reason and knowledge; for neither may we doubt God's Word concerning Himself, nor can we suppose that the devout reason is incapable of apprehending His might.

The fourth book begins with the teachings of the heretics and rejects any association with the false arguments they are using to attack the Church's faith. It makes public that godless creed which several of them have recently issued, and it reveals the dishonesty and therefore the evil of their arguments from the Law concerning what they call the unity of God. It presents the complete testimony of the Law and the Prophets to prove how impious it is to affirm God's unity in a way that denies the Godhead of Christ, and how treasonous it is to claim that if Christ is God the Only-begotten, then God is not one.

23. The fourth book starts with the doctrines of the heretics, and disowns complicity in the fallacies whereby they are traducing the faith of the Church. It publishes that infidel creed which a number of them have lately promulgated, and exposes the dishonesty, and therefore the wickedness, of their arguments from the Law for what they call the unity of God. It sets out the whole evidence of Law and Prophets to demonstrate the impiety of asserting the unity of God to the exclusion of the Godhead of Christ, and the treason of alleging that if Christ be God the Only-begotten, then God is not one.

The fifth book responds by following the sequence of the heretics' claims. They had falsely stated that they followed the law in the way they understood the unity of God, and that they had proven from it that the true God is of one Person. Their goal was to deny the Lord Christ His birth through their conclusion about the One true God, since birth provides evidence of origin. In response, I affirm step by step what they deny. Using the Law and the Prophets, I show that there are not two gods, nor one isolated true God—neither distorting the faith in the Divine unity nor denying the birth of Christ. And since they claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was created rather than born, and that He carries the Divine Name as a gift rather than by right, I have proven His true Divinity from the Prophets in such a way that, with Him acknowledged as truly God, the assurance of His inherent Godhead will secure us in the certainty that God is One.

24. The fifth book follows in reply the sequence of heretical assertion. They had falsely declared that they followed the law in the sense which they assigned to the unity of God, and that they had proved from it that the true God is of one Person; and this in order to rob the Lord Christ of His birth by their conclusion concerning the One true God, for birth is the evidence of origin. In answer I assert, step by step, what they deny; for from the Law and the Prophets I demonstrate that there are not two gods, nor one isolated true God, neither perverting the faith in the Divine unity nor denying the birth of Christ. And since they say that the Lord Jesus Christ, created rather than born, bears the Divine Name by gift and not by right, I have proved His true Divinity from the Prophets in such a way that, He being acknowledged very God, the assurance of His inherent Godhead shall hold us fast to the certainty that God is One.

The sixth book exposes the complete dishonesty of this heretical teaching. To make their claims seem credible, they condemn the impious teachings of heretics—namely Valentinus, Sabellius, Manichaeus, and Hieracas—and adopt the godly language of the Church as a disguise for their blasphemy. They criticize and modify the language of these heretics, reshaping it into something vaguely resembling orthodoxy, so that they can undermine the holy faith while appearing to denounce heresy. But we clearly state what the language and teaching of each of these men actually is, and we clear the Church of any association or fellowship with condemned heretics. We condemn their words that deserve condemnation, and we accept those that merit our humble acceptance. Thus we prove that Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ—which they most strenuously deny—by the witness of the Father, by Christ's own assertion, by the preaching of the Apostles, by the faith of believers, by the cries of demons, by the contradiction of the Jews (which is itself a confession), and by the recognition of the heathen who had not known God. We do all this to remove from dispute a truth about which Christ left us no excuse for ignorance.

25. The sixth book reveals the full deceitfulness of this heretical teaching. To win credit for their assertions they denounce the impious doctrine of heretics:– of Valentinus, to wit, and Sabellius and Manichæus and Hieracas, and appropriate the godly language of the Church as a cover for their blasphemy. They reprove and alter the language of these heretics, correcting it into a vague resemblance to orthodoxy, in order to suppress the holy faith while apparently denouncing heresy. But we state clearly what is the language and what the doctrine of each of these men, and acquit the Church of any complicity or fellowship with condemned heretics. Their words which deserve condemnation we condemn, and those which claim our humble acceptance we accept. Thus that Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, which is the object of their most strenuous denial, we prove by the witness of the Father, by Christ's own assertion, by the preaching of Apostles, by the faith of believers, by the cries of devils, by the contradiction of Jews, in itself a confession, by the recognition of the heathen who had not known God; and all this to rescue from dispute a truth of which Christ had left us no excuse for ignorance.

The seventh book begins with a foundation of true faith and delivers its judgment on this great debate. First, armed with sound and unshakable proof of the unassailable faith, it enters the conflict raging between Sabellius and Ebion and these opponents of the true Godhead. It challenges Sabellius on his denial of Christ's pre-existence, and his opponents on their claim that He is a creature. Sabellius overlooked the eternity of the Son, but believed that true God worked in a human body. Our present adversaries deny that He was born, claim that He was created, and fail to see in His deeds the works of true God. What both sides dispute, we believe. Sabellius denies that it was the Son who was working, and he is wrong; but he proves his case triumphantly when he claims that the work done was that of true God. The Church shares his victory over those who deny that in Christ was true God. But when Sabellius denies that Christ existed before the worlds, his adversaries prove convincingly that Christ's activity is from everlasting, and we are on their side in this refutation of Sabellius, who recognizes true God, but not God the Son, in this activity. And our two previous adversaries join forces to refute Ebion, the second demonstrating the eternal existence of Christ, while the first proves that His work is that of true God. Thus the heretics overthrow one another, while the Church, against Sabellius, against those who call Christ a creature, against Ebion, bears witness that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God of true God, born before the worlds and born in later times as man.

26. Next the seventh book, starting from the basis of a true faith now attained, delivers its verdict in the great debate. First, armed with its sound and incontrovertible proof of the impregnable faith, it takes part in the conflict raging between Sabellius and Hebion and these opponents of the true Godhead. It joins issue with Sabellius on his denial of the pre- existence of Christ, and with his assailants on their assertion that He is a creature. Sabellius overlooked the eternity of the Son, but believed that true God worked in a human body. Our present adversaries deny that He was born, assert that He was created, and fail to see in His deeds the works of very God. What both sides dispute, we believe. Sabellius denies that it was the Son who was working, and he is wrong; but he proves his case triumphantly when he alleges that the work done was that of true God. The Church shares his victory over those who deny that in Christ was very God. But when Sabellius denies that Christ existed before the worlds, his adversaries prove to conviction that Christ's activity is from everlasting, and we are on their side in this confutation of Sabellius, who recognises true God, but not God the Son, in this activity. And our two previous adversaries join forces to refute Hebion, the second demonstrating the eternal existence of Christ, while the first proves that His work is that of very God. Thus the heretics overthrow one another, while the Church, as against Sabellius, against those who call Christ a creature, against Hebion, bears witness that the Lord Jesus Christ is very God of very God, born before the worlds and born in after times as man.

No one can doubt that we have followed the path of true reverence and sound doctrine when, after proving from the Law and Prophets first that Christ is the Son of God, and second that He is true God—and this without breaking the mysterious unity—we then support the Law and Prophets with evidence from the Gospels, proving from them as well that He is the Son of God and Himself truly God. After demonstrating His right to the name of Son, it is very easy to show that this name truly describes His relationship to the Father, though common usage already considers the granting of the name of son to be convincing proof of sonship. But to leave no opening for the trickery and lies of those who slander the true birth of God the Only-begotten, we have used His true Godhead as proof of His true Sonship. To show that He who (as everyone agrees) bears the name of Son of God is actually God, we have presented His name, His birth, His nature, His power, and His own statements. We have proved that His name accurately describes Him, that the title of Son is evidence of birth, that in His birth He retained His divine nature, and with His nature His power, and that this power showed itself in conscious and deliberate self-revelation. I have recorded the Gospel proofs of each individual point, showing how His self-revelation displays His power, how His power reveals His nature, how His nature is His by birthright, and how from His birth comes His right to the name of Son. Thus every hint of blasphemy is silenced, for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself by the testimony of His own words has taught us that He is, as His name, His birth, His nature, and His power declare, in the true sense of Deity, truly God of truly God.

27. No one can doubt that we have taken the course of true reverence and of sound doctrine when, after proving from Law and Prophets first that Christ is the Son of God, and next that He is true God, and this without breach of the mysterious unity, we proceed to support the Law and the Prophets by the evidence of the Gospels, and prove from them also that He is the Son of God and Himself very God. It is the easiest of tasks, after demonstrating His right to the Name of Son, to show that the Name truly describes His relation to the Father; though indeed universal usage regards the granting of the name of son as convincing evidence of sonship. But, to leave no loophole for the trickery and deceit of these traducers of the true birth of God the Only-begotten, we have used His true Godhead as evidence of His true Sonship; to show that He Who (as is confessed by all) bears the Name of Son of God is actually God, we have adduced His Name, His birth, His nature, His power, His assertions. We have proved that His Name is an accurate description of Himself, that the title of Son is an evidence of birth, that in His birth He retained His Divine Nature, and with His nature His power, and that that power manifested itself in conscious and deliberate self-revelation. I have set down the Gospel proofs of each several point, showing how His self-revelation displays His power, how His power reveals His nature, how His nature is His by birthright, and from His birth comes His title to the name of Son. Thus every whisper of blasphemy is silenced, for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself by the witness of His own mouth has taught us that He is, as His Name, His birth, His nature, His power declare, in the true sense of Deity, very God of very God.

While the two previous books have been devoted to confirming the faith in Christ as Son of God and true God, the eighth book is concerned with proving the unity of God, showing that this unity is consistent with the birth of the Son, and that the birth involves no duality in the Godhead. First it exposes the sophistry with which these heretics have tried to avoid, though they could not deny, the confession of the real existence of God, Father and Son. It demolishes their weak and absurd argument that in passages such as "And the multitude of them that believed were one soul and heart," and again, "He that plants and He that waters are one," and "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us," a unity of will and mind, not of Divinity, is expressed. From a consideration of the true meaning of these texts we show that they involve the reality of the Divine birth. Then, displaying the whole series of our Lord's self-revelations, we present, in the language of Apostles and in the very words of the Holy Spirit, the whole and perfect mystery of the glory of God as Father and as Only-begotten Son. Because there is a Father we know that there is a Son. In that Son the Father is made known to us, and from this comes our certainty that He is born the Only-begotten and that He is very God.

28. While its two predecessors have been devoted to the confirmation of the faith in Christ as Son of God and true God, the eighth book is taken up with the proof of the unity of God, showing that this unity is consistent with the birth of the Son, and that the birth involves no duality in the Godhead. First it exposes the sophistry with which these heretics have attempted to avoid, though they could not deny, the confession of the real existence of God, Father and Son; it demolishes their helpless and absurd plea that in such passages as, And the multitude of them that believed were one soul and heart, and again, He that plants and He that waters are one 1 Corinthians 3:8, and Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us John 17:20-21, a unity of will and mind, not of Divinity, is expressed. From a consideration of the true sense of these texts we show that they involve the reality of the Divine birth; and then, displaying the whole series of our Lord's self-revelations, we exhibit, in the language of Apostles and in the very words of the Holy Spirit, the whole and perfect mystery of the glory of God as Father and as Only-begotten Son. Because there is a Father we know that there is a Son; in that Son the Father is manifested to us, and hence our certainty that He is born the Only-begotten and that He is very God.

In matters essential to salvation, it is not enough simply to present the proofs that faith provides and accepts as sufficient. Arguments we have not carefully examined can mislead us into misunderstanding what our own words actually mean, unless we take the offensive by exposing the weakness of the enemy's arguments, and thereby establish our own faith on the demonstrated absurdity of his position. The ninth book is therefore devoted to refuting the arguments by which heretics attempt to deny the birth of God the Only-begotten—heretics who ignore the mystery of the revelation hidden from the beginning of the world and forget that the Gospel faith proclaims the union of God and man. In their denial that our Lord Jesus Christ is God, like God and equal with God as Son with Father, born of God and by right of His birth subsisting as very Spirit, they habitually appeal to such words of our Lord as "Why do you call Me good? None is good save One, even God" (Luke 18:19). They argue that by His reproof of the man who called Him good, and by His assertion that God alone is good, He excludes Himself from the goodness of that God Who alone is good and from that true divinity which belongs only to One. With this text their blasphemous reasoning connects another: "And this is life eternal that they should know You the only true God, and Him Whom You sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). Here, they say, He confesses that the Father is the only true God, and that He Himself is neither true nor God, since this recognition of an only true God is limited to the One who possesses the attributes assigned. And they claim to be quite clear about His meaning in this passage, since He also says, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He has seen the Father doing." The fact that He can only copy is said to be evidence of the limitation of His nature. There can be no comparison between Omnipotence and One whose action depends upon the prior activity of Another; reason itself draws an absolute line between power and the lack of power. That line is so clear that He Himself has declared concerning God the Father, "The Father is greater than I." So frank a confession silences all objection; it is blasphemy and madness to assign the dignity and nature of God to One who disclaims them. So utterly devoid is He of the qualities of true God that He actually bears witness concerning Himself, "But of that day and hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but God only" (Mark 13:32). A son who does not know his father's secret must, from his ignorance, be alien from the father who knows; a nature limited in knowledge cannot partake of that majesty and might which alone is exempt from the tyranny of ignorance.

29. In matters essential to salvation it is not enough to advance the proofs which faith supplies and finds sufficient. Arguments which we have not tested may delude us into a misapprehension of the meaning of our own words, unless we take the offensive by exposing the hollowness of the enemy's proofs, and so establish our own faith upon the demonstrated absurdity of his. The ninth book, therefore, is employed in refuting the arguments by which the heretics attempt to invalidate the birth of God the Only-begotten;– heretics who ignore the mystery of the revelation hidden from the beginning of the world, and forget that the Gospel faith proclaims the union of God and man. For their denial that our Lord Jesus Christ is God, like God and equal with God as Son with Father, born of God and by right of His birth subsisting as very Spirit, they are accustomed to appeal to such words of our Lord as, Why do you call Me good? None is good save One, even God. Luke 18:19 They argue that by His reproof of the man who called Him good, and by His assertion of the goodness of God only, He excludes Himself from the goodness of that God Who alone is good and from that true Divinity which belongs only to One. With this text their blasphemous reasoning connects another, And this is life eternal that they should know You the only true God, and Him Whom You sent, Jesus Christ. John 17:3 Here, they say, He confesses that the Father is the only true God, and that He Himself is neither true nor God, since this recognition of an only true God is limited to the Possessor of the attributes assigned. And they profess to be quite clear about His meaning in this passage, since He also says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He has seen the Father doing. The fact that He can only copy is said to be evidence of the limitation of His nature. There can be no comparison between Omnipotence and One whose action is dependent upon the previous activity of Another; reason itself draws an absolute line between power and the want of power. That line is so clear that He Himself has avowed concerning God the Father, The Father is greater than I. So frank a confession silences all demur; it is blasphemy and madness to assign the dignity and nature of God to One who disclaims them. So utterly devoid is He of the qualities of true God that He actually bears witness concerning Himself, But of that day and hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but God only. Mark 13:32 A son who knows not his father's secret must, from his ignorance, be alien from the father who knows; a nature limited in knowledge cannot partake of that majesty and might which alone is exempt from the tyranny of ignorance.

We therefore expose the blasphemous misunderstanding they have reached by twisting and perverting the meaning of Christ's words. We explain those words by stating what kind of questions He was answering, at what times He was speaking, and what partial knowledge He was choosing to reveal. We make the circumstances explain the words, and do not force the circumstances into consistency with the words. Thus each instance of apparent contradiction—for example, between "The Father is greater than I" and "I and the Father are One," or between "None is good save One, even God" and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father also," or a difference as wide as that between "Father, all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" and "That they may know You, the only true God," or between "I in the Father and the Father in Me" and "But of the day and hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father only"—is explained by recognizing the difference between gradual revelation and full expression of His nature and power. Both groups of statements come from the same Speaker, and an explanation of the real meaning of each group will show that Christ's true Godhead is not diminished in the slightest because, to form the mystery of the Gospel faith, the birth and Name of Christ were revealed gradually and under conditions of occasion and time that He chose.

30. We therefore expose the blasphemous misunderstanding at which they have arrived by distortion and perversion of the meaning of Christ's words. We account for those words by stating what manner of questions He was answering, at what times He was speaking, what partial knowledge He was deigning to impart; we make the circumstances explain the words, and do not force the former into consistency with the latter. Thus each case of variance, that for instance between The Father is greater than I, and I and the Father are One John 10:30, or between None is good save One, even God Luke 18:19, and He that has seen Me has seen the Father also John 14:9, or a difference so wide as that between Father, all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and That they may know You, the only true God, or between I in the Father and the Father in Me, and But of the day and hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father only Mark 13:32, is explained by a discrimination between gradual revelation and full expression of His nature and power. Both are utterances of the same Speaker, and an exposition of the real force of each group will show that Christ's true Godhead is no whit impaired because, to form the mystery of the Gospel faith, the birth and Name of Christ were revealed gradually, and under conditions which He chose of occasion and time.

The purpose of the tenth book aligns with the faith. In their foolishness, which they mistake for wisdom, the heretics have twisted certain circumstances and statements from the Passion into an arrogant denial of the divine nature and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am therefore compelled to prove that this is a blasphemous misinterpretation, and that these things were recorded by the Lord Himself as evidence of His true and complete majesty. In their distortion of the faith, they deceive themselves with words such as "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." They think He must be far removed from the blessed and passionless life of God, since over His soul hung this crushing fear of coming suffering. Under the pressure of suffering, He even humbled Himself to pray, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me," and clearly appeared to fear enduring the trials from which He prayed for release. His whole nature was so overwhelmed by agony that in those moments on the Cross He cried, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"—forced by the bitterness of His pain to complain that He was forsaken. Destitute of the Father's help, He gave up the ghost with the words, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit." The fear that gripped Him at the moment of death, they say, made Him entrust His Spirit to the care of God the Father. The very hopelessness of His own condition forced Him to commit His Soul to the keeping of Another.

31. The purpose of the tenth book is one in harmony with the faith. For since, in the folly which passes with them for wisdom, the heretics have twisted some of the circumstances and utterances of the Passion into an insolent contradiction of the Divine nature and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, I am compelled to prove that this is a blasphemous misinterpretation, and that these things were put on record by the Lord Himself as evidences of His true and absolute majesty. In their parody of the faith they deceive themselves with words such as, My soul is sorrowful even unto death. Matthew 26:38 He, they think, must be far removed from the blissful and passionless life of God, over Whose soul brooded this crushing fear of an impending woe, Who under the pressure of suffering even humbled Himself to pray, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me, and assuredly bore the appearance of fearing to endure the trials from which He prayed for release; Whose whole nature was so overwhelmed by agony that in those moments on the Cross He cried, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Forced by the bitterness of His pain to complain that He was forsaken: Who, destitute of the Father's help, gave up the ghost with the words, Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit. Luke 23:46 The fear, they say, which beset Him at the moment of expiring made Him entrust His Spirit to the care of God the Father: the very hopelessness of His own condition forced Him to commit His Soul to the keeping of Another.

Their foolishness is as great as their blasphemy. They fail to notice that Christ's words, spoken in similar circumstances, are always consistent. They cling to the letter and ignore the purpose of His words. There is a vast difference between "My soul is sorrowful even unto death" and "Henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power," just as there is between "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me" and "The cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" and also between "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" and "Verily I say unto you, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise," and between "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit" and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Their narrow minds cannot grasp the Divine meaning, and so they fall into blasphemy when they try to explain these things. There is a clear distinction between anxiety and a mind at ease, between haste and the prayer for delay, between words of anguish and words of encouragement, between despair for self and confident prayer for others. The heretics display their impiety by ignoring the assertions of Deity and the Divine nature of Christ that account for one class of His words, while they focus only on the deeds and words that refer to His ministry on earth. I have therefore laid out all the elements contained in the mystery of the Soul and Body of the Lord Jesus Christ. All have been examined and none suppressed. Next, applying clear reason to the question, I have assigned each of His sayings to the category to which its meaning belongs, and so have shown that He also had a confidence that never wavered, a will that never faltered, an assurance that never complained, and that when He commended His own soul to the Father, this involved a prayer for the pardon of others. Thus a complete presentation of the teaching of the Gospel interprets and confirms all of Christ's words, not just some of them.

32. Their folly being as great as their blasphemy, they fail to mark that Christ's words, spoken under similar circumstances, are always consistent; they cleave to the letter and ignore the purpose of His words. There is the widest difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death Matthew 26:38, and Henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power Matthew 26:64; so also between Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away, from Me, and The cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it John 18:11? and further between My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me Matthew 27:46? and Verily I say unto you, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise Luke 23:43, and between Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit, and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do; and their narrow minds, unable to grasp the Divine meaning, plunge into blasphemy in the attempt at explanation. There is a broad distinction between anxiety and a mind at ease, between haste and the prayer for delay, between words of anguish and words of encouragement, between despair for self and confident entreaty for others; and the heretics display their impiety by ignoring the assertions of Deity and the Divine nature of Christ, which account for the one class of His words, while they concentrate their attention upon the deeds and words which refer only to His ministry on earth. I have therefore set out all the elements contained in the mystery of the Soul and Body of the Lord Jesus Christ; all have been sought out, none suppressed. Next, casting the calm light of reason upon the question, I have referred each of His sayings to the class to which its meaning attaches it, and so have shown that He had also a confidence which never wavered, a will which never faltered, an assurance which never murmured, that, when He commended His own soul to the Father, in this was involved a prayer for the pardon of others. Thus a complete presentment of the teaching of the Gospel interprets and confirms all (and not some only) of the words of Christ.

So these lost men have not had their eyes opened even by the glory of the Resurrection, and they have not stayed within the clear boundaries of the faith. Instead, they have turned false piety into a weapon for their blasphemy and twisted the revelation of a mystery into an insult to God. From the words "I ascend unto My Father and your Father, to My God and your God," they argue that since that Father is ours as much as His, and that God is also ours and His, His own admission that He shares this relationship to the Father and to God with us excludes Him from true Divinity. They claim this subordinates Him to God the Creator, making Him a creature and inferior just as we are, though He has received the adoption of a Son. They go further and say we must not think He possesses any characteristics of the Divine nature, since the Apostle says, "But when He says, all things are put in subjection, this is except Him Who did subject all things unto Him, for when all things shall have been subjected unto Him, then shall also He Himself be subjected to Him that did subject all things unto Him, that God may be all in all." They claim that subjection proves the subject lacks power while the sovereign possesses it. The eleventh book deals with this argument in a reverent discussion. It proves from these very words of the Apostle not only that subjection is no evidence of lack of power in Christ, but that it actually demonstrates His true Divinity as God the Son. The fact that His Father and God is also our Father and God brings infinite benefit to us and no degradation to Him, since He who was born as Man and suffered all the afflictions of our flesh has ascended on high to our God and Father to receive His glory as Man our Representative.

33. And so — for not even the glory of the Resurrection has opened the eyes of these lost men and kept them within the manifest bounds of the faith — they have forged a weapon for their blasphemy out of a pretended reverence, and even perverted the revelation of a mystery into an insult to God. From the words, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, to My God and your God John 20:17, they argue that since that Father is ours as much as His, and that God also ours and His, His own confession that He shares with us in that relation to the Father and to God excludes Him from true Divinity, and subordinates Him to God the Creator Whose creature and inferior He is, as we are, although He has received the adoption of a Son. Nay more, we must not suppose that He possesses any of the characters of the Divine nature, since the Apostle says, But when He says, all things are put in subjection, this is except Him Who did subject all things unto Him, for when all things shall have been subjected unto Him, then shall also He Himself be subjected to Him that did subject all things unto Him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For, so they say, subjection is evidence of want of power in the subject and of its possession by the sovereign. The eleventh book is employed in a reverent discussion of this argument; it proves from these very words of the Apostle not only that subjection is no evidence of want of power in Christ but that it actually is a sign of His true Divinity as God the Son; that the fact that His Father and God is also our Father and God is an infinite advantage to us and no degradation to Him, since He Who has been born as Man and suffered all the afflictions of our flesh has gone up on high to our God and Father, to receive His glory as Man our Representative.

In this treatise we have followed the same approach used in every field of education. First come easy lessons and a familiarity, slowly gained through practice, with the basic elements of the subject. Then the student can put to the test, in real life, the training he has received. So the soldier, when he has mastered his drills, can go out to battle. The advocate enters the conflicts of the courtroom when he is skilled in the practice arguments of the rhetoric school. The sailor who has learned to steer his ship in the sheltered harbor of his homeland can be trusted amid the storms of open seas and distant lands. This has been our method in this most serious and difficult subject in which the whole faith is taught. First came simple instruction for the untaught believer in the birth, the name, the Divinity, the true Divinity of Christ. Since then we have quietly and steadily moved forward until our readers can destroy every argument of the heretics. And now at last we have set them against the adversary in this present great and glorious conflict. The human mind is powerless with the ordinary resources of unaided reason to grasp the idea of an eternal birth, but people attain through study of divine things to the understanding of mysteries which lie beyond the range of common thought. They can refute that paradox concerning the Lord Jesus, which draws all its strength and appearance of logic from a shortsighted pagan philosophy: the paradox which claims, There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was born, and He was made out of nothing, as though His birth proved that He had previously been non-existent and at a specific moment came into being, and God the Only-begotten could thus be subjected to the idea of time, as if the faith itself by conferring the title of Son and the very nature of birth proved that there was a time when He was not. Accordingly they argue that He was born out of nothing, on the grounds that birth implies the granting of existence to that which previously had no existence. We proclaim in answer, on the evidence of Apostles and Evangelists, that the Father is eternal and the Son eternal, and demonstrate that the Son is God of all with an absolute, not a limited, pre-existence; that these bold attacks of their blasphemous logic—He was born out of nothing, and He was not before He was born—are powerless against Him; that His eternity is consistent with sonship, and His sonship with eternity; that there was in Him no special exemption from birth but a birth from everlasting, for while birth implies a Father, Divinity is inseparable from eternity.

34. In this treatise we have followed the course which we know is pursued in every branch of education. First come easy lessons and a familiarity, slowly attained by practice, with the groundwork of the subject; then the student may make proof, in the business of life, of the training which he has received. Thus the soldier, when he is perfect in his exercises, can go out to battle; the advocate ventures into the conflicts of the courts when he is versed in the pleadings of the school of rhetoric; the sailor who has learned to navigate his ship in the land-locked harbour of his home may be trusted amid the storms of open seas and distant climes. Such has been our proceeding in this most serious and difficult science in which the whole faith is taught. First came simple instruction for the untaught believer in the birth, the name, the Divinity, the true Divinity of Christ; since then we have quietly and steadily advanced till our readers can demolish every plea of the heretics; and now at last we have pitted them against the adversary in the present great and glorious conflict. The mind of men is powerless with the ordinary resources of unaided reason to grasp the idea of an eternal birth, but they attain by study of things Divine to the apprehension of mysteries which lie beyond the range of common thought. They can explode that paradox concerning the Lord Jesus, which derives all its strength and semblance of cogency from a purblind pagan philosophy: the paradox which asserts, There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was born, and He was made out of nothing; as though His birth were proof that He had previously been non-existent and at a given moment came into being, and God the Only-begotten could thus be subjected to the conception of time, as if the faith itself [by conferring the title of 'Son'] and the very nature of birth proved that there was a time when He was not. Accordingly they argue that He was born out of nothing, on the ground that birth implies the grant of being to that which previously had no being. We proclaim in answer, on the evidence of Apostles and Evangelists, that the Father is eternal and the Son eternal, and demonstrate that the Son is God of all with an absolute, not a limited, pre- existence; that these bold assaults of their blasphemous logic — He was born out of nothing, and He was not before He was born — are powerless against Him; that His eternity is consistent with sonship, and His sonship with eternity; that there was in Him no unique exemption from birth but a birth from everlasting, for, while birth implies a Father, Divinity is inseparable from eternity.

Ignorance of prophetic language and inability to interpret Scripture properly has led them to twist the point and meaning of the passage, "The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works." They work hard to prove from it that Christ is created rather than born as God, and therefore shares the nature of created beings, even though He surpasses them in the manner of His creation. According to them, He has no glory of Divine birth but only the powers of an exceptional creature. In response, without introducing any new ideas or predetermined opinions, we will let this very passage of Wisdom reveal its own true meaning and purpose. We will show that the fact that He was created for the beginning of the ways of God and for His works cannot be distorted into evidence about the Divine and eternal birth, because creation for these purposes and birth from everlasting are two entirely different things. Where birth is meant, there birth, and nothing but birth, is spoken of; where creation is mentioned, the reason for that creation is first named. There is a Wisdom born before all things, and again there is a wisdom created for particular purposes; the Wisdom which is from everlasting is one, the wisdom which has come into existence during the passage of time is another.

35. Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works. They labour to establish from it that Christ is created, rather than born, as God, and hence partakes the nature of created beings, though He excel them in the manner of His creation, and has no glory of Divine birth but only the powers of a transcendent creature. We in reply, without importing any new considerations or preconceived opinions, will make this very passage of Wisdom display its own true meaning and object. We will show that the fact that He was created for the beginning of the ways of God and for His works, cannot be twisted into evidence concerning the Divine and eternal birth, because creation for these purposes and birth from everlasting are two entirely different things. Where birth is meant, there birth, and nothing but birth, is spoken of; where creation is mentioned, the cause of that creation is first named. There is a Wisdom born before all things, and again there is a wisdom created for particular purposes; the Wisdom which is from everlasting is one, the wisdom which has come into existence during the lapse of time is another.

Having concluded that we must reject the word 'creation' from our confession of faith in God the Only-begotten, we now set out the teachings of reason and of piety concerning the Holy Spirit. This will provide the reader, whose convictions have been established by patient and careful study of the earlier books, with a complete presentation of the faith. This goal will be reached when the blasphemies of heretical teaching on this subject have also been swept away, and the mystery, pure and undefiled, of the Trinity that regenerates us has been established with saving precision on the authority of the Apostles and Evangelists. Then people will no longer dare, based on mere human reasoning, to rank among creatures that Divine Spirit whom we receive as the pledge of immortality and source of fellowship with the sinless physis of God.

36. Having thus concluded that we must reject the word 'creation' from our confession of faith in God the Only-begotten, we proceed to lay down the teachings of reason and of piety concerning the Holy Spirit, that the reader, whose convictions have been established by patient and earnest study of the preceding books, may be provided with a complete presentation of the faith. This end will be attained when the blasphemies of heretical teaching on this theme also have been swept away, and the mystery, pure and undefiled, of the Trinity which regenerates us has been fixed in terms of saving precision on the authority of Apostles and Evangelists. Men will no longer dare, on the strength of mere human reasoning, to rank among creatures that Divine Spirit, Whom we receive as the pledge of immortality and source of fellowship with the sinless nature of God.

I know, Lord God Almighty, that I owe You, as the chief duty of my life, the devotion of all my words and thoughts to You. The gift of speech You have given me can bring me no higher reward than the opportunity to serve by proclaiming You and showing You as You are—as Father and Father of God the Only-begotten—to a world in its blindness and to the heretic in his rebellion. But this merely expresses my own desire. I must also pray for the gift of Your help and compassion, so that the breath of Your Spirit may fill the sails of faith and confession I have raised, and a favorable wind may be sent to move me forward on my voyage of instruction. We can trust the promise of Him who said, Ask, and it shall be given you, seek, and you shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you. In our need, we will pray for the things we require. We will bring tireless energy to the study of Your Prophets and Apostles, and we will knock for entrance at every gate of hidden knowledge, but it is Yours to answer the prayer, to grant what we seek, to open the door on which we knock. Our minds are born with dull and clouded vision, our weak intellect is confined within the barriers of an insurmountable ignorance concerning divine things. But the study of Your revelation lifts our soul to the understanding of sacred truth, and submission to the faith is the path to a certainty beyond the reach of unaided reason.

37. I know, O Lord God Almighty, that I owe You, as the chief duty of my life, the devotion of all my words and thoughts to Yourself. The gift of speech which You have bestowed can bring me no higher reward than the opportunity of service in preaching You and displaying You as You are, as Father and Father of God the Only-begotten, to the world in its blindness and the heretic in his rebellion. But this is the mere expression of my own desire; I must pray also for the gift of Your help and compassion, that the breath of Your Spirit may fill the sails of faith and confession which I have spread, and a favouring wind be sent to forward me on my voyage of instruction. We can trust the promise of Him Who said, Ask, and it shall be given you, seek, and you shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you Luke 11:9; and we in our want shall pray for the things we need. We shall bring an untiring energy to the study of Your Prophets and Apostles, and we shall knock for entrance at every gate of hidden knowledge, but it is Yours to answer the prayer, to grant the thing we seek, to open the door on which we beat. Our minds are born with dull and clouded vision, our feeble intellect is penned within the barriers of an impassable ignorance concerning things Divine; but the study of Your revelation elevates our soul to the comprehension of sacred truth, and submission to the faith is the path to a certainty beyond the reach of unassisted reason.

So we look to Your support for the first shaky steps of this work, to Your help so it may grow stronger and succeed. We look to You to give us the partnership of that Spirit who guided the Prophets and the Apostles, so that we may understand their words in the sense they meant them and assign the correct meaning to everything they said. For we will speak about things they announced as a mystery: about You, O eternal God, Father of the eternal and Only-begotten God, who alone are without birth, and about the one Lord Jesus Christ, born from You from everlasting. We must not separate Him from You or make Him one god among many gods by claiming He has a different physis. We must not say He is not begotten from You just because You are One. We must not fail to confess Him as true God, since He is born from You, true God, His Father. Give us, therefore, accurate language, solid reasoning, graceful expression, and faithfulness to truth. Enable us to speak what we believe, so that we may confess, as Prophets and Apostles have taught us, You, one God our Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, and silence the opposition of heretics by proclaiming You as God, yet not alone, and Him as God in a real and true sense.

38. And therefore we look to Your support for the first trembling steps of this undertaking, to Your aid that it may gain strength and prosper. We look to You to give us the fellowship of that Spirit Who guided the Prophets and the Apostles, that we may take their words in the sense in which they spoke and assign its right shade of meaning to every utterance. For we shall speak of things which they preached in a mystery; of You, O God Eternal, Father of the Eternal and Only-begotten God, Who alone art without birth, and of the One Lord Jesus Christ, born of You from everlasting. We may not sever Him from You, or make Him one of a plurality of Gods, on any plea of difference of nature. We may not say that He is not begotten of You, because You are One. We must not fail to confess Him as true God, seeing that He is born of You, true God, His Father. Grant us, therefore, precision of language, soundness of argument, grace of style, loyalty to truth. Enable us to utter the things that we believe, that so we may confess, as Prophets and Apostles have taught us, You, One God our Father, and One Lord Jesus Christ, and put to silence the gainsaying of heretics, proclaiming You as God, yet not solitary, and Him as God, in no unreal sense.