Tag: Commentaries

In a very short time, the Baptist is shown to be both Prophet and Apostle. For the One he was announcing as coming, he now points out as having come. Therefore, he went beyond even the standard of prophets, as the Savior Himself says when speaking with the Jews about him, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A prophet, yea, I say unto you and more than a prophet. For they in their times prophesied that Christ would be revealed, but he, proclaiming that He shall come, also pointed Him out as having come. For the next day, it says, he sees Jesus coming to him.

In a very little time, the Baptist is declared to be Prophet alike and Apostle. For Whom he was heralding as coming, Him now come he points out. Therefore, he bounded beyond even the measure of prophets, as the Saviour Himself saith when discoursing with the Jews concerning him, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A prophet, yea, I say unto you and more than a prophet. For they in their times prophesied that Christ should be revealed, but he, crying that He shall come, also pointed Him out come. For the next day, saith he, he seeth Jesus coming to him.

"Prepare the way" no longer has a fitting place, since He for whom the preparation was made is finally seen and stands before our eyes. The nature of the situation began to require different words. It was necessary to explain who He is that has come, and to whom He is descending who has come to us from Heaven. "Behold," he says, "the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world"—the one whom the Prophet Isaiah pointed out to us, saying, "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb." He also says that the law of Moses represented Him symbolically long ago, but then it saved only partially, not extending mercy to all (for it was a type and shadow). But now He who was dimly pictured long ago—the very Lamb, the spotless Sacrifice—is led to the slaughter for all, so that He might drive away the sin of the world, that He might overthrow the destroyer of the earth, that dying for all He might render death powerless, that He might undo the curse that is upon us, that He might finally put an end to "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return," that He might become the second Adam, not of the earth but from heaven, and might be the beginning of all good to the physis of man, deliverance from the imported corruption, Bestower of eternal life, foundation of our reconciliation to God, beginning of godliness and righteousness, way to the Kingdom of Heaven. For one Lamb died for all, saving the whole flock on earth to God the Father—One for all, that He might subject all to God, One for all, that He might gain all, so that finally all should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and rose again. For since we were in many sins, and therefore owed to death and corruption, the Father has given the Son as a redemption for us, One for all, since all are in Him, and He is above all. One died for all, that all should live in Him. For death, having swallowed up the Lamb for all, has vomited forth all in Him and with Him. For we were all in Christ, who on account of us and for us died and rose again. But with sin destroyed, how could it be that death, which came from it and because of it, should not completely come to nothing? With the root dying, how could the shoot still survive? Why should we still die, now that sin has been destroyed? Therefore, jubilant in the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, we say: "O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" For all iniquity, as the Psalmist sings somewhere, shall stop her mouth, no longer able to accuse those who have sinned from weakness. For it is God who justifies—who is he that condemns? Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that we might escape the curse from transgression.

No longer has prepare ye the way fit place, since He at length is seen and is before the eyes for Whom the preparation is made: the nature of the thing began to need other words. It needed to explain, Who He is Who is come, and to whom He maketh His descent Who hath come to us from Heaven. Behold, therefore, saith he, the Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world, Whom the Prophet Isaiah did signify to us, saying, He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb: Whom of old, too, saith he, the law of Moses typified, but then it saved in part, not extending mercy to all (for it was a type and shadow): but now He Who of old was dimly pictured, the very Lamb, the spotless Sacrifice, is led to the slaughter for all, that He might drive away the sin of the world, that He might overturn the destroyer of the earth, that dying for all He might bring to nought death, that He might undo the curse that is upon us, that He might at length end Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, that He might become the second Adam, not of the earth, but from heaven, and might be the beginning of all good to the nature of man, deliverance from the imported corruption, Bestower of eternal life, foundation of our reconciliation to God, beginning of godliness and righteousness, way to the Kingdom of Heaven. For one Lamb died for all, saving the whole flock on earth to God the Father, One for all, that He might subject all to God, One for all, that He might gain all: that at length all should not henceforth live to themselves but to Him Which died for them and rose again. For since we were in many sins, and therefore due to death and corruption, the Father hath given the Son a redemption for us, One for all, since all are in Him, and He above all. One died for all, that all should live in Him. For death having swallowed up the Lamb for all, hath vomited forth all in Him and with Him. For all we were in Christ, Who on account of us and for us died and rose again. But sin being destroyed, how could it be that death which was of it and because of it should not altogether come to nothing? The root dying, how could the shoot yet survive? wherefore should we yet die, now that sin hath been destroyed? therefore jubilant in the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God we say: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? For all iniquity, as the Psalmist sings somewhere, shall stop her mouth, no longer able to accuse those who have sinned from infirmity. For it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that we might escape the curse from transgression.

He reminds the hearers of his words and grants Christ the superiority in glory, accomplishing this work not out of love but rather out of truth and necessity. For the creature is subject to the Creator, even if it does not wish to be—the servant to the Lord, the one who receives to the Giver. But we have already explained sufficiently in what preceded how Christ came after John yet was preferred before him, because He existed before him, as John himself confesses.

He leads the hearers to remembrance of his words, and yields to Christ the superiority in glory, accomplishing the work, not of love, but rather of truth and necessity. For the creature is subject, even if it willeth not, to the Creator? the bond to the Lord, the supplied to the Giver. But in what manner Christ was after John, but preferred before him, for He was before him, as himself confesseth, we have spoken sufficiently in what has preceded.

The one who leaped in the depths of his mother's womb at the voice of the Holy Virgin while she was still carrying the Lord, who was a prophet before birth and a disciple while still in the womb, says of the Savior, "I knew Him not," and he speaks truly, for he does not lie. God knows all things by Himself without being taught, but a created being knows by being taught. The Spirit dwelling in the saints supplies what is lacking and gives to human nature His own good—that is, knowledge of future things and hidden mysteries. Therefore the holy Baptist, when he says that he does not know the Lord, is certainly not speaking falsely. He speaks according to the characteristic property of human nature and the proper measure befitting a creature, and he attributes the knowledge of all things to God alone, who through the Holy Spirit enlightens people to understand hidden things. He says very wisely that he did not know Christ on his own, but came for this very purpose: to make Him known to Israel. This way he cannot seem to have run forward on his own initiative to give testimony, nor can anyone think he is a minister of his own will. Rather, he is the worker of the divine plan, the minister of the counsel from above that revealed to him the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

He that leaped in the depth of the womb of his mother at the voice of the Holy Virgin while yet bearing the Lord, prophet before the travail-pang, disciple in the womb, says of the Saviour, I knew Him not, and says truly, for he does not lie. For God knows all things of Himself and untaught, but the creature, by being taught. For the Spirit indwelling in the Saints, fulfils what is lacking, and gives to human nature His Own good, I mean, knowledge of things to come, and of the hidden mysteries. Therefore the holy Baptist saying that he does not know the Lord, will by no means speak untruly, in regard of the property of human nature, and the measure befitting the creature, but will attribute the knowledge of all things to God Alone, Who through the Holy Ghost enlighteneth man to the apprehension of hidden things. And very profitably doth he say that of himself he knew not Christ, but is come for that very purpose, to make Him manifest to Israel, that he may not seem to run of his own accord to bear testimony, nor be thought by any the minister of his own will, but the worker of the Divine dispensation, the minister of the Counsel from above revealing to him the Lamb Which taketh away the sin of the world.

In order, then, that the Jews might more easily come to believe in our Savior Christ and might have the most worthy understanding of Him, John says that though he had not known Him, he now knows Him. He says this so they may recognize that it is God who revealed Him, and so that being awestruck by this judgment from above, they may receive his word concerning Him. Seeing that the servant is so great, they may estimate proportionally the Dignity of the Master. For when he says that he came to make Him manifest to Israel, how does this not indicate the care that belongs to a servant?

In order therefore that the Jews may the more easily come to believe on our Saviour Christ, and may have the most worthy conception of Him, he says that having not known Him, he knows Him, that they may understand then at length God Who revealed Him, and awestruck at the judgment from above, may receive his word concerning Him, and, seeing the servant so great, may proportionally estimate the Dignity of the Master. For his saying, that he was come to make Him manifest to Israel, how does it not denote the care belonging to a servant?

John testified, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'"

32, 33 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and It abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He That sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the Same is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Having said earlier that he did not know Him, John helpfully explains and reveals the Divine Mystery, both showing that the One who told him was God the Father, and clearly describing how the revelation took place. Everything he says benefits the readers' understanding; and by stating that the Mystery of Christ's purpose toward humanity was taught to him by God, he shows that his opponents are fighting against the decree from above, and to their own danger setting themselves against the mighty purpose of the Father. For this was the approach of someone skillfully persuading them to stop their futile plan, and to receive Him who came by the good will of the Father for the salvation of all. He therefore testifies both that he saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon Him in the form of a dove, and that It remained upon Him. Moreover, he says that he himself was the ear-witness of the One who sent him to baptize with water—that the One upon whom the Spirit came and remained upon Him is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. The witness is therefore completely trustworthy, the sign is supernatural, and above all is the Father who revealed it.

Having said above that he knew Him not, he profitably explains and uncovers the Divine Mystery, both shewing that He Who told him was God the Father, and clearly relating the manner of the revelation. By all does he profit the mind of the headers; and whereby he says that the Mystery of Christ to men-ward was taught him of God, he shews that his opposers are fighting against the decree from above, and to their own peril arraying themselves against the mighty purpose of the Father. For this was the part of one skillfully persuading them to desist from their vain counsel, and to receive Him Who by the goodwill of the Father came for the salvation of all. He therefore testifieth, both that he saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon Him, in the form of a Dove, and that It abode upon Him. Then besides, he says that himself was the ear-witness of Him Who sent him to baptize with water, that He upon Whom the Spirit came and abode upon Him is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Most worthy of belief then the witness, supernatural the sign, above all the Father Who revealed.

And these things are so. But perhaps the heretic who loves to find fault will jump up and with a loud laugh say: "What again, sirs, do you say to this as well, or what argument will you bring forth, twisting what is written? Look, he says that the Spirit descends upon the Son; look, He is anointed by God the Father; He receives what He does not have, forsooth, with the Psalmist bearing witness with us and saying to Him: 'Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' How then will the Son any longer be consubstantial with the perfect Father, if He is not Himself perfect, and is therefore anointed?" To this then I think it right to say to those who overturn the holy doctrines of the Church and pervert the truth of the Scriptures: Wake up, you drunkards, from your wine, so that seeing the clear beauty of the truth, you may be able with us to cry out to the Son: "Truly You are the Son of God." For if you fully believe that He is by physis God, how will He not have perfection? For it is time now that you speak impiously against the Father Himself as well. For from where must He necessarily have perfection, as you say? How will He not be brought down to the lowliness of His Offspring, which according to you is imperfect, since the divine ousia in the Son has once received the capacity of not having perfection, according to your unlearned and uninstructed reasoning? For we will not divide that great and unblemished physis into different categories, so that it should be imperfect perhaps in one, and again perfect in the other. Since the definition of human nature too is one with respect to all people, and equal in all of us, what person will be less human, as a human being? Nor will he be considered more so than another. And I suppose that one angel will differ in nothing from another angel with respect to their being what they are—namely, angels—because of sameness of nature, all being linked with one another unto one nature. How then can the physis which is divine and surpassing all show itself in a state inferior to created things in its own special good, and endure a condition which the creature cannot endure? How will it be at all simple and uncompounded if perfection and imperfection appear in it? For it will be compounded of both, since perfection is not of the same kind as imperfection. For if they are of the same kind, and there is no difference between them, everything which is perfect will without distinction also be imperfect. And if anything again is imperfect, this too will be perfect. And the charge against the Son will be nothing, even though according to your assumptions He appears not perfect. But neither will the Father Himself, though witnessed to with respect to His perfection, surpass the Son, and there is an end of our dispute. But if much distance separates imperfection from perfection, and the divine physis admits both together, it is compound and not simple.

And these things are thus. But perchance the heretic fond of carping will jump up, and with a big laugh, say; What again, sirs, say ye to this too, or what argument will ye bring forth, wresting that which is written? Lo, he saith that the Spirit descendeth upon the Son; lo, He is anointed by God the Father; That Which He hath not, He receives forsooth, the Psalmist co-witnessing with us and saying, as to Him: Wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. How then will the Son any more be Consubstantial with the Perfect Father, not being Himself Perfect, and therefore anointed? To this then I think it right to say to those who overturn the holy doctrines of the Church, and pervert the truth of the Scriptures: Awake, ye drunkards, from your wine, that viewing the clear beauty of the truth, ye may be able with us to cry to the Son: Of a truth Thou art the Son of God. For if thou fully believe that He is by Nature God, how will He not have perfection? For time is it that ye now speak impiously against the Father Himself also: for whence must He needs, as thou sayest, have perfection? how will He not be brought down to the abasement of His Offspring, which according to you is imperfect, in that the Divine Essence in the Son has once received the power of not having Perfection, according to your unlearned and uninstructed reasoning? For we will not divide that Great and Untaint Nature into different Words, so that it should be imperfect perchance in one, and again Perfect in the other. Since the definition of human nature too is one in respect of all men, and equal in all of us, what man will be less, qua man? but neither will he be considered more so than another. And I suppose that one angel will differ in nothing from another angel in respect of their being what they are, angels to wit, from sameness of nature, being all linked with one another unto one nature. How then can the Nature Which is Divine and surpassing all, shew Itself in a state inferior to things originate in Its own special good, and endure a condition which the creature cannot endure? How will It be at all simple and uncompounded, if Perfection and imperfection appear in It? For It will be compounded of both, since Perfection is not of the same kind as imperfection. For if they be of the same kind, and there be no difference between them, every thing which is perfect will without distinction be also imperfect: and if ought again be imperfect, this too will be perfect. And the charge against the Son will be nought, even though according to your surmisings He appear not Perfect: but neither will the Father Himself, though witnessed to in respect of His Perfection, surpass the Son, and there is an end of our dispute. But if much interval severs imperfection from perfection, and the Divine Nature admits both together, It is compound, and not simple.

But perhaps someone will say that opposites are incompatible and cannot coexist in the same subject at the same time—for instance, a body cannot have both white and black skin together. Well, my friend, you have very bravely supported my argument. For if the Divine Nature is One, and there is no other besides It, how, tell me, will It admit opposites? How will things unlike one another come together in one subject? But since the Father is by physis God, the Son too is by physis God. He will therefore differ in no way from the Father in respect of being Perfect, since He is begotten of His Divine and most Perfect Essence. For must He not necessarily be Perfect Who is from a Perfect Parent, since He is both His exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, as it is written? But I suppose everyone will consent and agree to this. Or let him come forward and say how the Son is the exact Image of the Perfect Father while not having Perfection in His Own Nature, according to the foolishness of some. For since He is the Impress and Image, He too is perfect as the One Whose Image He is.

But perchance some one will say, that contraries are incompatible, and not co-existent in one subject at the same time, as for instance in a body white and black skin together. Well, my friend, and very bravely hast thou backed up my argument. For if the Divine Nature be One, and there be none other than It, how, tell me, will It admit of contraries? How will things unlike to one another come together into one subject? But since the Father is by Nature God, the Son too is by Nature God. He will therefore in nothing differ, in respect of being Perfect, from the Father, since He is begotten of His Divine and most Perfect Essence. For must not He needs be Perfect Who is of a Perfect Parent, since He is both His exact Likeness, and the express Image of His Person, as it is written? But every one will I suppose consent and agree to this. Or let him come forward and say, how the Son is the exact Image of the Perfect Father, not having Perfection in His Own Nature, according to the uncounsel of some. For since He is the Impress and Image, He is Himself too perfect as He, Whose Image He is.

But someone says that John saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon the Son, and that He has sanctification from without, because He receives it as one who does not have it. Then it is time to call Him openly a creature, barely honored with a little excellence, perfected and sanctified in equal rank with the rest, and having His supply of good things as something acquired. But then how does the Evangelist not lie when he says, "Of His fullness have all we received"? For how will He be full in His own physis if He Himself receives from Another? Or how will God be conceived of as Father at all if the Only-Begotten is a creature and not rather Son? For if this is so, both He Himself will be falsely called Father, and the Son will not be Truth, having upon Him a spurious dignity and a title of bare words. The whole thing therefore will come to nothing, with the Father being neither truly Father nor the Son this by physis, which He is said to be. But if God is truly Father, He surely has that of which He is Father—the Son, that is, of Himself.

But, says one, John saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon the Son, and He has Sanctification from without, for He receives it as not having it. Time then is it to call Him openly a creature, barely honoured with a little excellence, perfected and sanctified in equal rank with the rest, and having His supply of good things an acquired one. Then how does the Evangelist not lie, when he says, Of His fulness have all we received? For how will He be full in His Own Nature, Who Himself receiveth from Another? Or how will God be at all conceived of as Father if the Only-Begotten is a creature, and not rather Son? For if this be so, both Himself will be falsely called Father, and the Son will not be Truth, having upon Him a spurious dignity, and a title of bare words. The whole therefore will come to nothing; the Father being neither truly father, nor the Son this by Nature, which He is said to be. But if God be truly Father, He surely has whereof He is Father, the Son, that is, of Himself.

Then how will the Godhead that is holy by nature beget from itself something that lacks holiness, and bring forth its own offspring without its own inherent properties? For if He has sanctification from outside, as they foolishly claim, they must admit, even against their will, that He was not always holy, but became so later, when the Spirit descended upon Him, as John says. How then was the Son holy even before the Incarnation? For the Seraphim glorified Him in this way, repeating "Holy" in order, from the first to the third time. If then He was holy, even before the Incarnation—indeed, always being with the Father—how did He need a sanctifier, and this in the last times, when He became Man? I am amazed that this too escapes them, despite all their love of investigation. For must we not necessarily understand that the Son could at any time reject sanctification, if it is not in Him essentially, but came to Him as it does to us, or any other rational creature? But that which falls away from sanctification will surely be completely under the bondage of sin, and sink into what is worse, no longer retaining the power to be free from vice. Therefore the Son will not be found to be unchangeable, and the Psalmist will be lying when he cries in the Spirit concerning Him, "But You are the Same."

Then how will the Godhead Holy by Nature beget that of Itself which is void of holiness, and bring forth Its own Fruit destitute of Its own inherent Properties? For if He hath sanctification from without, as they babbling say;—-they must needs confess, even against their will, that He Was not always holy, but became so afterwards, when the Spirit descended upon Him, as John saith. How then was the Son holy even before the Incarnation? for so did the Seraphim glorify Him, repeating the Holy, in order, from the first to the third time. If then He was holy, even before the Incarnation, yea rather being ever with the Father, how needed He a sanctifier, and this in the last times, when He became Man? I marvel how this too escapes them, with all their love of research. For must we not needs conceive, that the Son could at any time reject sanctification, if it be not in Him essentially, but came to Him as it does to us, or any other reasonable creature? But that which falls away from sanctification, will it not be altogether under the bonds of sin, and sink to the worse, no longer retaining power to be apart from vice? Therefore neither will the Son be found to be unchangeable, and the Psalmist will lie crying in the Spirit as to Him, But Thou art the Same.

Besides what has been already said, let this too be considered, for it brings in a related idea: All reasoning will demonstrate that what is partaken of is somewhat different by physis (nature) than the one who partakes. For if this is not true, but the one shall in no way differ from the other, and is the same, then what partakes of something partakes of itself, which is incredible even to think of (for how can anyone be imagined to partake of himself?). But if the things mentioned lie altogether in natural diversity from one another, and the necessity of reasoning separates them, let those who give the Spirit by participation to the Only-Begotten see to what a depth of impiety they sink unknowingly. For if the Son is a partaker of the Spirit, and the Spirit is by physis holy, He Himself will not be by physis holy, but is shown to be barely so through combination with another, transformed by grace to something better than what He was at first. But let the fighter against God again see into how great an impiety the question casts him down. For first, some change and turning, as we said before, will be found to exist with respect to the Son. And being changed according to you, and having advanced to the better, He will be shown to be not only not inferior to the Father, but even somehow to have become superior—and how this is, we will say, taking it from the Divine Scripture. The divine Paul says somewhere of Him: Have this mind among yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. Since then even before the Incarnation, He was in the form and equality of the Father, but at the time of the Incarnation receiving the Spirit from Heaven was sanctified, according to them, and became by reason of this both better and greater than Himself, He surpasses at length, it is plain, even the measure of His Father. And if on receiving the Spirit He rose up to dignity above that of the Father, then the Spirit is superior even to the Father Himself, seeing that He bestows on the Son the superiority over Him. Who then will not shudder at the mere hearing of this? For it is truly hard even to work through such arguments, but no otherwise can the harm of their stubbornness be driven off. Therefore we will say again to them: If when the Word of God became man, He is then also sanctified by receiving the Spirit, but before the Incarnation was in the form and equality of the Father, not yet according to them sanctified, it is time they should boldly say that God the Father is not holy, if the Word who is in all things altogether conformed and equal to Him was not holy in the beginning, but barely in the last times became so. And again, if He is truly the Word of God, who receives the Spirit and is sanctified in His own physis, let our opponents say whether in doing this He became greater or less than Himself, or remained the same. For if He has nothing more from the Spirit, but remains the same as He was, do not be offended at learning that It descended on Him. But if He was injured by receiving It and became less, you will introduce to us the Word as passible, and will accuse the essence of the Father as wronging rather than sanctifying. But if He became better by receiving the Spirit, but was in the form and equality of the Father even before, according to you, He became bettered, the Father has not attained to the height of glory, but will be in that measure of it in which the Son who has advanced to the better was conformed and equal to Him. It is fitting then, I deem, to say to the ill-instructed heretics, Behold O foolish people and without understanding, which have eyes and see not; which have ears and hear not; for the god of this world has indeed blinded the eyes of those who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine to them—they are worthy of pity rather than of anger. For they do not understand what they read.¹¹

Besides what has been already said, let this too be considered, for it brings in a kindred idea: All reasoning will demonstrate that the partaken is somewhat other by nature than the partaker. For if this be not true, but that shall in no wise differ from this, and is the same; that which partakes of ought partakes of itself, which is incredible even to think of (for how can any one be imagined to partake of himself?). But if the things mentioned lie altogether in natural diversity one to another, and the necessity of reasoning separates them, let them who give the Spirit by participation to the Only-Begotten, see to what a depth of impiety they sink unawares. For if the Son is partaker of the Spirit, and the Spirit is by Nature holy, He Himself will not be by Nature holy, but is shewn to be hardly so through combination with another, transelemented by grace to the better, than that wherein He was at first. But let the fighter against God again see, into how great impiety the question casts him down. For first some change and turning, as we said before, will be found to exist respecting the Son. And being according to you changed, and having advanced unto the better, He will be shewn to be not only not inferior to the Father, but even somehow to have become superior: and how this is, we will say, taking it from the Divine Scripture. The divine Paul says somewhere of Him: Be each among you so minded, according to what was also in Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself. Since then even before the Incarnation, He was in the form and equality of the Father, but at the time of the Incarnation receiving the Spirit from Heaven was sanctified, according to them, and became by reason of this better alike and greater than Himself, He surpasses at length it is plain even the measure of His Father. And if on receiving the Spirit He mounted up unto dignity above that of the Father, then is the Spirit superior even to the Father Himself, seeing that He bestows on the Son the superiority over Him. Who then will not shudder at the mere hearing of this? For hard is it in truth even to go through such arguments, but no otherwise can the harm of their stubbornness be driven off. Therefore we will say again to them: If when the Word of God became Man, He is then also sanctified by receiving the Spirit: but before the Incarnation was in the Form and Equality of the Father, not yet according to them sanctified, time is it they should boldly say, that God the Father is not holy, if the Word Who is in all things altogether Con-formal and Equal to Him, was not holy in the beginning, but barely in the last times became so. And again, if He is truly the Word of God, Who receiveth the Spirit, and is sanctified in His Own Nature, let our opponents say, whether in doing this, He became greater or less than Himself, or remained the Same. For if He hath nothing more from the Spirit, but remaineth the same as He was, be not offended at learning that It descended on Him. But if He was injured by receiving It, and became less, you will introduce to us the Word as passible, and will accuse the Essence of the Father as wronging rather than sanctifying. But if He became better by receiving the Spirit, but was in the Form and Equality of the Father, even before, according to you, He became bettered, the Father hath not attained unto the height of glory, but will be in that measure of it, in which the Son Who hath advanced to the better was Con-formal and Equal to Him. Convenient is it then, I deem, to say to the ill-instructed heretics, Behold o foolish people and without understanding, which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not; for the god of this world hath indeed blinded the eyes of them, which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them: worthy of pity are they rather than of anger. For they understand not, what they read.¹¹

But that this reasoning is true will be clear from the following, even if our previous attempts have not made the demonstration perfectly clear. Again we bring forward what Paul said: "Let each of you be so minded according to what was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the Form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself." Look, Paul greatly marvels at the Son as being equal and conformed with God the Father, yet not seizing this because of His love for us, but descending to lowliness through the Form of a servant, emptied by reason of His humanity. But if, sirs, He was sanctified by receiving the Spirit when He became man, and was made superior to Himself through this sanctification, into what kind of lowliness shall we see Him to have descended? How is that which was exalted made low? How did that which was sanctified descend? Did it not rather ascend and become exalted for the better? What emptiness comes from being filled through the Spirit? Or how can He be thought to have become incarnate for our sakes if He gained so great a profit for Himself? How did the Rich become poor for our sakes if He was enriched because of us? How was He rich even before His coming if, according to them, He received in it what He did not have before, namely the Spirit? Or how will He not rather justly offer us thanksgiving for what He gained by means of us? "Be astonished, as it is written, O heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid," says the Lord, "for the people" of the heretics "have in truth committed two evils," understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm, and they do not think it grievous to incur such danger in the weightiest matters. For otherwise they would, shedding bitter tears from their eyes and lifting up a mighty voice on high, have approached saying, "Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, keep the door of my lips. Incline not my heart to words of wickedness." For their words are truly words of wickedness, bringing extreme harm to those who hear them. But we, having expelled their babbling from our heart, will walk in the right way of the faith, bearing in mind what is written: "Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." Come then, and bringing our mind into captivity regarding the subjects before us, let us subject it to the glory of the Only-Begotten, bringing all things wisely to His obedience, that is, to the mode of the Incarnation. For being rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.

But that the reasoning is true, will be clear from hence, even if we have not, by our previous attempts, made the demonstration perfectly clear. Again shall this that is spoken by the mouth of Paul be brought forward: Be each among you, saith he, so minded, according to what was also in Christ Jesus, Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the Form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself. Lo, he much marvels at the Son, as being Equal and Con-formal with God the Father, not, by reason of His Love to us, seizing this, but descending to lowliness, through the Form of a servant, emptied by reason of His Manhood. But if, sirs, He on receiving the Spirit were sanctified rather, when He became Man, and were, through the sanctification, rendered superior to Himself, into what kind of lowliness shall we see Him to have descended? How is That made low that was exalted, how did That descend that was sanctified, or how did it not rather ascend, and was exalted for the better? What emptiness hath filling through the Spirit? or how will He at all be thought to have been Incarnate for our sakes, Who underwent so great profit in respect of Himself? How did the Rich become poor for our sakes, who was enriched because of us? How was He rich even before His Advent, Who according to them received in it what He had not, to wit the Spirit? Or how will He not rather justly offer to us thank-offering for what by means of us He gained? Be astonished, as it is written, O ye heavens, at this: and be horribly afraid, saith the Lord: for the people of the heretics have in truth committed two evils, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, and think it not grievous thus to incur such danger in the weightiest matters. For else would they, shedding bitter tears from their eyes, and lifting up a mighty voice on high, have approached, saying, Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, keep the door of my lips. Incline not my heart to words of wickedness. For words of wickedness in truth are their words, travailing with extremest mischief to the hearers. But we, having expelled their babbling from our heart, will walk in the right way of the faith, bearing in mind that which is written: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Come then, and bringing into captivity our mind as to the subjects before us, let us subject it to the glory of the Only-Begotten, bringing all things wisely to His obedience, that is, to the mode of the Incarnation. For, being Rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.

If you wish, accept our proof through this passage now before us, and listen to our words with patience. The Divine Scripture testifies that man was made in the Image and Likeness of God Who is over all. Indeed, the one who wrote the first book for us—Moses, who above all men was known to God—says, "And God created man, in the Image of God created He him." But Moses himself also taught us that man was sealed unto the Divine Image through the Spirit, saying, "And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." For the Spirit immediately both gave life to God's creation and divinely impressed His own Image upon it. Thus the most excellent Craftsman God, having formed the rational living creature upon the earth, gave him the saving commandment. And man was in Paradise, as it is written, still keeping the Gift and distinguished in the Divine Image of Him Who made him, through the Holy Spirit Who dwelt in him. But when he was corrupted by the tricks of the devil, he began to despise his Creator, and by trampling on the law given to him, to grieve his Benefactor. God then withdrew the grace given to him, and the one who was made for life first heard "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." And then the Likeness to God was defaced through the invasion of sin, and the Impress was no longer bright but fainter and darkened because of the transgression. But when the human race had grown to an innumerable multitude, and sin had dominion over them all, stripping each person's soul in many ways, human physis was stripped of the ancient grace; the Spirit departed altogether, and the rational creature fell into the greatest folly, ignorant even of its Creator. But the Craftsman of all, having endured for a long time, finally took pity on the corrupted world, and being Good, hastened to gather together His runaway flock on earth back to those above; and He decreed to transform human physis anew to the original Image through the Spirit. For it was not otherwise possible that the Divine Impress should shine forth in man again as it did before.

Receive then, if you please, our proof through that also which is now before us, opening a forbearing ear to our words. The Divine Scripture testifies that man was made in the Image and Likeness of God Who is over all. And indeed, he who compiled the first book for us (Moses, who above all men was known to God) says, And God created man, in the Image of God created He him. But that through the Spirit he was sealed unto the Divine Image, himself again taught us, saying, And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit at once began both to put life into His formation and in a Divine manner to impress His own Image thereon. Thus the most excellent Artificer God, having formed the reasonable living creature upon the earth, gave him the saving commandment. And he was in Paradise, as it is written, still keeping the Gift, and eminent in the Divine Image of Him That made him, through the Holy Ghost That indwelt him. But when perverted by the wiles of the devil, he began to despise his Creator, and by trampling on the law assigned him, to grieve his Benefactor, He recalled the grace given to him, and he that was made unto life then first heard Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And now the Likeness to God was through the inroad of sin defaced, and no longer was the Impress bright, but fainter and darkened because of the transgression. But when the race of man had reached to an innumerable multitude, and sin had dominion over them all, manifoldly despoiling each man's soul, his nature was stripped of the ancient grace; the Spirit departed altogether, and the reasonable creature fell into extremest folly, ignorant even of its Creator. But the Artificer of all, having endured a long season, at length pities the corrupted world, and being Good hastened to gather together to those above His runaway flock upon earth; and decreed to trans-element human nature anew to the pristine Image through the Spirit. For no otherwise was it possible that the Divine Impress should again shine forth in him, as it did aforetime.

What he devised for this purpose, how he planted in us the unshakable grace, or how the Spirit took root again in humanity, in what way our nature was restored to its former condition – all this should be explained. The first man, being earthy and from the earth, and having placed in his own power the choice between good and evil, being master of the inclination toward either, was caught by bitter deception. Having inclined toward disobedience, he falls to the earth, the mother from which he came, and now finally overcome by corruption and death, he passes the penalty to his entire race. With evil growing and multiplying in us, and our understanding constantly declining toward the worse, sin reigned, and thus finally human nature was shown stripped of the Holy Spirit who had dwelt in him. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom will flee deceit, as it is written, nor dwell in the body that is subject to sin. Since the first Adam did not preserve the grace given him by God, God the Father decided to send us from heaven the second Adam. For he sends in our likeness his own Son, who is by physis without variableness or change, and wholly ignorant of sin, so that just as by the disobedience of the first we became subject to divine wrath, so through the obedience of the second we might both escape the curse and its evils might be brought to nothing. But when the Word of God became man, he received the Spirit from the Father as one of us – not receiving anything for himself individually, for he was the giver of the Spirit – but so that he who knew no sin might, by receiving it as man, preserve it for our nature, and might root the grace that had left us back into us again. For this reason, I believe, the holy Baptist profitably added, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, and it remained upon him." For it had fled from us because of sin, but he who knew no sin became as one of us, so that the Spirit might become accustomed to remaining in us, having no reason for departure or withdrawal in him.

What then He contrives to this end, how He implanted in us the inviolate grace, or how the Spirit again took root in man, in what manner nature was re-formed to its old condition, it is meet to say. The first man, being earthy, and of the earth, and having, placed in his own power, the choice between good and evil, being master of the inclination to each, was caught of bitter guile, and having inclined to disobedience, falls to the earth, the mother from whence he sprang, and over-mastered now at length by corruption and death, transmits the penalty to his whole race. The evil growing and multiplying in us, and our understanding ever descending to the worse, sin reigned, and thus at length the nature of man was shewn bared of the Holy Ghost Which indwelt him. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom will flee deceit, as it is written, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. Since then the first Adam preserved not the grace given him of God, God the Father was minded to send us from Heaven the second Adam. For He sendeth in our likeness His own Son Who is by Nature without variableness or change, and wholly unknowing of sin, that as by the disobedience of the first, we became subject to Divine wrath, so through the obedience of the Second, we might both escape the curse, and its evils might come to nought. But when the Word of God became Man, He received the Spirit from the Father as one of us, (not receiving ought for Himself individually, for He was the Giver of the Spirit); but that He Who knew no sin, might, by receiving It as Man, preserve It to our nature, and might again inroot in us the grace which had left us. For this reason, I deem, it was that the holy Baptist profitably added, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven, and It abode upon Him. For It had fled from us by reason of sin, but He Who knew no sin, became as one of us, that the Spirit might be accustomed to abide in us, having no occasion of departure or withdrawal in Him.

Therefore through Himself He receives the Spirit for us, and renews to our nature the ancient good. For this is also why He is said to become poor for our sakes. For being rich, as God and lacking no good thing, He became Man lacking all things, to whom it is somewhere rightly said, What do you have that you did not receive? Just as, being by physis Life, He died in the Flesh for our sakes, that He might overcome death for us and raise up our whole nature together with Himself (for all of us were in Him, in that He was made Man), so does He also receive the Spirit for our sakes, that He may sanctify our whole nature. For He did not come to profit Himself, but to be for all of us the Door and Beginning and Way of the Heavenly Goods. For if He had not been willing to receive, as Man, or to suffer as one of us, how could anyone have shown that He humbled Himself? Or how would the Form of a servant have been properly maintained if nothing befitting a servant were written of Him? Let not then the all-wise account of the dispensation be pulled to pieces, about which the divine Paul himself rightly cries out in admiration: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. For the great mystery of the Incarnation is indeed seen to be wisdom and God-befitting.

Therefore through Himself He receives the Spirit for us, and renews to our nature, the ancient good. For thus is He also said for our sakes to become poor. For being rich, as God and lacking no good thing, He became Man lacking all things, to whom it is somewhere said and that very well, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? As then, being by Nature Life, He died in the Flesh for our sakes, that He might overcome death for us, and raise up our whole nature together with Himself (for all we were in Him, in that He was made Man): so does He also receive the Spirit for our sakes, that He may sanctify our whole nature. For He came not to profit Himself, but to be to all us the Door and Beginning and Way of the Heavenly Goods. For if He had not pleased to receive, as Man, or to suffer too, as one of us, how could any one have shewn that He humbled Himself? or how would the Form of a servant have been fittingly kept, if nothing befitting a servant were written of Him? Let not then the all-wise account of the dispensation be pulled to pieces, whereof the divine Paul himself rightly cries in admiration: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. For wisdom indeed and God-befitting, is the great mystery of the Incarnation seen to be.

I believe this is the understanding of our Savior that those of us who choose to be devout and take joy in orthodox doctrines ought to hold. We will not fall into such unreasonableness as to suppose that the Spirit was in the Son by Nature through participation rather than essentially inherent, just as He is in the Father Himself. For the Holy Spirit belongs to the Son just as He does to the Father. This is what we also read in the Divine Scriptures, where it says: "After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."²²

Such an apprehension of our Saviour do I suppose that we who choose to be pious, and rejoice in orthodox doctrines, ought to have. For we too will not descend to such lack of reason as to suppose that in the Son by Nature was the Spirit by participation and not rather essentially inherent even as in the Father Himself. For as of the Father, so also of the Son, is the Holy Ghost. So did we also read in the Divine Scriptures. For it says: After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.²²

But if anyone, with an overly argumentative spirit, wants to object to what we're saying here and insist again that the Spirit is in the Son by participation, or that He wasn't in Him before but came to be in Him when He was baptized during the period of His Incarnation, let him consider what great absurdities he will fall into. First, the Saviour says: "Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist." This statement is true, but we see that the one who reached the highest point of glory and virtue available to us honored Christ with incomparable excellencies. For John says, "I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose the latchet of His shoes." How then is it not absurd—indeed, impious—to believe that John was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, because it is written of him this way, and yet to suppose that his Master, or rather the Master and Lord of all, first received the Spirit when He was baptized? This is especially problematic since the holy Gabriel says to the holy Virgin: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." And let the lover of learning see how much meaning this statement carries. For regarding John, it says "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost" (for the Holy Spirit was in him as a gift, and not essentially), but regarding the Saviour, it no longer says "shall be filled" (according to right understanding), but "that holy Thing which shall be born of thee." Nor did it add "shall be," for It was always Holy by physis, as God.

But if it seem good to any one, with over contentious zeal, to object to our words hereon, and to assert again, that the Spirit is in the Son by participation, or that, not being in Him before, He then came to be in Him, when He was baptized, in the period of His Incarnation, let him see, into what and how great absurdities he will fall. For first, the Saviour saith: Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. And the word is true: but we see him who hath attained to the summit of glory and virtue that belong to us, honouring Christ with incomparable excellencies. For I am not worthy, says he, to stoop down and unloose the latchet of His shoes. How then is it not absurd, yea rather impious, to believe that John was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb, because it is so written of him: and to suppose that his Master, yea rather the Master and Lord of all, then first received the Spirit, when He was baptized, albeit holy Gabriel says to the holy Virgin: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And let the lover of learning see, with how great a meaning the word travaileth. For of John, it saith, he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost (for the Holy Ghost was in him as a gift, and not essentially), but of the Saviour, he no longer saith shall be filled, (in rightness of conception,) but that holy Thing which shall be born of thee. Nor did he add shall be, for It was always Holy by Nature, as God.

But since I believe we ought to seek what is profitable from all sources, and since the voice of the archangel has already been brought forward, come, let us examine it a little. The Holy Ghost, he says, shall come upon you, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God. Let the person who, from great ignorance, opposes the right doctrines of the Church tell us whether even before the Incarnation the Word of God the Father was Son, or had the title in name only but was a bastard and falsely called. For if he says that He was not the Son at all, he will deny the Father (for of whom will He be the Father if He has no Son?), and he will think contrary to all the Divine Scriptures. But if he confesses that the Son even before the Incarnation both was and was called Son, how does the Archangel tell us that what should be born of the holy Virgin shall be called the Son of God, although He was this by physis even long before? Therefore, just as the Son, being from eternity with the Father as having His origin of being, is at the time of His Incarnation called Son of God from His appearing in the world with a body, so, having in Himself essentially His own Spirit, He is said to receive it as Man, preserving to the humanity the order befitting it, and with it appropriating for our sakes the things befitting it. But how can the Word be thought of at all apart from His own Spirit? For would it not be absurd to say that the spirit of man, which is in him according to the definition of nature and for the completeness of the living being, was separated from him? But I suppose that this is most evident to all. How then shall we sever the Spirit from the Son, when it is so inherent and essentially united, and through Him proceeding and being in Him by physis, that it cannot be thought to be other than He by reason both of identity of working and the very exact likeness of physis? Hear what the Saviour says to His own disciples: If you love Me, keep My commandments, and I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. See, plainly He calls the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth. But that He and none other than He is the Truth, hear Him again saying, I am the Truth. The Son by physis then being and being called Truth, see how great a oneness with Him the Spirit has. For the disciple John says somewhere of our Saviour, This is He who came by water and blood and the spirit, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is Truth. Therefore also, the Holy Ghost indwelling in our inner man, Christ Himself is said to dwell there, and so it is. And indeed the blessed Paul most clearly teaching this says, But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Apply, sir, a quick ear to what is said. Having named the Spirit of Christ that dwells in us, he immediately added, If Christ is in you, introducing the exact likeness of the Son with the Spirit, which is His own and proceeding from Him by physis. Therefore He is called the Spirit of adoption also, and in Him we cry Abba, Father. And as the blessed John somewhere says, By this we know that He dwells in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.³³

But since I deem that we ought to seek after what is profitable from all quarters; the voice of the archangel having been once brought forward, come, let us exercise ourselves a little in it. The Holy Ghost, says he, shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Let him then, who from great unlearning, opposeth the right doctrines of the Church, tell us, whether even before the Incarnation the the Word of God the Father was Son, or had the glory in name only, but was a bastard, and falsely called. For if he say that He was not the Son at all, he will deny the Father (for of whom will He be the Father, if He have no Son?): and he will think contrary to all the Divine Scriptures. But if he confess that the Son even before the Incarnation both was and was called Son, how does the Archangel tell us that That which should be born of the holy Virgin shall be called the Son of God, albeit He was this by Nature even long before? As therefore the Son being from eternity with the Father, as having Origin of Being, is at the time of His Incarnation called Son of God, from His appearing in the world with a Body; so, having in Himself Essentially His Own Spirit, He is said to receive It as Man, preserving to the Humanity the order befitting it, and with it appropriating for our sakes the things befitting it. But how can the Word be thought of at all apart from Its Own Spirit? For would it not be absurd to say, that the spirit of man, which is in him, according to the definition of nature, and for the completeness of the living-being, was separated from him? But I suppose that this is most evident to all. How then shall we sever the Spirit from the Son, Which is so inherent and essentially united, and through Him proceeding and being in Him by Nature, that It cannot be thought to be Other than He by reason both of Identity of working, and the very exact likeness of Nature. Hear what the Saviour saith to His own disciples, If ye love Me, keep My Commandments, and I will pray the Father, and He shall give you Another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive. Lo, plainly He calls the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth. But that He and none other than He is the Truth, hear Him again saying, I am the Truth. The Son by Nature then being and being called Truth, see how great Oneness with Him the Spirit hath. For the disciple John saith somewhere of our Saviour, This is He that came by water and blood and the spirit, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit That beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. Therefore also, the Holy Ghost indwelling in our inner man, Christ Himself is said to dwell therein, and so it is. And indeed the blessed Paul most clearly teaching this, says, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Apply, sir, a quick ear to what is said. Having named the Spirit of Christ That dwelleth in us, he straightway added, If Christ be in you, introducing the exact likeness of the Son with the Spirit, Which is His Own and proceeding from Him by Nature. Therefore He is called the Spirit of adoption also, and in Him we cry Abba, Father. And as the blessed John somewhere says, Hereby know we that He dwelleth in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.³³

I think these things will be enough to enable the children of the Church to repel the harm caused by the heretics. But if anyone is soaked in the undiluted strong drink of their ignorance and supposes that the Son first received the Spirit when He became Man, let him show that the Word of God was not holy before the Incarnation, and we will remain silent.

I think then that these things will suffice, to enable the children of the Church to repel the mischief of the heretics. But if any one be soused in the unmixed strong drink of their unlearning, and suppose that the Son then first received the Spirit, when He became Man: let him shew that the Word of God was not holy before the Incarnation, and we will hold our peace.

But one may well wonder that the holy Evangelist everywhere carefully preserves what befits the Divine Nature. For since he said above that no one has seen God at any time, and now says that the blessed Baptist saw the Spirit descend from Heaven upon the Son, he necessarily adds, I saw the Spirit, but in the form of a dove, not Himself by nature (physis) as He is, but shadowed in the gentlest animal; so that in this again He might be shown to preserve His natural kinship and likeness to the Son, who says, Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. Therefore the Spirit will not fall away from being God by nature: for never having been seen at any time has been preserved to Him, except under the form of a dove, because of the need of the disciple. For the blessed Baptist says that the descent of the Spirit was given to him by way of a sign and token, adding to his testimonies concerning our Saviour, He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said to me, Upon Whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the Same is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Therefore I think we may rightly laugh to scorn those senseless heretics who take as literal fact that which was set forth by way of sign, even though it took place as part of the oikonomia (divine plan of salvation), as has already been said, for the sake of the need of the human race.

But one may well wonder that the holy Evangelist every where preserves with much observance what befits the Divine Nature. For since he said above, that no man hath seen God at any time, and now says that the blessed Baptist saw the Spirit descend from Heaven upon the Son, he adds of necessity, I saw the Spirit, but in the form of a Dove, not Himself by Nature, as He is, but shadowed in the gentlest animal; that in this again He might be shewn to preserve His Natural Affinity and Likeness to the Son, Who saith, Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. Therefore the Spirit will not fall away from being God by Nature: for the never having been seen at any time has been preserved to Him, save under the form of a dove, by reason of the need of the disciple. For the blessed Baptist says that the descent of the Spirit was given him by way of a sign and token, adding to his testimonies respecting our Saviour, He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the Same is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Therefore I think we may fitly laugh to scorn those senseless heretics who take as matter of fact, that which was set forth by way of sign, even though it took place as part of the oeconomy, as hath been already said, for the need's sake of the human race.

The witness is reliable; he speaks about what he has actually seen. For perhaps he was familiar with what is written: "Tell what your own eyes have seen." "I saw the sign," he says, "and understood what it signified. I bear record that this is the Son of God, who was proclaimed by the Law through Moses and announced by the voice of the holy Prophets." The blessed Evangelist seems to me to be saying with great confidence, "This is the Son of God"—that is, the One, the Only by Nature, the Heir of the Father's own Nature. We too are sons by adoption, conformed to him, and through him we are called by grace to the dignity of sonship. For just as every family in heaven and earth is named from God the Father, because he is properly, first, and truly Father, so all sonship comes from the Son, because he is properly and alone truly Son—not illegitimate or falsely-called, but of the ousia of God the Father. He is not produced by cutting off, emanation, division, or separation (for the Divine Nature is completely Impassible), but as One from One, eternally co-existing and co-eternal and innate in the One who begat him, being in him and coming forth from him, indivisible and without dimensions. For the Divinity is not like a body, nor is it bounded by space, nor is it the kind of nature that makes progressive movements. Rather, just as heat proceeds from fire, appearing to be separate from it in thought and to be other than it, though it is from it and in it by nature, and proceeds from it without the fire suffering any harm through cutting off, division, or emanation (for the fire is preserved whole in its entirety)—so we should conceive of the Divine Offspring, thinking about this in a manner most worthy of God and believing that the Son subsists of himself, yet not excluding him from the one ineffable Godhead, nor saying that he is other in ousia than the Father. For then he would no longer be rightly understood as Son, but as something other than he is, and a new god would arise, different from the One who alone Is. For how could that which is not consubstantial with God by Nature fail to fall away completely from being truly God? But since the blessed Baptist is both trustworthy and of the greatest reputation, and testifies that this is the Son of God, we will confess the Son to be completely truly God and of the ousia of the Father. For this and nothing else is what the name of Sonship signifies to us.

Sure is the witness; who, what he hath actually seen, that he also speaketh. For haply he was not ignorant of that which is written, That which thine eyes have seen, tell. I saw then, says he, the sign, and understood That Which was signified by it. I bear record that this is the Son of God, Who was proclaimed by the Law that is through Moses, and heralded by the voice of the holy Prophets. The blessed Evangelist seems to me again to say with some great confidence, This is the Son of God, that is, the One, the Only by Nature, the Heir of the Own Nature of the Father, to Whom we too, sons by adoption, are conformed and through Whom we are called by grace to the dignity of sonship. For as from God the Father every family in Heaven and earth is named, from His being properly, and first, and truly Father, so is all sonship too from the Son, by reason of His being properly and Alone truly Son, not bastard nor falsely-called, but of the Essence of God the Father, not by off-cutting or emanation or division or severance (for the Divine Nature is altogether Impassible): but as One of One, ever Co-existing and Co-eternal and Innate in Him Who begat Him, being in Him, and coming forth from Him, Indivisible and without Dimensions; since the Divinity is neither after the manner of a body, nor bounded by space, nor of nature such as to make progressive footsteps. But like as from fire proceedeth the heat that is in it, appearing to be separate from it in idea, and to be other than it, though it is of it and in it by nature, and proceedeth from it without suffering any harm in the way of offcutting, division, or emanation (for it is preserved whole in the whole fire): so shall we conceive of the Divine Offspring too, thinking thereon in a manner most worthy of God, and believing that the Son subsists of Himself, yet not excluding Him from the One Ineffable Godhead, nor saying that He is Other in substance than the Father. For then would He no longer be rightly conceived of as Son, but something other than He, and a new god would arise, other than He That Only Is. For how shall not that which is not consubstantial with God by Nature, wholly fall away from being Very God? But since the blessed Baptist is both trustworthy, and of the greatest repute, and testifieth that This is the Son of God: we will confess the Son to be altogether Very God, and of the Essence of the Father. For this and nothing else, does the name of Sonship signify to us.

The next day, John stood with two of his disciples, and as he looked at Jesus walking by, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

35, 36 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples, and looking upon Jesus as He walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world.

The blessed Baptist had already pointed Him out before, but now, repeating the same words again, he points Jesus out to his disciples and calls Him the Lamb of God, saying that He takes away the sin of the world. He does this almost as if to bring his hearers to remember the One who says in the Prophets: I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions and will not remember your sins. But the Baptist does not repeat the same account of the Savior without purpose. For it belongs to skillful teaching to fix the word that has not yet been received into the souls of the disciples, not shrinking from repetition but rather enduring it for the benefit of the students. This is why the blessed Paul also says, To write the same things to you is not burdensome to me, but for you it is a safeguard.

Already had the blessed Baptist pointed Him out before; but lo, repeating again the same words, he points Jesus out to his disciples, and calls Him the Lamb of God, and says that He taketh away the sin of the world, all but bringing his hearers to remembrance of Him Who saith in the Prophets: I, even I, am He That blotteth out thy transgressions, and will not remember thy sins. But not in vain does the Baptist repeat the same account of the Saviour. For it belongs to skill in teaching, to infix in the souls of the disciples the not yet received word, not shrinking at repetition, but rather enduring it for the profit of the pupils. For therefore does the blessed Paul too say, To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

Do you see the fruit that came from the service of teaching? Do you see how much benefit resulted from repetition? Let anyone who is entrusted with teaching learn from this to show himself superior to all laziness, and to consider silence more harmful to himself than to his hearers, and not to bury the Lord's talent in idle sloth, as if in the earth, but rather to give His money to the exchangers. For the Savior will receive His own with interest, and will make the word that is cast in grow like seed. You have here an excellent proof of what has been said. For the Baptist, not shrinking from pointing out the Lord to his disciples and from saying a second time, "Behold the Lamb of God," is seen to have benefited them so greatly that he finally even persuaded them to follow Him and to already desire to be His disciples.

Seest thou the fruit, handmaid of teaching, yielded therefrom? Seest thou how great gain accrued from repetition? Let him then who is entrusted with teaching learn from this, to shew himself superior to all indolence, and to esteem silence more hurtful to himself than to his hearers, and not to bury the Lord's talent in listless sloth, as in the earth, but rather to give His money to the exchangers. For the Saviour will receive His own with usury, and will quicken as seed the word cast in. You have here a most excellent proof of what has been said. For the Baptist, not shrinking from pointing out the Lord to his disciples, and from saying a second time, Behold the Lamb of God, is seen to have so greatly profited them, as to at length even persuade them to follow Him and already to desire discipleship under Him.

The Lord rightly turns to those who follow Him, so that you may learn through this action what is sung: "I sought the Lord, and He heard me." For while we do not yet seek the Lord through good conduct and correctness in believing, we are in a sense behind Him. But when, thirsting after His divine law, we pursue the holy and excellent way of righteousness, then at last He will look upon us, crying out what is written: "Turn to Me, and I will turn to you, says the Lord of Hosts." But He says to them, "What seek ye?" not because He is ignorant (how could that be?), for He knows all things, as God. Rather, He makes the question a beginning and foundation of His teaching.

Fitly does the Lord turn to them that follow Him, that thou mayest learn in act that which is sung, I sought the Lord, and He heard me. For while we do not yet seek the Lord by good habits and Tightness in believing, we are in some sort behind Him: but when, thirsting after His Divine law, we track the holy and choice way of righteousness, then at length will He look upon us, crying aloud what is written, Turn ye unto Me, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But He saith unto them, What seek ye? not as though ignorant (whence could it be so?), for He knoweth all things, as God; but making the question a beginning and root of His discourse.

Like well-instructed people, those who are asked respond appropriately. They already call Him Master, clearly showing their readiness to learn. Then they ask to know His home, intending to tell Him there at a suitable time about their need. They probably did not think it right to discuss necessary matters while traveling. Let what is said here be a useful example for us.

Like people well instructed do they that are asked reply. For already do they call Him, Master, thereby clearly signifying their readiness to learn. Then they beg to know His home, as about therein to tell Him at a fit season of their need. For probably they did not think it right to make talk on needful subjects the companion of a journey. Be what is said again to us for a useful pattern.

He does not point out the house, even though they asked him to, but instead tells them to come to it immediately. First, he teaches by example that it is not right to put delays in the way of searching for what is good (because delay in beneficial matters is entirely harmful). He also teaches this: that for those who are still ignorant of the holy house of our Savior Christ, that is, the Church, it will not be enough for salvation simply to learn where it is, but they must enter into it by faith and see the things mystically accomplished within it.

He doth not point out the house, though asked to do it, but rather bids them come forthwith to it: teaching first, as by example, that it is not well to cast delays in the way of search after what is good (for delay in things profitable is altogether hurtful): and this too besides, that to those who are still ignorant of the holy house of our Saviour Christ, that is, the Church, it will not suffice to salvation that they should learn where it is, but that they should enter into it by faith, and see the things mystically wrought therein.

The disciples worked hard to gain knowledge of the Divine Mysteries. I don't think that a wavering mind is fitting for those who want to learn, but rather one that is very diligent and strong enough to endure good labors, so that throughout their entire lifetime they excel in complete dedication. I believe this is what the words "they abode with Him that day" subtly indicate. But when he says "it was about the tenth hour," we adapt our teaching to each person's benefit and say that in this detail, the writer of divine truth through this careful treatment again teaches us that the great mystery of our Savior was not made known at the beginning of the present world, but when time now approaches its end. For in the last days, as it is written, we shall all be taught of God. Take again, I ask, as a picture of what has been said about the tenth hour, the disciples clinging to the Savior—of whom the holy Evangelist says that having once become His guests they remained with Him—so that those who through faith have entered into the holy house and have run to Christ may learn that they need to remain with Him, and not desire to become separated again, either by turning aside into sin or by returning to unbelief.

Assiduously did the disciples apply themselves to the attainment of the knowledge of the Divine Mysteries. For I do not think that a fickle mind beseems those who desire to learn, but rather one most painstaking, and superior to feeble mindedness in good toils, so as during their whole life time to excel in perfect zeal. For this I think the words, they abode with Him that day, darkly signify. But when he says, it was about the tenth hour, we adapting our own discourse to each man's profit, say that in this very thing, the compiler of Divinity through this so subtle handling again teacheth us, that not in the beginning of the present world was the mighty mystery of our Saviour made known, but when time now draws towards its close. For in the last days, as it is written, we shall be all taught of God. Take again I pray as an image of what has been said about the tenth hour, the disciples cleaving to the Saviour, of whom the holy Evangelist says that having once become His guests they abode with Him: that they who through faith have entered into the holy house, and have run to Christ, may learn that it needs to abide with Him, and not to desire to be again estranged, either turning aside into sin, or again returning to unbelief.

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah," which means, when translated, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus.

40, 41, 42 One of the two which heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus.

Those who even now have received their calling immediately put it to work and bring results to the Lord. These are truly obedient and teachable souls who do not need many words to benefit, nor do they produce the fruit of their teaching only after years or months have passed. Instead, they reach the goal of wisdom right at the start of their instruction. For Scripture says, give instruction to a wise man, and he will become even wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. So Andrew saves his brother (this was Peter) by declaring the whole mystery in a brief summary. For "we have found," he says, Jesus, like a treasure hidden in a field or like one pearl of great price, according to the parables in the Gospels.

They who even now received the talent, straightway make traffic of their talent, and bring it to the Lord. For such are in truth obedient and docile souls, not needing many words for profit, nor bearing the fruit of their instruction, after revolutions of years or months, but attaining the goal of wisdom along with the commencement of their instruction. For give, it says, instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. Andrew then saves his brother (this was Peter), having declared the whole mystery in a brief summary. For we have found, he says, Jesus, as Treasure hid in a field, or as One Pearl of great price, according to the parables in the Gospels.

He looks upon him in a divine way, as one who sees hearts and innermost thoughts, and He sees how great a piety the disciple will attain, what great virtue he will possess, and at what consummation he will end. For He who knows all things before they come to be is ignorant of nothing. And in this He especially teaches the one who is called that, being truly God, He has knowledge that is not learned. For without needing a single word or even seeking to learn who the man was or where he came from, He states what father he was born of and what his own name was, and He allows him to be called Simon no longer, already exercising lordship and power over him as His own. But He changes it to Peter from Petra, for upon him He was about to found His Church.⁴⁴

He after a Divine sort looketh upon him, Who seeth the hearts and reins; and seeth to how great piety the disciple will attain, of how great virtue he will be possessed, and at what consummation he will leave off. For He Who know-eth all things before they be is not ignorant of ought. And herein does He specially instruct him that is called, that being Very God, He hath knowledge untaught. For not having needed a single word, nor even sought to learn who or whence the man came to Him; He says of what father he was born, and what was his own name, and permits him to be no more called Simon, already exercising lordship and power over him, as being His: but changes it to Peter from Petra: for upon him was He about to found His Church.⁴⁴

Philip was like-minded with those who came before him and very ready to follow Christ. For Christ knew that he would be good. Therefore He also says "Follow Me," making the word a sign of the grace that was upon him, and by bidding him to follow, He testified to him that his way of life was most excellent. For He would not have chosen him if he had not been altogether good.

Likeminded with those preceding was Philip, and very ready to follow Christ. For Christ knew that he would be good. Therefore also He says Follow Me, making the word a token of the grace that was upon him, and wherein he bid him follow, testifying to him that most excellent was his conversation. For Ho would not have chosen him, if he had not been altogether good.

The disciple was very quick to bear fruit, showing that he shared the same character as those who came before him. He found Nathanael, not by simply meeting him by chance, but by searching carefully for him. He knew that Nathanael was very diligent and eager to learn. Then he tells him that he had found the Christ who was proclaimed throughout all the Divine Scripture, speaking not to someone ignorant, but to someone thoroughly educated in the teaching of both Moses and the prophets. For an incorrect assumption was widespread among the Jews concerning our Savior Jesus Christ—that He was from the city or village of Nazareth—although the Divine Scripture says that He is from Bethlehem, as far as this matter goes. And it says, "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, house of Ephrata, are little to be among the thousands of Judah, for out of you shall He come forth to Me Who is to be ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." For He was raised in Nazareth, as the Evangelist himself also testified somewhere, saying, "And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up"; but He was not from there, but from where we said before, or rather, as the voice of the prophet declared. Philip therefore, following the assumption of the Jews, says, "Jesus of Nazareth."

Exceeding swift was the disciple unto the bearing fruit, that hereby he might shew himself akin in disposition to them that had preceded. For he findeth Nathanael, not simply meeting him coming along, but making diligent search for him. For he knew that he was most painstaking and fond of learning. Then he says that he had found the Christ Who was heralded through all the Divine Scripture, addressing himself not as to one ignorant, but as to one exceedingly well instructed in the learning both of all-wise Moses and of the prophets. For a not true supposition was prevailing among the Jews as regards our Saviour Jesus Christ, that He should be of the city or village of Nazareth, albeit the Divine Scripture says that He is a Bethlehemite, as far as pertains to this. And thou, Bethlehem, it says, in the land of Judah, house of Ephrata, art little to be among the thousands of Judah, for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me That is to be ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. For He was brought up in Nazareth, as the Evangelist himself too somewhere testified, saying, And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; but He was not thence, but whence we said before, yea rather, as the voice of the prophet affirmed. Philip therefore following the supposition of the Jews says, Jesus of Nazareth.

Nathanael readily agrees that something great and most excellent is expected to come from Nazareth. It is, I suppose, perfectly clear that he not only accepted Nazareth as confirmation of what he was seeking, but by gathering knowledge from the Law and the Prophets, as someone who loved learning, he quickly understood.⁵⁵

Nathanael readily agrees that something great and most fair is that which is expected to appear out of Nazareth. It is, I suppose, perfectly clear, that not only did he take Nazareth as a pledge of that which he sought, but bringing together knowledge from the law and Prophets, as one fond of learning he gained swift understanding.⁵⁵

Sight will be enough for faith, he says, and just by having talked with Him, you will confess more easily and will say without hesitation that He is truly the Expected One. But we must believe that there was a Divine and Ineffable grace flowing forth with the words of the Savior and attracting the souls of those who heard. For it is written that everyone marveled at the gracious words that came from His mouth. For just as His word is mighty in power, so too is it effective in persuading.

Sight will suffice for faith, says he, and having only conversed with. Him you will confess more readily, and will unhesitatingly say that He is indeed the Expected One. But we must believe that there was a Divine and Ineffable grace, flowing forth with the words of the Saviour, and alluring the souls of the hearers. For so it is written, that all wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His Mouth. For as His word is mighty in power, so too is it efficacious to persuade.

Not yet having used proof through signs, Christ tried in another way to persuade both His own disciples and the wiser people who came to Him that He was by physis Son and God, but had come in human form for the salvation of all. What then was the method that led to faith? God-befitting knowledge. For knowledge of all things befits God alone. He therefore receives Nathanael, not rushing him through flattery to this state, but by things of which Nathanael was conscious, giving him a pledge that He knows hearts, as God.

Not having yet used proof by means of signs, Christ endeavoured in another way to persuade both His own disciples, and the wiser of those that came to Him, that He was by Nature Son and God, but for the salvation of all was come in human Form. What then was the mode that led to faith? God-befitting knowledge. For knowledge of all things befitteth God Alone. He receiveth therefore Nathanael, not hurrying him by flatteries to this state, but by those things whereof he was conscious, giving him a pledge, that he knoweth the hearts, as God.

Nathanael begins to wonder and is called to a faith that is now firm, but he still wants to learn how Jesus has knowledge about him. For souls that seek learning and are pious are very careful. But perhaps he supposed that Philip had told the Lord something about him.

Nathanael begins to wonder, and is called to a now firm faith: but desires yet to learn, whence He has the knowledge concerning him. For very accurate are learning-seeking and pious souls. But perhaps he supposed that somewhat of him had been shewn to the Lord by Philip.

The Savior corrected his assumption, saying that even before his encounter and conversation with Philip, He had seen him under the fig-tree, though not bodily present. Both the fig-tree and the location are mentioned very usefully, confirming to him the truth that he had been seen. For someone who already has precise knowledge of what was with him will readily be believed.

The Saviour undid his surmise, saying that even before his meeting and conversing with Philip, He had seen him under the fig-tree, though not present in Body. Very profitably are both the fig-tree and the place named, pledging to him the truth of his having been seen. For he that has already accurate knowledge of what was with him, will readily be admitted.

He knows that God alone searches hearts, and that God gives to no other human being the ability to understand the mind, likely considering that verse in the Psalms: God tests the hearts and reins. For the Psalmist has attributed this quality to the Divine Nature alone, as belonging to no one else. When Nathanael realized that the Lord saw his thoughts turning over in his mind in still voiceless whispers, he immediately calls Him Master, readily entering into discipleship under Him already, and confesses Him Son of God and King of Israel, in whom the Properties of Divinity exist, and as one well instructed he declares Him to be wholly and by physis God.

He knows that God Alone is Searcher of hearts, and giveth to none other of men to understand the mind, considering as is likely that verse in the Psalms, God trieth the hearts and reins. For as accruing to none else, the Psalmist hath attributed this too as peculiar to the Divine Nature only. When then he knew that the Lord saw his thoughts revolving in his mind in yet voiceless whispers, straightway he calls Him Master, readily entering already into discipleship under Him, and confesses Him Son of God and King of Israel, in Whom are inexistent the Properties of Divinity, and as one well instructed he affirms Him to be wholly and by Nature God.

You will become more steadfast in your faith, He says, when you see greater things than these. For if someone believed because of one sign, how will he not be completely improved through many signs, especially since they will be more wonderful than those now being marveled at?

Thou shalt be firmer unto faith, saith He, when thou seest greater things than these. For he that believed one sign, how shall he not by means of many be altogether bettered, especially since they shall be more wonderful than those now wondered at?

Common now to all is the word which confirms Nathanael's faith. But in saying that angels shall be seen speeding up and down upon the Son of Man—that is, ministering and serving His commands for the salvation of those who shall believe—He says that then especially shall He be revealed as being by physis Son of God. For the rational powers do not serve one another but surely God. And this does not take away subjection among the angels (for this will not reasonably be called bondage). But we have heard from the Holy Evangelists that angels came to our Savior Christ and ministered to Him.

Common now to all is the word which seals the faith of Nathanael. But in saying that angels shall be seen speeding up and down upon the Son of Man, that is, ministering and serving His commands, for the salvation of such as shall believe, He says that then especially shall He be revealed as being by Nature Son of God. For it is not one another that the rational powers serve but surely God. And this does not take away subjection among the angels (for this will not be reasonably called bondage). But we have heard of the Holy Evangelists, that angels came to our Saviour Christ, and ministered unto Him.

Chapter 2:2-3 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and His disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."

Chap. ii.2,3 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called, and His disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine.

He finally comes, at the right time, to perform His first miracle, even though it seems He was invited without any particular plan in mind. A wedding feast was being held (clearly it was entirely proper), and the Saviour's mother was present. He Himself was also invited and came along with His own disciples—more to work miracles than to feast with them, but even more to make holy the very beginning of human birth, that is, as far as concerns the flesh. For it was appropriate that He, who was renewing human nature itself and reshaping it entirely for the better, should not only give His blessing to those already brought into existence, but also prepare grace beforehand for those soon to be born, and make holy their entry into being.

Seasonably comes He at length, to the beginning of miracles, even if He seems to have been called to it without set purpose. For a marriage feast being held (it is clear that it was altogether holily), the mother of the Saviour is present, and Himself also being bidden comes together with His own disciples, to work miracles rather than to feast with them, and yet more to sanctify the very beginning of the birth of man: I mean so far as appertains to the flesh. For it was fitting that He, Who was renewing the very nature of man, and refashioning it all for the better, should not only impart His blessing to those already called into being, but also prepare before grace for those soon to be born, and make holy their entrance into being.

Here is a third reason as well. God said to the woman, "In sorrow you shall bring forth children." How then was it not necessary that we should cast off this curse too, or how else could we escape a condemned marriage? The Savior, being a lover of mankind, removes this also. For He, who is the Delight and Joy of all, honored marriage with His presence so that He might drive out the ancient shame of childbearing. For if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, and old things have passed away, as Paul says—they have become new. Therefore He comes with His disciples to the marriage. For it was necessary that those who love miracles should be present with the Wonderworker, to gather what was done as a kind of food for their faith. But when the wine ran out for those feasting, His mother called upon the Lord, who is good according to His customary love for mankind, saying, "They have no wine." For since it was in His power to do whatever He willed, she urges Him to perform the miracle.

Receive also yet a third reason. It had been said to the woman by God, In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. How then was it not needful that we should thrust off this curse too, or how else could we escape a condemned marriage? This too the Saviour, being loving to man, removes. For He, the Delight and Joy of all, honoured marriage with His Presence, that He might expel the old shame of child-bearing. For if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; and old things are passed away, as Paul saith, they are become new. He cometh therefore with. His disciples to the marriage. For it was needful that the lovers of miracles should be present with the Wonderworker, to collect what was wrought as a kind of food to their faith. But when wine failed the feasters, His mother called the Lord being good according to His wonted Love for man, saying, They have no wine. For since it was in His Power to do whatsoever He would, she urges Him to the miracle.

Most excellently, the Savior fashioned this discourse for us. For it was fitting that He not rush hastily into action, nor appear to work miracles as though on His own initiative, but rather, being called upon, to come to it reluctantly, and to grant the grace to the necessity itself rather than to the spectators. But the outcome of things longed for somehow seems even more pleasing when it is granted not immediately to those who ask for it, but through a little delay that gives rise to most lovely hope. Besides, Christ shows by this that the deepest honor is due to parents, since He consents out of reverence to His Mother to do what He did not yet wish to do.

Most excellently did the Saviour fashion for us this discourse also. For it behoved Him not to come hastily to action, nor to appear a Worker of miracles as though of His Own accord, but, being called, hardly to come thereto, and to grant the grace to the necessity rather than to the lookers on. But the issue of things longed for seems somehow to be even more grateful, when granted not off-hand to those who ask for it, but through a little delay put forth to most lovely hope. Besides, Christ hereby shews that the deepest honour is due to parents, admitting out of reverence to His Mother what He willed not as yet to do.

The woman, having great influence over the performance of the miracle, prevailed by persuading the Lord based on what was appropriate, since He was her Son. She begins the work by preparing the servants at the gathering to obey whatever commands would be given.

The woman having great influence to the performing of the miracle, prevailed, persuading the Lord, on account of what was fitting, as her Son. She begins the work by preparing the servants of the assembly to obey the things that should be enjoined.

Jesus said to them, "Fill the water jars with water." And they filled them to the brim. Then He said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." So they took it to him. When the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine, he did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew). The master of the banquet called the bridegroom aside and said to him, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first, and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best wine until now."

7, 8, 9, 10 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew); the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The servants do what they are commanded, and by unspeakable power the water was changed into wine. For what is difficult for Him who can do all things? He who calls into existence things that do not exist—how could He grow weary transforming things already created into whatever He wills? They marvel at what happened, as something extraordinary, for Christ's works are like this when observed. But the governor of the feast accuses the bridegroom of saving what was better for the end of the feast, which seems fitting to me, according to how the story is told.

The ministers accomplish what is commanded, and by unspeakable might was the water changed into wine. For what is hard to Him Who can do all things? He that calleth into being things which are not, how will He weary, trans-ordering into what He will things already made? They marvel at the thing, as strange; for such are Christ's works to look upon. But the governor of the feast charges the bridegroom with expending what was better on the latter end of the feast, not unfitly, as appears to me, according to the narration of the story.

Many excellent things were accomplished at once through this one first miracle. Honorable marriage was sanctified, the curse on women was removed (for they will no longer give birth in sorrow, now that Christ has blessed the very beginning of our existence), the glory of our Savior shone forth like the sun's rays, and more than this, the disciples were confirmed in faith by the miracle.

Many most excellent things were accomplished at once through the one first miracle. For honourable marriage was sanctified, the curse on women put away (for no more in sorrow shall they bring forth children, now Christ has blessed the very beginning of our birth), and the glory of our Saviour shone forth as the sun's rays, and more than this, the disciples are confirmed in faith by the miracle.

The historical account will end here, but I think we should consider the other meaning of what has been said and explain what it signifies. The Word of God came down from Heaven, as He Himself says, so that by taking human nature as His own like a Bridegroom, He might persuade it to bring forth the spiritual offspring of Wisdom. Therefore it makes sense that human nature is called the bride and the Saviour the Bridegroom, since holy Scripture takes language from human affairs and applies it to a meaning that is above us. The marriage takes place on the third day, that is, in the last times of the present world, because the number three gives us beginning, middle, and end. This is how all time is measured. In keeping with this, we see what one of the prophets said: He has struck us down, and He will bind us up. After two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight. Then we shall know if we follow on to know the Lord; His going forth is prepared as the morning. He struck us down because of Adam's transgression, saying, You are dust, and to dust you shall return. What was struck down by corruption and death He bound up on the third day—that is, not in the first age or in the middle age, but in the last ages, when He became Man for us and made all our nature whole, raising it from the dead in Himself. This is why He is also called the Firstfruits of those who slept. Therefore, when he says it was the third day on which the marriage was being completed, he signifies the last time. He also mentions the place, saying it was in Cana of Galilee. Let the one who loves learning note this carefully: the gathering is not in Jerusalem, but the feast is celebrated outside Judaea, as if in the country of the Gentiles. For it is Galilee of the Gentiles, as the prophet says. It is completely clear, I think, that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from Heaven, while the church of the Gentiles received Him, and very gladly. The Saviour comes to the marriage not on His own initiative, for He was being called by many voices of the saints. But wine ran out for the feasters, because the law perfected nothing, the Mosaic writing was not sufficient for perfect enjoyment, and neither did the measure of natural sobriety extend far enough to be able to save us. Therefore it was accurate to say of us too, They have no wine. But the generous God does not overlook our nature worn out by lack of good things. He provided wine better than the first, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. And the law has no perfection in good things, but the divine instructions of Gospel teaching bring the fullest blessing. The ruler of the feast marvels at the wine, because everyone, I suppose, who is ordained to the divine priesthood and entrusted with the house of our Saviour Christ is astonished at His teaching, which is above the Law. But Christ commands that it be given to him first, because, according to Paul's words, The farmer who labors must be the first to share in the fruits. And let the hearer again consider what I am saying.

The historical account then will stop here, but I think we ought to consider the other view of what has been said, and to say what is therein signified. The Word of God came down then from Heaven, as He Himself saith, in order that having as a Bridegroom, made human nature His own, He might persuade it to bring forth the spiritual offspring of Wisdom. And hence reasonably is the human nature called the bride, the Saviour the Bridegroom; since holy Scripture carries up language from human things to a meaning that is above us. The marriage is consummated on the third day, that is, in the last times of the present world: for the number three gives us beginning, middle, end. For thus is the whole of time measured. And in harmony with this do we see that which is said by one of the prophets, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. After two days will He revive us, in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His Sight. Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord; His going forth is prepared as the morning. For He smote us for the transgression of Adam, saying, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. That which was smitten by corruption and death He bound up on the third day: that is, not in the first, or in the middle, but in the last ages, when for us made Man, He rendered all our nature whole, raising it from the dead in Himself. Wherefore He is also called the Firstfruits of them that slept. Therefore in saying it was the third day, whereon the marriage was being consummated, he signifies the last time. He mentions the place too; for he says it was in Cana of Galilee. Let him that loves learning again note well: for not in Jerusalem is the gathering, but without Judaea is the feast celebrated, as it were in the country of the Gentiles. For it is Galilee of the gentiles, as the prophet saith. It is I suppose altogether plain, that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from Heaven, and that the church of the Gentiles received Him, and that very gladly. The Saviour comes to the marriage not of His own accord; for He was being bidden by many voices of the Saints. But wine failed the feasters; for the law perfected nothing, the Mosaic writing sufficed not for perfect enjoyment, but neither did the measure of implanted sobriety reach forth so as to be able to save us. It was therefore true to say of us too, They have no wine. But the Bounteous God doth not overlook our nature worn out with want of good things. He set forth wine better than the first, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. And the law hath no perfection in good things, but the Divine instructions of Gospel teaching bring in fullest blessing. The ruler of the feast marvels at the wine: for every one, I suppose, of those ordained to the Divine Priesthood, and entrusted with the house of our Saviour Christ, is astonished at His doctrine which is above the Law. But Christ commandeth it to be given to him first, because, according to the voice of Paul, The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. And let the hearer again consider what I say.

The Jews are once again convicted by this of despising the laws given to them and treating the Mosaic writings as worthless, looking only to their own love of gain. For while the law commanded that those who were about to enter the Divine temple should purify themselves in many ways, those who had the authority to forbid it did not prevent the bankers or money-changers, and others besides whose occupation was gain, usury, and increase, from pursuing their desires (for the whole aim of merchants consists in these things). They did not prevent them from defiling the holy court or from entering it as if with unwashed feet. In fact, they themselves regularly permitted it, so that God might truly say of them, "Many pastors have destroyed My vineyard, they have trodden My portion under foot, they have made My pleasant portion a desolate wilderness, they have made it desolate." For truly the Lord's vineyard was destroyed, being taught to trample on Divine worship itself, and through the sordid love of gain of those set over it, left exposed to complete ignorance.

The Jews are again hereby too convicted of despising the laws given them, and making of no account the Mosaic writings, looking only to their own love of gain. For whereas the law commanded that they who were about to enter into the Divine temple should purify themselves in many ways; those who had the power of forbidding it hindered not the bankers or money-changers, and others besides, whose employment was gain, usury and increase, in their lusts (for the whole aim of merchants is comprised in these things): they hindered them not from defiling the holy court, from entering into it as it were with unwashen feet, yea rather they themselves altogether used to enjoin it, that God might say truly of them, Many pastors have destroyed My vineyard, they have: trodden My portion under foot, they have made My pleasant portion a desolate wilderness, they have made it desolate. For of a truth the Lord's vineyard was destroyed, being taught to trample on the Divine worship itself, and through the sordid love of gain of those set over it left bare to all ignorance.

The Savior's anger at the foolishness of the Jews is reasonable. For it was proper to make the Divine Temple a house of prayer, not a house of merchandise, as Scripture says. But He shows His anger not merely with words—He drives them out of the sacred area with blows and a scourge, rightly giving them the punishment suitable for slaves, since they would not receive the Son who makes people free through faith. Notice, I ask you, how clearly pictured here is what Paul said: If anyone dishonors the Temple of God, God will dishonor him.

Reasonably is the Saviour indignant at the folly of the Jews. For it befitted to make the Divine Temple not an house of merchandise, but an house of prayer: for so it is written. But He shows His emotion not by mere words, but with stripes and a scourge thrusts He them forth of the sacred precincts, justly devising for them the punishment befitting slaves; for they would not receive the Son Who through faith maketh free. See I pray well represented as in a picture that which was said through Paul, If any man dishonour the Temple of God, him shall God dishonour.

He commands as Lord and guides them toward what is appropriate as a teacher. Along with the punishment, He presents them with a declaration of their offenses, using shame to prevent the one being rebuked from becoming angry. But it must be noted that He again calls God His own Father in a special way, as being Himself and that alone by physis from Him, and truly begotten. For if this is not so, but the Word is really a Son alongside us, as one of us—that is, by adoption and by the mere will of the Father—why does He alone claim for Himself the title that is common to and available to all, saying "Make not My Father's House" and not rather "our Father's House"? For this, I suppose, would have been more appropriate to say if He had known that He too was one of those who are not sons by physis. But since the Word knows that He is not among those who are sons by grace, but is of the ousia of God the Father, He sets Himself apart from the rest, calling God His Father. For it is fitting for those who are called to sonship and have the honor from outside to cry out when they pray, "Our Father which art in Heaven." But the Only Begotten, being alone One of One, rightly calls God His own Father.

He commands as Lord, He leads by the hand to what is fitting, as teacher; and along with the punishment He sets before them the declaration of their offences, through shame thereof not suffering him that is censured to be angry. But it must be noted that He again calls God His own Father specially, as being Himself and that Alone by Nature of Him, and truly Begotten. For if it be not so, but the Word be really Son with us, as one of us, to wit by adoption, and the mere Will of the Father: why does He alone seize to Himself the boast common to and set before all, saying, Make not My Father's House, and not rather, our Father's House. For this I suppose would have been more meet to say, if He had known that Himself too was one of those who are not sons by Nature. But since the Word knows that He is not in the number of those who are sons by grace, but of the Essence of God the Father, He puts Himself apart from the rest, calling God His Father. For it befits those who are called to sonship and have the honour from without, when they pray to cry, Our Father Which art in Heaven: but the Only Begotten being Alone One of One, with reason calls God His Own Father.

But if we must apply ourselves to this passage and harmonize it more spiritually with what came before, the reading must be considered differently.

But if we must, applying ourselves to this passage, harmonize it more spiritually with that above, the lection must be considered differently.

See again how the whole plan of God's dealings with us is sketched out through two things. With the Canaanites—I mean those from Galilee—Christ both feasts and stays, and He made those who invited Him and honored Him partakers of His table. He both helps them through miracles and fills up what was lacking in their joy (and what good thing does He not freely give?). He teaches as in a type that He will both receive the inhabitants of Galilee, that is the Gentiles, called to them through the faith that is in them, and will bring them into the heavenly bridal chamber, that is to the church of the firstborn, and will make them sit down with the saints (for the holy disciples sat down with those feasting). He will make them partake of the divine and spiritual feast, as He Himself says: "Many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven," with nothing lacking in their joy. For everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. But the disobedient Jews He shall cast out of the holy places and set them outside the holy enclosure of the saints. Yes, even when they bring sacrifices He will not receive them, but rather will subject them to punishment and the scourge, held by the cords of their own sins. For hear Him saying, "Take these things hence," so that you may understand again those things which long ago through the mouth of the Prophet Isaiah He says: "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks and of he-goats, neither come to appear before Me, for who has required this at your hand? Tread not My courts any more. If you bring an offering of fine flour, vain is the oblation, incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and sabbaths and great day I cannot endure, your fasting and rest and feasts My soul hates: you have become satiety to Me, I will no longer endure your sins." This He most excellently signifies in type, devising for them the scourge of cords. For scourges are a token of punishment.

See again the whole scheme of the Dispensation to usward drawn out by two things. For with the Cananites, I mean those of Galilee, Christ both feasts and tarries, and them that bade Him, and hereby honoured Him, He made partakers of His Table; He both aids them by miracles and fills up that which was lacking to their joy (and what good thing does He not freely give?): teaching as in a type that He will both receive the inhabitants of Galilee, that is the Gentiles, called as it were to them through the faith that is in them, and will bring them into the Heavenly Bridal-chamber, that is unto the church of the first-born, and will make them sit down with the saints (for the holy disciples sat down with the feasters): and will make them partake of the Divine and spiritual feast, as Himself saith, Many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven, nought lacking unto their joy. For everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. But the disobedient Jews He shall cast forth of the holy places, and set them without the holy inclosure of the saints; yea, even when they bring sacrifices He will not receive them: but rather will subject them to chastisement and the scourge, holden with the cords of their own sins. For hear Him saying, Take these things hence; that thou mayest understand again those things which long ago by the mouth of the Prophet Isaiah He saith, I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks and of he goats, neither come ye to appear before Me, for who hath required this at your hand? tread not My courts any more. If ye bring an offering of fine flour, vain is the oblation, incense is an abomination unto Me; your new moons and sabbaths and great day I cannot endure, your fasting and rest and feasts My soul hateth: ye are become satiety unto Me, I will no longer endure your sins. This He most excellently signifies in type, devising for them the scourge of cords. For scourges are a token of punishment.

The disciples in a short time achieve perfection of knowledge, and by comparing what is written with the events, they already show great progress for the better.

The disciples in a short time get perfection of knowledge, and comparing what is written with the events, already shew great progress for the better.

The crowd of Jews is shocked by this unusual display of authority, and the temple officials are extremely upset, having been deprived of their substantial profits. They cannot prove Him wrong for commanding them not to turn God's Temple into a marketplace. But they create delays to prevent the merchants from leaving, making excuses that they should not submit to Him immediately, nor accept without proof as the Son of God someone who has not been confirmed by any sign.

The multitude of the Jews are startled at the unwonted authority, and they who are over the temple are extremely vexed, deprived of their not easily counted gains. And they cannot convict Him of not having spoken most rightly in commanding them not to exhibit the Divine Temple as a house of merchandise. But they devise delays to the flight of the merchants, excusing themselves that they ought not to submit to Him off-hand, nor without investigation to receive as Son of God Him Who was witnessed to by no sign.

To those who ask for good things with good intentions, God grants them very readily. But to those who come to Him testing Him, He not only denies what they seek in their ambition, but also charges them with wickedness. Thus when the Pharisees demanded a sign in other parts of the Gospels, the Savior convicted them saying, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Therefore what He said to those people, this He says to these people too with slight change, for these ask, testing Him, just as those did. Nor would even this sign have been given to those who were in such a state of mind, except that it was altogether necessary for the salvation of us all.

To them who of good purpose ask for good things, God very readily granteth them: but to them who come to Him, tempting Him, not only does He deny their ambition in respect of what they ask, but also charges them with wickedness. Thus the Pharisees demanding a sign in other parts of the Gospels the Saviour convicted saying, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. What therefore He said to those, this to these too with slight change: for these (as did those) ask, tempting Him. Nor to those who were in such a state of mind would even this sign have been given, but that it was altogether needful for the salvation of us all.

We should understand that they used this as the basis for their accusation against Him, testifying falsely before Pontius Pilate about something they had not actually heard. For they said, "This Man claims, 'I am able to destroy the Temple of God.'" This is why Christ spoke of them through the prophets, saying, "False witnesses rose up against Me: they charged Me with things I did not know," and again, "False witnesses have risen up against Me, and they breathe out cruelty." But He does not urge them to violence by saying "Destroy this Temple." Rather, since He knew they would immediately do it, He clearly indicates what is about to happen.

But we must know that they made this the excuse of their accusation against Him, saying falsely before Pontius Pilate, what they had not heard. For, say they, This Man saith, I am able to destroy the Temple of God. Wherefore of them too did Christ speak in the prophets, False witnesses did rise up: they laid to My charge things that I knew not: and again, For false witnesses are risen up against Me, and such as breathe out cruelty. But He does not urge them to bloodshed saying, Destroy this Temple, but since He knew that they would straightway do it, He indicates expressively what is about to happen.

They mock the sign, not understanding the depth of the Mystery, but seize on the disease of their own ignorance as a reasonable excuse for not obeying Him. Considering the difficulty of the thing, they paid attention to Him rather as one speaking at random than as one promising something possible to be fulfilled, so that what was written about them might be shown to be true: Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and continually bow down their backs. This was so that by constantly stooping downward and inclining only toward earthly things, they might receive no sight of the lofty doctrines of piety toward Christ—not because God, who loves mankind, begrudged them these things, but rather because He was punishing with just judgment those who committed intolerable transgressions.

They mock at the sign, not understanding the depth of the Mystery, but seize on the disease of their own ignorance, as a reasonable excuse for not obeying Him, and considering the difficulty of the thing, they gave heed rather as to one speaking at random, than to one who was promising ought possible to be fulfilled, that that may be shewn to be true that was written of them, Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not, and ever bow Thou down their backs: in order that in a manner ever stooping downwards and inclining to the things alone of the earth, they may receive no sight of the lofty doctrines of piety towards Christ, not as though God Who is loving to man grudged them those things, but rather with even justice was punishing them that committed intolerable transgressions.

For see how foolishly they insult Him, not sparing their own souls. For our Lord Jesus Christ calls God His Father, saying, "Make not My Father's House a House of merchandise." Therefore, when they ought now to think of Him as Son and God, as shining forth from God the Father, they believe Him to be merely a man and one of us. So they bring up the time that has been spent building the Temple, saying, "Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and will You raise it up in three days?" O drunk with complete foolishness—rightly, I think, one might say to you, if a wise soul had been planted in you—if you believe that your Temple is the House of God, how should you not have recognized Him to be God by physis (nature), who fearlessly tells you, "Make not My Father's House a House of merchandise"? How then, tell me, should He need a long time to build one house? Or how should He be powerless to do anything whatever, He who in only seven days fashioned this entire universe with ineffable Power, and whose Power consists in willing alone? For people skilled in the sacred writings ought to have considered these things.

For see how foolishly they insult Him, not sparing their own souls. For our Lord Jesus Christ calls God His Father, saying, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise. Therefore when they ought now to deem of Him as Son and God, as shining forth from God the Father, they believe Him to be yet bare man and one of us. Therefore they object the time that has been spent in the building of the Temple, saying, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days? O drunken with all folly, rightly, I deem, one might say to you, if a wise soul had been implanted in you, if ye believe that your Temple is the House of God, how ought ye not to have held Him to be God by Nature, Who dares fearlessly tell you, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise? How then, tell me, should He have need of a long time for the building of one house? or how should He be powerless for anything whatever, who in days only seven in number, fashioned this whole universe with ineffable Power, and has His Power in only willing? For these things the people skilled in the sacred writings ought to have considered.

But He was speaking about the temple of His body. So when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

21, 22 But He spake of the Temple of His Body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Acceptable to the wise person is the word of wisdom, and knowledge of discipline remains more easily with people of understanding. Just as seals make a clear impression in wax that is not too hard, so the Divine Word is readily imprinted in the more tender hearts of people. This is why the hard of heart is also called wicked. The disciples, being of a good disposition, become wise and meditate on the words of divine Scripture, nourishing themselves toward more accurate knowledge and thereby coming firmly to belief. Since the Body of Christ is called a temple also, how is the Only-Begotten Word who dwells within it not God by Nature, seeing that someone who is not God cannot be said to dwell in a Temple? Let someone come forward and say what saint's body was ever called a temple—but I do not suppose anyone can show this. I say then what we shall find to be true if we accurately search the Divine Scripture: that to none of the Saints was such honor attached. Indeed, the blessed Baptist, although he attained the height of all virtue and suffered none to exceed him in piety, was beheaded through the madness of Herod, and yet no such thing is attributed to him. On the contrary, the Evangelist used a coarser word for his remains, saying this too, as it appears to me by an oeconomy, in order that the dignity may be reserved to Christ alone. For he writes thus: And the blood-shedder, that is Herod, sent and beheaded John in the prison, and his disciples came and took up his corpse. If the body of John is called a corpse, whose temple will it be? In another sense indeed, we are called temples of God, by reason of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. For we are called the temples of God, and not of ourselves.⁶⁶

Acceptable to the wise man is the word of wisdom, and the knowledge of discipline abideth more easily with men of understanding, and as in wax not too hard, the impression of seals is well made, so in the more tender hearts of men the Divine Word is readily infixed: wherefore the hard of heart is also called wicked. The disciples then, being of a good disposition, become wise, and ruminate the words of divine Scripture, nourishing themselves to more accurate knowledge, and thence coming firmly to belief. Since the Body of Christ is called a temple also, how is not the Only-Begotten Word Which indwelleth therein, God by Nature, since he that is not God cannot be said to dwell in a Temple? Or let one come forward and say, what saint's body was ever called a temple; but I do not suppose any one can shew this. I say then, what we shall find to be true, if we accurately search the Divine Scripture, that to none of the Saints was such honour attached. And indeed the blessed Baptist, albeit he attained unto the height of all virtue, and suffered none to exceed him in piety, was through the madness of Herod beheaded, and yet is no such thing attributed to him. On the contrary, the Evangelist devised a grosser word for his remains, saying this too, as appears to me by an oeconomy, in order that the dignity may be reserved to Christ Alone. For he writes thus; And the blood-shedder to wit, Herod, sent and beheaded John in the prison, and his disciples came and took up his carcase. If the body of John be called a carcase, whose temple will it be? In another sense indeed, we are called temples of God, by reason of the Holy Ghost indwelling in us. For we are called the temples of God, and not of ourselves.⁶⁶

But perhaps someone will say: How then, tell me, does the Savior Himself call His own Body a corpse, saying "For wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will be gathered together"? To this we say that Christ does not speak this of His own Body, but uses it as a parable to signify the gathering of the Saints to Him that will happen at that time when He appears to us again with the holy angels in the glory of His Father. For just as, He says, flocks of carnivorous birds rush down with a sharp sound to fallen corpses, so you too shall be gathered together to Me. Paul also makes this known to us, saying, "For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible." And again in another place, "and we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." Therefore what is used as a comparison for an image will in no way damage the force of the truth.

But haply some one will say: How then, tell me, doth the Saviour Himself call His own Body a carcase, For wheresoever He saith the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. To this we say, that Christ saith this not of His Own Body, but in manner and guise of a parable He signifieth that concourse of the Saints to Him, that shall be at that time when He appeareth again to us, with the holy angels, in the glory of His Father. For like as, saith He, flocks of carnivorous birds rush down with a sharp whizzing to fallen carcases, so shall ye too be gathered together to Me. Which indeed Paul too doth make known to us, saying, For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; And again in another place, and we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. That therefore which is taken by way of similitude for an image will no wise damage the force of the truth.

Christ does not stop saving and helping people. Some He brings to Himself through wise words, while the rest He startles by His God-befitting power, drawing them into His net of faith. They are persuaded by the things they see Him do to confess that the one who performs these great wonders is truly God.

Christ ceaseth not from saving and helping. For some He leads to Himself by wise words, the rest startling by God-befitting Power too, He taketh in His net to the faith, by the things which they see Him work persuaded to confess, that the Artificer of these so great wonders is of a truth God.

The judgment of new believers is not firmly established, nor is the mind firmly built upon fresh miracles. And how should those whose course of instruction was still, so to speak, green, be already rooted in piety? Therefore Christ does not yet commit Himself to the novices, showing that a great thing and most worthy of love is affinity with God, and that it does not simply lie before those who desire to have it, but is achieved through zeal for good, and diligence and time.

Not firmly established is the judgment of new believers, nor is the mind firmly built upon fresh miracles. And how should they whose course of instruction was yet so to say green, be already rooted in piety? Therefore Christ doth not yet commit Himself to the novices, shewing that a great thing and most worthy of love is affinity with God, and that it doth not just lie before those who desire to have it, but is achieved by zeal for good, and diligence and time.

Let those who oversee the Mysteries of the Savior learn from this not to suddenly admit someone within the sacred veils, nor to allow neophytes who have been baptized at the wrong time and have not believed in Christ the Lord of all at the right time to approach the Divine Tables. For Christ may be an example to us in this also, and may teach us whom it is proper to initiate. He receives the believers, but is seen not yet to have confidence in them, since He does not commit Himself to them. From this it becomes clear that it is fitting for neophytes to spend a considerable amount of time under instruction, for even then they will scarcely become faithful men.

Let the stewards of the Mysteries of the Saviour hence learn, not suddenly to admit a man within the sacred veils, nor to permit to approach the Divine Tables, neophites untimely baptized and not in right time believing on Christ the Lord of all. For that He may be an Ensample to us in this also, and may teach us whom fittingly to initiate, He receives indeed the believers, but is seen not yet to have confidence in them, in that He does not commit Himself to them: that hence it may be manifest, that it befits novices to spend no small time under instruction; for scarce even so will they become faithful men.

This excellence too is divine, along with all the rest that are in Christ, and it exists in none of the created beings. For the Psalmist attributes this to Him alone who is truly God, saying, "He fashions their hearts alike, He considers all their works." But if God alone understands what is in us, and Christ understands these things, how can He not be God by physis, since He knows the secrets and knows the deep and hidden things, as it is written? For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Though no man knows, God will not be ignorant, for He is not counted among all those of whom "no man" may rightly be said, but as being outside of all, with all things under His feet, He will know. And Paul also testifies, saying, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart: neither is there any creature that is not visible in His sight, but all things are naked and laid open to His eyes." For since He planted the ear, He hears all things, and since He formed the eye, He observes. And indeed He is presented as saying in Job, "Who is this that hides counsel from Me, holding words in his heart, and thinks to conceal them from Me?" So that we might acknowledge that the Son is God by physis, the Evangelist necessarily says that He did not need anyone to testify about man, for He knew what was in man.

Divine is this excellence too along with the rest which are in Christ, and in no one of created beings is it. For to Him Alone Who is truly God doth the Psalmist ascribe it, saying, He fashioneth their hearts alike, He considereth all their works. But if while God Alone understandeth what is in us, Christ understandeth them: how shall He not be God by Nature, Who knoweth the secrets, and knoweth the deep and secret things, as it is written? For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Though no man knoweth, God will not be ignorant, for neither is He reckoned in the number of all, of whom "No man" may rightly be predicated, but as being external to all, and all things under His Feet, He will know. And Paul too will testify, saying, For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart: neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the Eyes of Him. For as having planted the ear, He hears all things, and as having formed the eye, He observeth. And indeed He is introduced saying in Job, Who is this that hideth counsel from Me, holding words in his heart, and thinketh to conceal them from Me? In order then that we might acknowledge that the Son is by Nature God, needs does the Evangelist say that He needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

Nicodemus was quite ready to believe, but overcome by an unworthy fear and unwilling to disregard the opinion of others, he lacked boldness and was divided in his thinking. He wavered in his purpose, weak on both knees, as Scripture says, compelled by his conscience to believe because of the extraordinary miracles, yet considering the loss of his position of authority over his own people unbearable, since he was a ruler of the Jews. Thinking he could both maintain his reputation with them and be a disciple in secret, he came to Jesus, using the darkness of night to help conceal his plan, and by this hidden visit he showed himself to be double-minded.

More ready is Nicodemus to believe, but overcome by no good fear, and not despising the opinion of men, he refuses boldness, and is divided in opinion into two, and halts in purpose, feeble upon both his knee joints, as it is written, forced by the convictions of his conscience to the duty of believing by reason of the exceedingness of the miracles, but esteeming the loss of rulership over his own nation a thing not to be borne, for he was a ruler of the Jews. Deeming that he can both preserve his repute with them, and be a disciple secretly, he cometh to Jesus, making the darkness of the night an aider of his scheme, and by his secret coming convicted of double mindedness.

Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, because no one can do these miracles that you are doing unless God is with him. Jesus answered and said to him

3, Rabbi, we know that Thou art a Teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him

In these words he assumes that he can achieve complete piety, and imagines that it will be enough for his salvation simply to marvel at those things which are worthy of wonder—he seeks nothing more than this. Calling him a Teacher from God and a co-worker with Him, he does not yet know that He is by physis God, nor does he understand the plan of the dispensation with Flesh, but still approaches Him as if He were a mere man, and has only a slight conception of Him.

In these words he supposes that he can attain complete piety, and imagines that it will be sufficient for his salvation, to marvel merely at those things which call for wonder: nought else but this does he seek. Calling him a Teacher from God, and a co-worker with Him, he does not yet know that He is by Nature God, nor understand the plan of the dispensation with Flesh, but still approaches as to a mere man, and hath but slight conception of Him.

Faith does not consist in what you think, Nicodemus. Speech is not enough to make you righteous, and you will not achieve piety through words alone. For not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven. The will of the Father is that man become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, so that the earthly citizen, reborn into an unfamiliar and new life, may be called a citizen of Heaven. When He calls the new birth of the Spirit "from above," He clearly shows that the Spirit is of the ousia of God the Father, just as He Himself says of Himself, "I am from above." And the very wise Evangelist says of Him again, "He who comes from above is above all."

Faith consisteth not, O Nicodemus, in what thou thinkest. Speech sufficeth not unto thee for righteousness, neither wilt thou achieve piety by mere words. For not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father Which is in Heaven. But the will of the Father is, that man be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, that the citizen of earth reborn unto an unaccustomed and new life, be called a citizen of Heaven. When He calls the new birth of the Spirit from above, He sheweth clearly that the Spirit is of the Essence of God the Father, as indeed Himself too saith of Himself, I am from above. And the most wise Evangelist again saith of Him, He that cometh from above is above all.

But we shall speak more fully about the Spirit being of the essence of God the Father in its proper place.

But that the Spirit is of the Essence of God the Father we shall speak more largely in its proper place.

Nicodemus is proven here to be still carnal, and therefore completely unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God. He thinks this fearsome and glorious Mystery is foolishness. When he hears about the spiritual birth from above, he imagines the physical womb returning to labor pains for those already born, and, unable to rise beyond the law of our nature, he measures Divine things by human standards. Finding that the height of its teachings cannot be grasped by his own understanding, he falls down and is swept away. Just as objects that are struck with great force against hard stones bounce back, so too I believe the untrained mind, when it hits concepts too great for it, weakens and retreats, always content to remain within its comfortable limits, and scorns any understanding that is better and higher than itself. This is the situation the ruler of the Jews finds himself in now, as he rejects the spiritual birth.

Nicodemus is convicted hereby of being still carnal, and therefore no way receiving the things of the Spirit of God. For he thinketh that this so dread and illustrious Mystery is foolishness. And hearing of the birth spiritual and from above, he imagineth the carnal womb returning to birth-pang of things already born, and, not attaining beyond the law of our nature, measureth things Divine; and finding the height of its doctrines unattainable by his own conceptions, he falleth down, and is carried off. For as things that are dashed by mighty blows upon the hard stones again rebound, so too I deem the unskilled mind falling upon conceptions of greater calibre than it, being relaxed returns, and ever glad to remain in the measure that suits it, despises an understanding better and loftier than itself. In which case the ruler of the Jews now being, receives not the spiritual birth.

Since the man did not understand as he should what the need of being born from above meant, He instructs him with clearer teaching and sets before him more open knowledge of the Mystery. For our Lord Jesus Christ was calling the new birth through the Spirit "from above," showing that the Spirit is of the Essence that is above all essences, through whom we become partakers of the Divine Nature, as we enjoy Him who proceeds from it essentially, and through Him and in Him are reformed to the Archetype-Beauty, and thus reborn to newness of life and remolded to the Divine Sonship. But Nicodemus, not understanding the word "from above" in this way, imagined it meant that the future birth should take place in the manner of physical bodies. Therefore, falling into thoughts that locked him into impossibility, he was caught being both senseless and slow to learn. So the Savior necessarily answers even more gently, as to one more weak in understanding, and removing the veil that seemed to be cast over His words, He now says openly, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." For since man is compound and not simple in his nature, being combined of two things, namely, the sensible body and intellectual soul, he will require twofold healing for his new birth that corresponds to both the things mentioned before. For by the Spirit the spirit of man is sanctified, and by the sanctified water his body is sanctified. For just as water poured into a kettle, being joined with the power of fire, receives in itself the impress of its effectiveness, so through the inworking of the Spirit the sensible water is trans-elemented to a Divine and ineffable effectiveness, and sanctifies those on whom it comes.

Since the man did not understand as he ought, what the need of being born from above meant, He instructs him with plainer teaching, and sets before him the more open knowledge of the Mystery. For our Lord Jesus Christ was calling the new birth through the Spirit from above, shewing that the Spirit is of the Essence That is above all essences, through Whom we become partakers of the Divine Nature, as enjoying Him Who proceeds from It Essentially, and through Him and in Him re-formed to the Archetype-Beauty, and thus re-born unto newness of life, and re-moulded to the Divine Sonship. But Nicodemus not so understanding the word from above, imagined it was meant that the future birth should take place after the manner of bodies: therefore also falling into imaginations which shut him up in impossibility, he was caught alike senseless and hard of learning. Of necessity therefore does the Saviour answer yet more mildly, as to one more infirm of habit, and removing the veil that seemed to be thrown over His Words, He now says openly, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. For since man is compound, and not simple in his nature, being combined of two, to wit, the sensible body and intellectual soul, he will require two-fold healing for his new birth akin to both the fore-named. For by the Spirit is the spirit of man sanctified, by the sanctified water again, his body. For as the water poured into the kettle, being associated with the vigour of fire, receives in itself the impress of its efficacy, so through the inworking of the Spirit the sensible water is trans-elemented to a Divine and ineffable efficacy, and sanctifieth those on whom it comes.

By another argument He persuades him to rise to a higher understanding, and on hearing of spiritual birth, not to think in terms of physical properties. For just as it is absolutely necessary, He says, that the offspring of flesh should be flesh, so also those of the Spirit must be spirit. For in things whose mode of being is different, their mode of generation must also not be the same. But we should understand that we call the spirit of a man the offspring of the Spirit, not as being of It by physis (for that would be impossible), but first, and in order of time, because through Him that which did not exist was called into being, and second and oeconomically, because of its being re-formed to God through Him, as He stamps His own Impress upon us and transforms our understanding to His own Quality, so to speak. For in this way I think you will rightly understand what Paul says to some: My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, and again, For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.

By another argument again He persuades him to mount up to a higher understanding, and on hearing of spiritual birth, not to think of the properties of bodies. For as it is altogether necessary, saith He, that the offspring of flesh should be flesh, so also is it that those of the Spirit should be spirit. For in things the mode of whose being is different, in these must surely the mode of generation also be not the same. But it is to be known that we call the spirit of a man the offspring of the Spirit, not as being of It by Nature (for that were impossible), but in the first place, and that in order of time, because that through Him that which was not was called into being, and in the second place and oeconomically, because of its being re-formed unto God through Him, He stamping His Own Impress upon us, and trans-fashioning our understanding to His own Quality, so to speak. For so I deem, you will understand aright that too which is said to some by Paul, My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, and again, For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.

Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again." The wind blows wherever it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

7, 8 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

A teacher's excellence lies in being able to skillfully guide the listener's mind in many ways and to work through numerous considerations, piling up proofs when the argument seems difficult. He takes the image of the mystery from examples and says: This spirit that belongs to the world and to the air blows throughout the entire earth, and moving where it wishes, makes itself known only by sound and escapes everyone's sight; yet by communicating itself to bodies through the most subtle breezes, it imparts some sense of its natural power. In the same way, He says, you should also think of the new birth through the Spirit, being led from small examples to what is greater, and by the reasoning presented as if in an image, grasping what is above the senses.

It is the excellence of a teacher, to be able manifoldly to manage the mind of the hearers, and to go through many considerations, heaping up proofs where the argument appears hard. He takes then the figure of the mystery from examples, and says, This spirit belonging to the world and of the air, blows throughout the whole earth, and running where it listeth, is shewn to be present by sound only, and escapeth the eye of all, yet, communicating itself to bodies by the subtlest breaths, it infuseth some perception of its natural efficacy. So do thou, saith He, conceive of the new birth also through the Spirit, led on by little examples to what is greater, and by the reasoning brought forward as it were in an image, conceiving of what is above the senses.

Long discussion is useless to someone who understands nothing at all. The saying in the book of Proverbs is therefore wise: "Blessed is the one who speaks in the ears of those who will listen." The Savior demonstrated through experience that this is true, giving Himself as an example to us in this matter too. For the teacher will be completely free from the accusation of being unable to persuade, when he says what he thinks is right, even if he accomplishes nothing because of the dullness of his listeners. Furthermore, we learn from this that hardness has happened in part to Israel. For they hear with their ears but do not understand.

Long discourse nothing profits him who understandeth not a whit. Wise then is the saying in the book of Proverbs, Well is he that speaketh in the ears of them that will hear. And this the Saviour shewed by trial to be true, giving Himself an ensample to us in this too. For the teacher will be wholly free from the charge of not being able to persuade, saying what himself thinks good, though he profit nothing by reason of the dulness of the hearers. Besides we learn by this, that hardness in part is happened to Israel. For hearing they hear and understand not.

By one example Christ exposes all those who are decorated with the title of teachers and clothed with the mere reputation of being learned in the law, yet possess minds full of ignorance and unable to understand even one of those things which they ought not only to know but also to be able to teach others. But if the instructor is in this condition, what about the one being instructed, since the disciple does not exceed the measure of his master, according to the Savior's word? For the disciple, He says, is not above his master. But since they were so uninstructed, Christ is right in comparing them to whitewashed tombs. Paul also speaks most excellently to the ruler of the Jews, saying, God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall.

By one Christ convicts all, that adorned with the name of teachers, and clothed with the mere repute of being learned in the law, they bear a mind full of ignorance, and unable to understand one of those things, which they ought not only to know, but also to be able to teach others. But if he that instructeth be in this condition, in what is he that is instructed, seeing that the disciple exceedeth not the measure of his master, according to the word of the Saviour? For the disciple, saith He, is not above his master. But since they were thus uninstructed, true is Christ in likening them to whited sepulchres. Most excellently doth Paul too say to the ruler of the Jews, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.

He finds the man careless about learning and extremely uninstructed, and because of his great mental dullness, completely unable to be led to understand divine teachings, even though many words had been used with numerous examples. Therefore, setting aside precise explanation as was appropriate, He finally advises him to accept in simple faith what he cannot understand. He testifies that He Himself knows clearly what He says, showing by the excellence of His Person that to contradict Him is extremely dangerous. For Nicodemus was not likely to forget that he had affirmed he knew this about our Savior Christ: that He was a Teacher come from God. But to resist one who is from God and is God—how could this not be full of danger? For this is clearly fighting against God. But from this we who have authority to teach ought to know that for those just coming to the faith, faith expressed in simple terms is better than any deep reasoning and more elaborate explanation. And Paul also used to feed some with milk who were not yet able to bear stronger food. And the very wise Solomon again says to us somewhere, You shall wisely know the souls of your flock, meaning that we should not set before those who come to us the word of doctrine indiscriminately, but properly adapted to the capacity of each person.

He finds the man careless of learning and exceedingly uninstructed and, by reason of his great grossness of mind, utterly unable to be led unto the comprehension of Divine doctrines, albeit many words had been expended with manifold examples. Whence letting alone, as was fitting, accurate explanation, He at length advises him to accept in simple faith, what he cannot understand. He testifies that Himself knows clearly what He saith, by the illustriousness of His Person shewing that yet to gainsay is most dangerous. For it was not likely that Nicodemus would forget, who had affirmed that he knew it of our Saviour Christ, that He was a Teacher come from God. But to resist one who is from God and God, how would it not be fraught with peril? for the thing is clearly a fighting with God. But hence we ought to know, who have authority to teach, that for those just come to the faith, faith in simple arguments is better than any deep reasoning, and more elaborate explanation. And Paul also used to feed with milk some, not yet able to bear stronger meats. And the most wise Solomon again somewhere says to us, Thou shalt wisely know the souls of thy flock, meaning that we should not set before those who come to us the word of doctrine indiscriminately, but fitly adapted to the measure of each.

As having in Himself the Father and the Spirit Naturally, the Saviour set forth the person of the Witnesses in the plural number, so that, as in the law of Moses, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, what is said may be established. For He shows that the Jews in no way wish to be saved, but with unbridled and reckless force are being carried into the deep pit of destruction. For if they can neither through their great ignorance understand what is proclaimed to them, nor yet receive it in faith, what other means of salvation can be devised for them? Well then and very justly did the Saviour say that Jerusalem would be without excuse, as bringing upon herself self-chosen destruction. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, He says, that kills the prophets and stones them who are sent to you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold your house is left to you.

As having in Himself the Father and the Spirit Naturally, the Saviour set forth the person of the Witnesses in the plural number, that, as in the law of Moses, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, what is said may be established. For He shews that the Jews in no wise will to be saved, but with unbridled and heedless impetus are they being borne unto the deep pit of perdition. For if they can neither from their great unlearning understand what is proclaimed to them, nor yet receive it in faith, what other means of salvation may be devised for them? Well then and very justly did the Saviour say that Jerusalem would be without excuse, as snatching upon herself self-called destruction. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, saith He, that killest the prophets and stonest them, which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended up to heaven except He who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

12, 13 If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man Which is in heaven.

He says, "You did not accept a teaching that was within human understanding because of your extreme foolishness, so how can I explain more divine things to you?" For those who are most foolish in their own matters, how can they be wise in matters above them? And those who are powerless with regard to lesser things, how will they not find greater things unbearable? And if you do not believe Me speaking alone, He says, but seek many witnesses for everything, whom shall I bring to you as a witness of the heavenly mysteries? For no man has ascended up to heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of man. Since the Word of God came down from heaven, He says that the Son of man came down, refusing after the Incarnation to be divided into two persons, and not allowing some to say that the temple taken from the Virgin because of need is one Son, while the Word who appeared from God the Father is another—except only with regard to the distinction that belongs to each by physis. For just as He is the Word of God, so too is He Man of a woman, but One Christ from both, undivided in regard to Sonship and the glory befitting God. For how does He clothe the temple from the Virgin, as its own, with what befits the bare Word alone, and again appropriate to Himself what befits the Flesh only? For now He says that the Son of man has come down from heaven, but at the time of His Passion, He fears and is deeply afraid and very troubled, and is recorded as Himself suffering the sufferings that befitted His human physis only.

A doctrine, saith He, not exceeding the understanding befitting man, ye from your extreme folly received not, and how shall I explain to you things more Divine? For they who in their own matters are most foolish, how shall they be wise in matters above them? And they who are powerless as to the less, how shall they not find the greater intolerable? And if, says He, ye believe not Me being Alone in speaking, but seek many witnesses for every thing, whom shall I bring to you as a witness of the heavenly Mysteries? For no man hath ascended up to heaven but He That came down from heaven the Son of man. For since the Word of God came down from heaven, He says that the son of man came down, refusing after the Incarnation to be divided into two persons, and not suffering certain to say that the Temple taken by reason of need of the Virgin is one Son, the Word again which appeared from God the Father another: save only as regards the distinction which belongs to each by nature. For as He is the Word of God, so Man too of a woman, but One Christ of both, Undivided in regard of Sonship and God-befitting Glory. For how does He clothe as its own the Temple of the Virgin, with what befitteth the bare Word Alone: and again appropriateth to Himself what befitteth the Flesh only? For now He saith that the Son of man hath come down from heaven: but at the time of His Passion, He feareth, and is sore afraid, and very heavy, and is recorded as Himself suffering the Sufferings which befitted His Human Nature only.

Having explained sufficiently and set before him the reason why His teaching does not extend into the boundless and supernatural but returns again to things that were done typologically by Moses long ago—knowing that this man could barely arrive at knowledge of the truth through figures and examples rather than through precise spiritual insights—He says He must surely be lifted up, just as the serpent was lifted up by Moses. He shows that studying Scripture is absolutely necessary, and He is practically saying to this man who lacks understanding, "Search the Scriptures, for they testify about Me." For serpents were attacking the Israelites in the wilderness, and they were falling like ears of corn, greatly distressed by this danger that came upon them unexpectedly. With pitiful cries they called for salvation from above and from God. But He, since He was good and full of compassion, as God, commanded Moses to set up a bronze serpent and commanded them through it to look ahead in faith to salvation. For the remedy for anyone who was bitten was to look at the serpent set before him, and faith together with sight brought deliverance at the last moment to those who looked. So much for the history. But it represents in action, as if in a type, the entire mystery of the Incarnation. For the serpent signifies bitter and death-dealing sin, which was devouring the whole human race on earth, biting the soul of man in many ways and infusing the varied poison of wickedness. And we could not escape it as it conquered us except by the help that comes from heaven alone. The Word of God was made in the likeness of sinful flesh so that He might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written, and might become the Giver of unending salvation to those who gaze on Him with steadfast faith or by searching the divine teachings. But the serpent being fixed on a high pole signifies that Christ was completely clear and visible, so as to be unknown to no one, or it signifies His being lifted up from the earth, as He Himself says, through His Passion on the Cross.

Him should not perish but have eternal life. Having explained sufficiently, and set before him the reason, why His Word of teaching does not run forth into the boundless and supernatural, but descends again to those things that were typically done by Moses of old, knowing that he could by leadings by means of figures scarce arrive at knowledge of the truth, rather than by the exactitude of spiritual inspirations, He saith He must surely be lifted up, as the serpent was by Moses, shewing that search of history is most necessary, and all but saying to this man of no understanding, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me. For serpents were springing upon them of Israel in the wilderness, and they, falling like ears of corn, and not a little distressed at this danger unexpectedly visiting them, with most piteous cry called for salvation from above and from God. But He, since He was Good and full of compassion, as God, commands Moses to set up a brazen serpent; and commands them therein to have a forethought of the salvation by faith. For the remedy to one bitten, was to look at the serpent put before him, and faith along with the sight wrought deliverance at the last extremity to the beholders. So much for the history. But it represents in act as it were in a type, the whole Mystery of the Incarnation. For the serpent signifies bitter and manslaying sin, which was devouring the whole race upon the earth, manifoldly biting the soul of man, and infusing the varied poison of wickedness. And no otherwise could we escape it thus conquering us, save by the succour alone which is from heaven. The Word of God then was made in the likeness oj sinful flesh, that He might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written, and to those who gaze on Him with more steadfast faith, or by search into the Divine doctrines, might become the Giver of unending salvation. But the serpent being fixed upon a lofty base, signifies that Christ was altogether clear and manifest, so as to be unknown to none, or His being lifted up from the earth, as Himself says, by His Passion on the Cross.

He wants to show openly here that He is God by nature, since one must necessarily think that He who came forth from God the Father is surely God also, not having the honor from outside, as we have, but being in truth what He is believed to be. With exceeding skill He says this, having joined to it the love of God the Father for us, properly and timely turning to speak about it. For He puts the unbelieving Nicodemus to shame, or rather, He shows that he is ungodly as well. For not coming readily to believe when God teaches something—what else is that than accusing the Truth of lying? Besides this, in saying that He was given for the life of the world, He persuades him to consider carefully how great a punishment they will be in danger of who, through their mad foolishness, have counted as nothing such a wonderful grace of God the Father. For God, He says, so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.

He desireth to shew openly herein, that He is God by Nature, since one must needs deem that He Who came forth from God the Father, is surely God also, not having the honour from without, as we have, but being in truth what He is believed to be. With exceeding skill does He say this, having joined therewith the love of God the Father to us, well and opportunely coming to discourse thereon. For He shames the unbelieving Nicodemus, yea rather, He shews that he is ungodly also. For the not coming readily to believe, when God teaches anything, what else is it, than laying upon the Truth a charge of falsehood? Besides this, in saying that He was given for the life of the world, He persuades him to consider seriously, of how great punishment they will be in danger, who from their mad folly, have made of no account so wondrous grace of God the Father. For God, says He, so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.

Let the heretic who opposes Christ hear this again, and let him come forward and explain what is so great about God the Father's love, or why we should reasonably marvel at it. He will say that the marvel of this love is seen in God giving His Son for us, and His Only Begotten Son at that. Therefore, in order for the great love of God the Father to remain and be preserved, the Son must be held to be not a creature but truly Son—I mean Son of the ousia of the Father, that is, consubstantial with the One who begat Him, and truly God in reality and truth. But if, according to your argument, He does not possess being from the ousia of God the Father, He will also lose His status as Son and God by physis, and the far-reaching marvel of God's love will ultimately come to nothing. For God would have given a creature for creatures, and not truly His Son. The blessed Paul will also have troubled us in vain when he says, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?" For clearly the one who despises tramples underfoot—but not the true Son, only a fellow servant of Moses, if indeed creature is always akin to creature in respect to having been made, even if one surpasses another in glory through the excellences of being greater or better. But Paul's word is true, and a more severe penalty will be paid by the one who has trodden underfoot the Son—not as if he were transgressing against a creature or one of the fellow servants of Moses. Therefore the love of the Father is great and above nature, for He gave His own Son, who is from Himself, for the life of the world.

Let the Christ-opposing heretic again hear, and let him come forward and say, what is the greatness of the Love of God the Father, or how we should reasonably marvel at it. But he will say that the marvel of the love is seen, in His giving His Son for us, and that the Only Begotten. In order then that the great love of God the Father may remain and be preserved, let Him be held to be Son not a creature, I mean Son of the Essence of the Father, that is to say, Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, and God verily and in truth. But if, according to thy speech, o thou, He possesseth not the being of the Essence of God the Father, He will also lose the being by Nature Son and God, and the wide-spread marvel of the Love of God will at length come to nought: for He gave a creature for creatures, and not truly His Son. Vainly too will the blessed Paul trouble us, saying, He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God? For confessedly he that despised trampleth under foot, but not the Very Son, but a fellow servant of Moses, if indeed creature be always akin to creature, in respect at least of having been made, even if it surpass the glory of another, in the excellences of being greater or better. But the word of Paul is true; and a severer penalty shall he pay who hath trodden under foot the Son, not as though he were transgressing against a creature, or one of the fellow servants of Moses. Great then and above nature is the Love of the Father, Who for the life of the world gave His Own Son and Who is of Himself.

Having plainly called Himself the Son of God the Father, He thought it best not to leave this statement without support, but brings forward proof from the nature, so to speak, of the things themselves, making the hearers more secure in their faith. For I was not sent, He says, like Moses the interpreter of the law, condemning the world by the law, nor introducing the commandment to convict people of sin, nor do I perform a servant's ministry, but I introduce the loving-kindness appropriate to the Master: I free those in bondage, as Son and Heir of the Father, I transform the law that condemns into grace that justifies, I release from sin the one who is held by the chains of his transgressions, I have come to save the world, not to condemn it. For it was right, it was right, He says, that Moses, as a servant, should be a minister of the law that condemns, but that I as Son and God should free the whole world from the curse of the law and, by the greatness of my loving-kindness, should heal the infirmity of the world. If then the grace that justifies is better than the commandment that condemns, how is it not fitting to understand that He surpasses the status of the servant Who introduces such God-befitting authority, and releases humanity from the bonds of sin?

Having plainly called Himself the Son of God the Father, He thought not good to leave the word without witness, but brings forward proof from the quality, so to say, of the things themselves, making the hearers more steadfast unto faith. For I was not sent, saith He, like the law-expounder Moses, condemning the world by the law, nor introducing the commandment unto conviction of sin, nor do I perform a servile ministry, but I introduce loving-kindness befitting the Master: I free the embondaged, as Son and Heir of the Father, I transform the law that condemneth into grace that justifieth, I release from sin him that is holden with the cords of his transgressions, I am come to save the world, not to condemn it. For it was right, it was right, saith He, that Moses, as a servant, should be a minister of the law that condemns, but that I as Son and God should free the whole world from the curse of the law and, by exceedingness of lovingkindness, should heal the infirmity of the world. If then the grace that justifieth is better than the commandment that condemneth, how is it not meet to conceive that He surpasseth the measure of the servant Who introduceth so God-befitting authority, and releaseth man from the bonds of sin?

This is one purpose of the passage we are examining, and it is not a minor one. A second purpose, following the same line of thought and introducing an idea related to those already mentioned, will be offered out of love for learning. The Savior saw that Nicodemus was clinging to the law of Moses and was firmly bound to the older commandment, and was somehow alarmed at the new birth through the Spirit, drawing back from the new and Gospel way of life, apparently supposing that this would be more difficult to bear than what had already been commanded. Therefore, not being ignorant as God of the fear that had arisen in him because of his lack of understanding, by using one brief argument He frees him from all anxiety on this point and shows that the commandment of Moses, because it condemns the world, is harder to endure, and presents Himself as a gentle Judge, saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

This then is one aim of the passage under consideration, and no mean one. A second besides this, revolving through the same circuit, and introducing a consideration akin to those above, will be given from love of learning. The Saviour saw that Nicodemus was cleaving to the law of Moses, and was fast held to the more ancient commandment, and was somehow startled at the new Birth through the Spirit, shrinking from the new and Gospel polity, supposing it seems that this would be more burdensome than the things already enjoined. Being therefore not ignorant, as God, of the fear which from his ignorance had sprung upon him, by using one short argument, He frees him from all trouble on this score, and shews that the commandment of Moses, by reason of its condemning the world, is harder to be borne, and introduces Himself as a mild Judge, saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

18 He that believeth on the Son is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God.

Having proved by facts that He is both Son of God the Father and brings into the world grace that is more excellent than the ministry of Moses (for how is being justified by grace not better than being condemned by the law?), He devised, as God, another way to bring people to the faith, driving together from all quarters toward salvation those who were lost. He sets before the believer as his reward not being called to judgment, and before the unbeliever punishment, bringing both into one and the same way, calling them to come readily to the faith—some by desire for the grace, others by fear of suffering. He shows that the crime of unbelief is heinous and great, since He is Son and Only Begotten. For the more worthy of belief is the one who is insulted, the more will the one who despises be condemned for his terrible transgression. He says that the one who does not believe is condemned already, in that he has already determined against himself the deserved sentence of punishment by knowingly rejecting Him who gives freedom from condemnation.

Having proved by facts, that He is both Son of God the Father, and introduceth into the world grace which is more excellent than the ministration of Moses (for how is not the being justified by grace better than the being condemned by the law?), He devised, as God, another way to bring unto the faith, from all quarters driving together to salvation them that were lost. He puts forth then to the believer as his reward the not being called to judgement, to the unbeliever punishment, bringing into one and the same way by both, calling to come readily unto the faith, some by desire for the grace, others by fear of suffering. He shews that heinous and great is the crime of unbelief, since He is Son and Only Begotten. For by how much is that worthy of belief which is insulted, so much the more will that which despises be condemned for his dire transgression. He says that he that believeth not is condemned already, in that he hath already determined against himself the due sentence of punishment, by knowingly rejecting Him Who gives not to be condemned.

He does not leave the condemnation of the unbelievers without explanation, but recounts its causes and shows clearly that, according to the words of Proverbs, the net is not spread unjustly for the birds. For those, He says, who when they had the power to be enlightened preferred to remain in darkness—how will they not fairly be the ones who determine punishment against themselves, inviting themselves to suffering which they had the power to escape, if they had been proper judges of things, choosing rather to be enlightened than not, and studying to put the lesser things below the better? But He kept the mind of man free from the constraints of necessity, inclined by its own impulses toward both sides, so that it might justly receive praise for good things and punishment for the opposite. As indeed He shows in another place, saying, If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword.

He lets not the condemnation of the unbelievers remain without consideration, but recounts its causes, and shews clearly that, according to the words of the Proverbs, Not unjustly is the net spread for the birds. For they, saith He, who when it was in their power to be illuminated preferred to remain in darkness, how will not they fairly be determiners of punishment against themselves, and self-invited to suffering which it was in their power to escape, if they had been right provers of things, choosing rather to be enlightened than not, and studying to make the baser things second to the better? But He preserved the mind of man free from the bonds of necessity, and tending by its own impulses to both sides, that it might justly receive praise for good things, and punishment for the contrary. As indeed He sheweth in another place, saying, If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall, eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.

He profitably reviews what has been said and shows that laziness toward helpful things comes from a love of evil, and is rooted in unwillingness to learn those things by which one may become wise and good. For the doer of evil, He says, flees from and refuses to be in the Divine Light—not hiding out of shame for his evil (for in that case he would have been saved), but wanting to remain ignorant of what is proper, so that when he transgresses he will not be struck by the now sharper accusations of his own conscience, and so that by finally knowing clearly what is good, he will not have to give a more terrible account to the Judge if he fails to do what pleases God. But the one who does truth (that is, the lover and doer of the works of the Truth) comes to the light, so that his deeds may be revealed as having been done in God. For he does not reject the illumination in the Spirit, being especially led by it to understand with complete calmness whether he has transgressed the Divine commandment and whether he has done all things according to the Law of God.

Profitably doth He go over what has been said, and convicts indolence unto things helpful of proceeding from love of evil, and of having its root in unwillingness to learn those things whereby one may become wise and good. For the doer of evil, says He, flees from and refuses the being in the Divine Light: not hiding from shame on account of evil (for so he would have been saved) but desiring to remain in ignorance of what is becoming, lest transgressing he should be smitten, falling upon the now keener convictions of his own conscience, and by means of at length clearly knowing what is good, should pay a more woeful account to the Judge, if he should not do what was pleasing to God. But he that doeth truth (that is, the lover and doer of the works of the Truth) cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God. For he doth not reject the illumination in the Spirit, by It specially led to be able to understand in all calm collectedness, whether he hath transgressed the Divine commandment, and whether he hath wrought all things according to the Law of God.

It is therefore clear evidence of an uncontrolled inclination toward evil and unchecked pleasure in what is worse when someone does not want to learn what would enable them to reach what is better. Conversely, it shows a desire for what is best when someone thirsts for illumination and makes His Law a kind of rule and guide for living in a way that pleases God. The Divine Psalmist, knowing this to be true, sings: "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes."

It is then a plain proof of an unbridled tendency to evil, and unrestrained pleasure in what is worse, not to wish to learn that whereby one may avail to attain unto what is better: again of desire for the best, to thirst for illumination, and to make His Law a rule so to say and index unto a conversation pleasing to God. And the Divine Psalmist knowing that this was so, sings, The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

After these things, Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea. And John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there, and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been thrown into prison.

22, 23, 24 After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judaea. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.

After the conversation with Nicodemus reached its conclusion, the Divine Evangelist prepares something else that is highly beneficial. Enlightened by the Divine Spirit to explain the most essential matters, he knew it would greatly benefit his readers to understand clearly how excellent the baptism of Christ is and by how much it surpasses that of John. It was not far from his expectation that certain people would arise who, in their foolishness, would dare to say either that there was no difference at all between them and that both should be honored equally, or, stumbling into even wilder foolishness, would claim that the superiority should be taken away from Christ's baptism and shamelessly given to the baptism by water instead. For what audacity is beyond the reach of the poorly instructed, or through what blasphemy will they not rush, who rise up against the holy doctrines of the Church and pervert all justice, as it is written? The very wise Evangelist, in order to destroy beforehand the basis for their empty talk, presents the holy Baptist offering his disciples the solution to this question. Christ therefore baptizes through His own disciples, and John does likewise, though not entirely by the hands of others. Nor did he baptize in the same fountains where Christ was doing this, but near Salim, as it is written, and in one of the neighboring fountains. Through the very distinction of the water fountains themselves, he shows (in a way) the difference of the baptism and signifies as a figure that his baptism is not the same as that of our Savior Christ, though it was near and surrounding it, providing a kind of preparation and introduction to the more perfect one. Just as the law of Moses is said to have a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (for the Mosaic letter is a kind of preparatory exercise and preliminary instruction for the worship in the Spirit, laboring with the truth hidden within), so too should you understand the baptism unto repentance.

After the conversation with Nicodemus had now reached its conclusion, the Divine Evangelist again prepares something else most profitable. For enlightened by the Divine Spirit to the exposition of things most needful, he knew that it would exceedingly profit his readers to know clearly, how great the excellence, and by how great measures, the baptism of Christ surpasses that of John. For it was indeed not far from his expectation, that certain would arise who of their folly should dare to say, either that there was no difference whatever between them, but that they ought to be crowned with equal honours; or, having stumbled into folly even wilder than this, say, that the vote of superiority ought to be taken away from Christ's baptism, and the superiority shamelessly lavished on the baptism by water. For what daring is not attainable by the ill-instructed, or through what blasphemy do they not rush, who rising up against the holy doctrines of the Church, pervert all equity, as it is written? The most wise Evangelist then, that he might destroy beforehand the plea for their vain-babbling, introduces the holy Baptist laying before his disciples the solution of the question. Christ therefore baptizes through His own disciples: likewise John too, and not altogether by the hands of others, nor yet did he baptize in those same fountains, where Christ was manifested doing this, but near to Salim, as it is written, and in one of the neighbouring fountains. And through the very distinction (in a way) of the fountains of waters does he shew the difference of the baptism, and signify as in a figure that his baptism is not the same as that of our Saviour Christ: yet was it near and round about, bringing in a kind of preparation and introduction to the more perfect one. As then the law of Moses too is said to have a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (for the Mosaic letter is a kind of preparatory exercise and pre-instruction for the worship in the Spirit, travailing with the truth hidden within), so shalt thou conceive too of the baptism unto repentance.

The Jews were unable to defend the purifications required by the law and could not make a case for the cleansing through the ashes of a heifer, so they devised something against John's disciples, by which they thought to cause them considerable distress, even though they were easily defeated in their own arguments. Since those who followed the blessed Baptist seemed to be more excellent and more discerning than the Pharisees, admiring their own teacher's baptism and opposing the purifications prescribed by the law, those who are skilled only in slander and most eager for all kinds of wickedness were irritated by this. Even though it undermined their own position, they praised Christ's baptism—not with right motives or offering genuine praise, but driven by the desire simply to upset John's disciples. They put forward an argument contrary to what they actually believed until their purpose should be accomplished. They could not produce any reasonable proof, nor could they even support Christ from the holy Scriptures (for how could such understanding belong to the uninstructed?). Instead, they merely claimed to confirm their arguments by pointing out that very few people were coming to John, while crowds were flocking to Christ. Perhaps in their great foolishness they thought they would win the argument and be able to speak in defense of the legal purifications as if they had already won, by awarding the victory to Christ's baptism over John's for those who came to him. They did vex those with whom they were disputing, but they themselves came away with difficulty and left John's disciples, having been far more damaged by their own poorly thought-out argument. For they ended up crowning the Lord with praises they were forced to give against their will.

The Jews being powerless to commend the purifications of the law, and not able to advocate the cleansing through the ashes of an heifer, plan something against John's disciples, whereby they thought to cause them no slight vexation, albeit easily worsted in their own matters. For since they who attended the blessed Baptist, appeared to be more excellent and of more understanding than the Pharisees, admiring the baptism of their own teacher, and opposing the purifications after the law; they are vexed at these things, who are diligent in reviling only and most ready unto all wickedness: and even overturning their own case, they praise Christ's Baptism, not rightly disposed, nor pouring forth true praise on it, but exasperated to the mere distressing of them; and lending out a statement against their opinion, until their purpose should attain its accomplishment. They cannot then adduce any reasonable proof, nor do they even support Christ out of the holy Scriptures (for, whence were such understanding to the uninstructed?): but they merely allege in confirmation of their own arguments, that very few in number are those who come to John, but that they flock together to Christ. For haply they in their exceeding folly thought that they should carry off the vote of victory, and might speak out in behalf of the legal purifications, as having already conquered, by giving the palm over John's to the Baptism bestowed by Christ on those who come to Him. And they vex those with whom their dispute was: but they get off with difficulty and leave the disciples of John, much more beaten by their ill-considered dispute. For they crown with compulsory praises, and against their will, the Lord.

The disciples, stung by the Pharisees' words and looking at the actual situation, could not prove them wrong but were understandably confused. Being ignorant of our Savior's great dignity, they were deeply troubled by what seemed to be John's inferior position. Mixing words of love with reverence and admiration, they wanted to understand why the One John had testified about was surpassing him in honor, exceeding him in grace, and through baptism drawing in not just part of the Jewish crowd but all of them. They made this inquiry, it seems, not without God's will, for this gave the Baptist an opportunity to provide them with a thorough and detailed explanation about the Savior and to introduce the clearest distinction between the baptisms.

The disciples bitten by the words of the Pharisees, and looking to the very nature of the thing, were not able to convict them as liars, but were reasonably at a loss, and being ignorant of the great dignity of our Saviour, are exceedingly startled at John's shortcoming, and mingling words of love with reverence and admiration, they desire to learn, why He That was borne witness to by his voice, prevents him in honour, outstrips him in grace, and in baptizing takes in His net, not a portion of the whole Jewish multitude, but even all of them. And they made the inquiry as it seems not without the Will of God: for hence the Baptist invites them to an accurate and long explanation respecting the Saviour, and introduces the clearest distinction between the baptisms.

He says that there is nothing good in man that is not entirely the gift of God, for it is proper for the creation to hear, "What do you have that you did not receive?" I think, then, that we ought to be satisfied with the measures assigned to us and to rejoice in the honors given to us from heaven, but we should never reach beyond them or, in our desire for something greater, ungratefully despise what has been decreed from above and fight against the Lord's judgment, feeling ashamed that one should seem to receive less than what is more perfect. Instead, we should highly value whatever God is pleased to honor us with. Let my disciple therefore not be ashamed, he says, if I do not go beyond the measure given to me, if I do not contemplate what is greater, and if I am limited to the glory fitting for a man.

He says that there is nothing good in man, but must needs be wholly the gift of God, For it befits the creation to hear, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? I think then that we ought to be content with the measures allotted to us, and to rejoice in the honours apportioned to us from heaven, but by no means to stretch out beyond, nor in desire ever of what is greater unthankfully to despise the decree from above, and fight against the judgment of the Lord, in shame that one should appear to receive what is less than the more perfect: but with whatsoever God shall please to honour us, to value that highly. Let not my disciple therefore, saith he, be ashamed, if I do not overleap the measure given me, if I do not contemplate the greater, and am contracted to the glory befitting a man.

He reminds his disciples of the words they have already heard many times, partly rightly rebuking them for being immersed in forgetfulness of profitable things and for being asleep regarding this most important doctrine, and partly urging them to remember the Divine Scripture, since they have been trained in eagerness for knowledge of these things. The Scripture preaches one person as the Christ who is to come, and another as the Baptist who is the forerunner. For in this way, having received knowledge of each one, they would not be at all upset, seeing them in the condition appropriate to each. I will need no other witnesses to this, he says—I have my own disciples as ear-witnesses. I confessed my state of servitude when I declared in advance that I was sent, that I am not the Christ. Let Him overcome, prevail, and shine forth even more as Lord and God.

He brings his disciples to the recollection of the words which they have already often heard, partly reproving them rightly, as steeped in forgetfulness of things profitable, and slumbering in respect to this so most dread doctrine, partly persuading them to remember the Divine Scripture, as having been nourished in zeal for the knowledge of these things; Whom it preaches as the Christ to come, whom again as the Baptist the forerunner. For thus would they, having received knowledge of each, be in no wise angry, seeing them in the state befitting each. I shall need then, saith he, no other witnesses to this, I have my own disciples as ear-witnesses, I confessed my state of servitude, when I fore-announced, I was sent, I am not the Christ. Let Him overcome, prevail, shine forth yet more as Lord and God.

The one who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and listens to him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now complete.

29 He That hath the bride is the Bridegroom: but the friend of the Bridegroom, which standeth and heareth Him, rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

The discussion once again begins with a comparison to our human experiences, but it leads us to understand deeper truths. For the things we can touch and hold serve as images of spiritual realities, and the plainness of physical examples often provides a very precise demonstration of spiritual things. Christ, he says, is the Bridegroom and ruler of the assembly, while I am the one who invites people to the feast and brings the bride to Him. My greatest joy and highest honor is simply to be counted among His friends and to hear the voice of the One who holds the feast. I have now received what I longed for, and my deepest wish is fulfilled. For I not only preached that Christ would come, but I have seen Him now that He is present, and I treasure His very voice in my ears. But you, my wise disciples, are witnessing human nature—which is betrothed to Christ—going to Him, and seeing the nature that was separated and had run away from loving Him now attaining spiritual union through holy Baptism. Do not be troubled, he says, that this belongs not to me but rather runs eagerly to the spiritual Bridegroom, for this is truly right and more fitting. For He who has the bride is the Bridegroom. That is, do not look to me for the Bridegroom's crown; the Psalmist does not rejoice over me when he says, "Listen, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear; forget your own people and your father's house, for the King has desired your beauty." Nor is the bride seeking my chamber when she says, "Tell me, O You whom my soul loves, where You feed, where You make Your flock rest at noon." She has the Bridegroom from heaven. But I will rejoice, having gone beyond the honor appropriate to a servant, in both the title and the reality of friendship.

The discourse again took its rise from likeness to our affairs, but leads us to the knowledge of subtle thoughts. For types of things spiritual are those which endure the touch of the hand, and the grossness of corporeal examples introduceth oftentimes a most accurate proof of things spiritual. Christ then, says he, is the Bridegroom and ruler of the assembly, I the bidder to the supper and conducter of the bride, having as my chiefest joy and illustrious dignity, to be only enrolled among His friends, and to hear the Voice of Him That feasteth. I have therefore even now that that I long for, and my dearest wish is fulfilled. For not only did I preach that Christ would come, but Him already present have I seen, and His very Voice do I lay up in my ears. But ye, most wise disciples, seeing the human nature that is betrothed to Christ, going to Him, and beholding the nature which was cut off and a run-away from its love to Him attaining to spiritual union through holy Baptism, grieve not, saith he, that it befits not me, but rather runs very gladly to the spiritual Bridegroom (for this were in truth just and more fitting). For He That hath the bride is the Bridegroom; that is, seek not in me the crown of the Bridegroom, not for me does the Psalmist rejoice, saying, Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house, for the King hath desired thy beauty: nor seeking my chamber doth the bride say, Tell me, O Thou Whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou makest Thy flock to rest at noon: she has the Bridegroom from Heaven. But I will rejoice, having surpassed the honour becoming a bondman, in the title and reality of friendship.

I believe, then, that the meaning of this passage has been thoroughly explained. Since I have already given a sufficient explanation of the spiritual marriage, I think it would be tedious to write any more about it.

I deem then that the meaning of the passage, has been full well interpreted: and having already sufficiently explained the spiritual marriage, I think it tedious to write any more about it.

He convicts his disciples of still being troubled about trivial matters, and of taking offense at the wrong time about things they should not be upset about at all, and of not yet knowing accurately who Emmanuel is and where He comes from. For His deeds will not be marveled at only to this extent, he says, nor will He surpass my honor simply because more people are baptized by Him. Rather, He will attain such a great measure of honor as befits God. For He must necessarily come to an increase of glory, and through daily additions of miracles, continually rise to greater heights and shine forth with greater splendor to the world. But I must decrease, remaining at the level where I now appear—not falling from what was once given to me, but being inferior to Him who always advances to an increase of glory by the same degree as He hastens and moves forward.

He convicts his disciples of being yet troubled about trifles, and of taking unseasonable offence at what they by no means ought, and of not yet knowing accurately, Who and whence Emmanuel is. For not thus far, saith he, shall His Deeds be marvelled at, nor because more are baptized by Him, shall He for this alone surpass my honour, but He shall attain to so great a measure of honour, as befitteth God. For He must needs come to increase of glory, and, through daily additions of miracles, ever mount up to the greater, and shine forth with greater splendour to the world: but I must decrease, abiding in that measure wherein I appear, not sinking from what was once given me, but in such a degree inferior to Him That advanceth ever to an increase of glory, as He hasteth and passeth on.

And the blessed Baptist explains this to us. But our discussion will advance profitably through examples, making the force of what has been said clearer. Let a stake two cubits long be fixed in the ground. Let there also be nearby a plant just peeping above the ground, putting forth green shoots into the air, and ever thrust up to a greater height by the irresistible vigor from the roots. If one could give voice to the stake, and it should then say of itself and its neighboring plant, "This must increase, but I decrease," one would not reasonably suppose that it was indicating any harm to itself, or that its existing measure would be cut down. Rather, it would be affirming its decrease only in this sense: that it is found to be less than that which is constantly advancing toward increase. Again, you may take an example similar to this one and imagine the brightest of the stars crying out and saying of the sun, "It must increase, but I decrease." For while in the gloom of night the depth of the atmosphere is darkened, one may well admire the morning star flashing forth its golden light and standing out in its full glory. But when the sun now gives notice of its rising and bathes the world with a moderate light, the star is surpassed by the greater and gives place to it as it advances little by little. And it too might well speak the words of John, being in that same state which he says he is experiencing.

And this the blessed Baptist interpreteth to us. But our discourse will advance profitably through examples, making the force of what has been said clearer. Let then a stake two cubits long be fixed in the ground: let there lie near a plant too, just peeping above the ground, putting forth green shoots into the air, and ever thrust up to a greater height by the resistless vigour from the roots; if then one could put voice into the stake, and it should then say of itself and its neighbour the plant, This must increase, but I decrease; one would not reasonably suppose that it indicated any harm to itself, nor that its existing measure would be clipped, but it would be affirming its decrease in that sort only, in which it is found less than that which is ever advancing towards increase. Again you may take an example akin to this one, and suppose the brightest of the stars to cry out saying of the sun, It must increase, but I decrease. For while in the gloom of night the depth of the atmosphere is darkened, one may well admire the morning star flashing forth its golden light, and conspicuous in its full glory: but when the sun now gives notice of its rising, and bedews the world with a moderate light, the star is surpassed by the greater, and gives place to him advancing little by little. And it too might well speak the words of John, being in that same state, which he says he is enduring.

He says it is not a great or extraordinary thing if Christ surpasses the glory of human nature, because He does not limit His glory to that level. Rather, as God, He is over all creation and above all things that have been made—not by being counted among all things, but by being excluded from all and divinely set over all. He adds this reason to shame and silence those who oppose this view. He says that the One who comes from above—that is, the One who is born from the root from above and preserves in Himself by nature (physis) the Father's natural goodness—will undeniably possess the quality of being above all. For it would be impossible that the Son should not appear to be exactly as the One who begot Him is rightly understood to be. The Son, who excels in sameness of nature (physis), being the Brightness and exact Image of the Father, cannot be inferior to Him in glory. Would not the distinctive property of the Father be dishonored in the Son, and would we not insult the Image of the Begotten, if we consider Him inferior? But I believe this will be clear to everyone. Therefore it is also written, "That all should honor the Son even as they honor the Father: whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father." He who shares in equal honor with God the Father by reason of being from Him by nature (physis)—how can He not be understood as surpassing the essence (ousia) of things that have been made? For this is what "is above all" means.

No great thing is it, saith he, nor exceeding wonderful, if Christ surpass the glory of human nature: for not thus far doth He set the bounds of His own glory, but is over all creation, as God, is above all things made, not as numbered among all, but as excepted from all, and Divinely set over all. He adds the reason, shaming the gainsayer, and silencing the opposer. He That cometh from above, saith he, that is, He That is born of the root from above, preserving in Himself by Nature the Father's Natural goodness, will confessedly possess the being above all. For it would be impossible that the Son should not altogether appear to be such as He That begat is conceived of, and rightly. For the Son Who excelleth in sameness of Nature, the Brightness and express Image of the Father, how will He be inferior to Him in glory? Or will not the Property of the Father be dishonoured in the Son, and we insult the Image of the Begotten, if we count Him inferior? But this I suppose will be manifest to all. Therefore is it written also, That all men, should honour the Son even as they honour the Father: he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father. He That glorieth in equal honour with God the Father, by reason of being of Him by Nature, how will He not be conceived of as surpassing the essence of things originate? for this is the meaning of is above all.

But I see that the minds of those who fight against Christ will never rest. They will likely come with empty arguments and say, "When the blessed Baptist says that the Lord came from above, what reason forces us to suppose that He came from the Essence of the Father because of the phrase 'from above'? Why shouldn't we understand it to mean from heaven, or from His natural superiority over all things, so that for this reason He should be thought of and called 'above all'?" When they attack us with such words, they will hear in response: We will not follow your thoroughly corrupt reasoning, you who claim to be so wise, but rather the Divine Scriptures and the Sacred Writings alone. We must therefore search in them to see how they define for us the meaning of "from above." Let them hear one of those clothed with the Spirit crying out, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights." Look—he clearly says that "from above" means from the Father. Knowing that nothing else surpasses created things except the Ineffable Nature of God, he rightly applied the term "from above" to it. For all other things fall under the yoke of bondage, while God alone rises above being ruled and reigns. Therefore He is truly above all. But the Son, being by nature God and of God, will not be excluded from this glory. However, if you think that "from above" should be understood as "from heaven," then let the phrase be used of every angel and rational power. For those who inhabit the city above come to us from heaven, and they ascend and descend, as the Savior says somewhere, upon the Son of man. What then persuaded the blessed Baptist to attribute to the Son alone what was possible for many, and to call Him specially, as one coming down from above, "He that comes from above"? For surely he should have made this dignity common to the rest and said, "They that come from above are above all." But he knew that this expression belonged to the One Son, as one who sprang from the Supreme Root.

But I perceive that the mind of the fighters against Christ will never rest, but they will come, as is probable, vainly babbling and say, "When the blessed Baptist says that the Lord sprang from above, what reason will compel us to suppose that He came of the Essence of the Father, by reason of the word from above, and not rather from heaven, or even from His inherent superiority above all, so that for this reason He should be conceived of and said to be also above all?" When therefore they aim at us with such words, they shall hear in return, Not your most corrupt reasonings o most excellent, will we follow, but rather the Divine Scriptures and the Sacred Writings only. We must then search in them, how they define to us the force of from above. Let them hear then a certain one of the Spirit-clad crying, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from, above, and cometh down from the Father of lights. Lo, plainly he says that from above is from the Father: for knowing that nought else surpasseth things originate save the Ineffable Nature of God, he rightly attached to it the term from above. For all things else fall under the yoke of bondage; God alone riseth above being ruled, and reigneth: whence He is truly above all. But the Son, being by Nature God and of God, will not be excluded from the glory in respect of this. But if ye deem that from above ought to be taken as Of heaven, let the word be used of every angel and rational power. For they come to us from heaven who inhabit the city that is above, and ascend and descend, as the Saviour somewhere says, upon the Son of man. What then persuaded the blessed Baptist to attribute that which was in the power of many to the Son Alone specially, and as to One coming down from above to call Him, He That cometh from above? For surely he ought to make the dignity common to the rest, and say, They that come from above are above all. But he knew that the expression was due to the One Son, as sprung of the Supreme Root.

Therefore "from above" does not mean from heaven, but should be understood piously and truly in the sense we spoke of before. For how is He above all if "from above" means not from the Father, but rather from heaven? If this were so, every one of the angels would also be above all, since they come from there. But if each one escapes being counted among all, who will finally make up "all"? Or how will the word "all" remain intact, preserving its meaning accurately, while such a multitude of angels surpasses and breaks through the boundary of "all"? For it is no longer "all" if those who were in "all" remain outside. But the Word who shone forth ineffably from God the Father, having His proper birth from above and being of the ousia of the Father as from a fountain, will not by His coming violate the word "all," since He escapes being counted among all as if He were a part. Rather, He will be above all, as Other than they, both by physis and God-befitting power and all other properties of Him who begot Him.

Therefore from above does not mean from heaven: but will be piously and truly understood, in the sense we spoke of before. For how is He at all above all, if from above signify not From the Father, but rather From Heaven? For if this be so, every one of the angels too will be above all, as coming from thence. But if each one escapes being reckoned among all, of whom at last will all be composed? or how will the word all remain intact, preserving accurately its meaning, while such a multitude of angels overpass and break down the boundary of all? For all it is no longer, if they remain outside, who were in all. But the Word That shone forth ineffably from God the Father, having His Proper Birth from above, and being of the Essence of the Father as of a fountain, will not by His coming wrong the word all, seeing He escapes being reckoned among all as if a part: but rather will be above all, as Other than they, both by Nature and God-befitting Power and all other Properties of Him Who begat Him.

But perhaps they will say, embarrassed by the absurd result of this investigation, "From above doesn't mean from heaven, but from His inherent superiority above all." Come then, let us test more carefully the meaning of what is said and see where their attempt will end up. First, it is completely foolish and senseless to say that the Son Himself has come from His own dignity, and that as if from a certain place or out of one, He, one and the same, advances from His own excellence to be above all. Besides this, I would also very much like to ask them: regarding the excellence above all, will they grant it to the Son essentially and irrevocably, or as something added from outside in the manner of an accident? If they say that He has the excellence by acquisition and is honored with dignities from outside, one must necessarily acknowledge that the Only-Begotten could exist deprived of glory and be stripped of the acquired (as they call it) grace, and be deprived of being above all, and appear bare of the excellence which they now admire—since an accident can be lost, seeing that it does not belong to the ousia of its subject. There will therefore be change and variation in the Son, and the Psalmist will be lying when he hymns Him with vain words: "The heavens shall perish, but You shall endure; yes, all of them shall grow old like a garment; as a vesture You shall change them and they shall be changed; but You are the Same, and Your years shall have no end." For how is He the Same if He changes along with us, and that with changes for the worse? Vainly too, it seems, does He boast of Himself, saying, "Behold, behold, I am; I change not, and there is no God beside Me." And how will not the passions of the offspring reach up to the Father Himself too, since He is His impress and exact likeness? God the Father then will be changeable and has the supremacy over all accruing to Him—I omit the rest. For what belongs to the image will of necessity belong to the archetype. But they will not say that He has the supremacy from outside (shuddering at such difficulties and absurdities in their arguments), but essentially rather and irrevocably. Then again, most excellent ones, how will you not agree with us even against your will that the Son, being by physis God, is above all, and therefore comes from the unique ousia of God the Father? For if there is nothing among things originate that is not separated off by the boundary of the all, but the Son is above all—that is, as other than all, and having the essential supremacy over all, and not the same in physis with all—how will He not at last be conceived of as very God? For He who is essentially separate from the multitude of created beings, and by physis escapes being classed among things originate, what else can He be except God? For we see no middle ground as far as existing essence is concerned. For the creation is ruled over, and God is conceived of as over it. If then the Son is by physis God and has been ineffably begotten of God the Father, from above signifies the physis of the Father. Therefore the Only-Begotten is above all, inasmuch as He too is seen to be of that physis.

But perchance they will say abashed at the absurd result of the investigation, " From above means not from heaven, but from His inherent superiority above all." Come then, testing more accurately the force of what is said, let us see at what an end their attempt will terminate. First then, it is wholly foolish and without understanding, to say that the Son Himself hath come from His Own Dignity, and that as from a certain place or out of one, He One and the Same advances from His Own Excellency to be above all. In addition to this, I would also most gladly enquire of them, in respect of the excellence above all, whether they will grant it to the Son Essentially and irrevocably, or added from without in the nature of accident. If then they say that He hath the Excellence by acquisition, and is honoured with dignities from without, one must needs acknowledge that the Only-Begotten could exist deprived of glory, and be stripped of the acquired (as they call it) grace, and be deprived of being above all, and appear bare of the excellence which they now admire, since an accident may be lost, seeing that it belongeth not to the essence of its subject. There will therefore be change and varying in the Son: and the Psalmist will lie hymning Him with vain words, The heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shalt Thou change them and they shall be changed: but Thou art the Same, and Thy years shall have no end. For how is He the Same, if with us He changeth, and that with changes for the worse? Vainly too (it seems) doth He glory of Himself, saying, Behold, behold, I am, I change not, and there is no God beside Me. And how will not the passions of the offspring reach up to the Father Himself too, since He is His Impress and Exact Likeness? God the Father then will be changeable, and has the Supremacy over all accruing to Him: I omit the rest. For what belongs to the Image will of necessity appertain unto the Archetype. But they will not say that He hath the supremacy from without (shuddering at such difficulties alike and absurdities of their arguments), but Essential rather and irrevocable. Then again (o most excellent) how will ye not agree with us even against your will, that the Son being by Nature God, is above all, and therefore cometh of the Alone Essence of God the Father? For if there be nought of things originate which is not parted off by the force of the All, but the Son is above all, to wit, as Other than all, and having the Essential Supremacy over all, and not the same in nature with all, how will He not be at length conceived of as Very God? For He Who is Essentially separate from the multitude of created beings, and by Nature escapes the being classed among things originate, what else can He be, save God? For we see no mean, as far as regards existing essence. For the creation is ruled over, and God is conceived of as over it. If then the Son be by Nature God, and have been ineffably begotten of God the Father, from above signifies the Nature of the Father. Therefore the Only Begotten is above all, inasmuch as He too is seen to be of that Nature.

He that is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. The earthborn person, he says, will not have the same power of persuasion as the One who is God over all. For someone who is of the earth will speak as a human being and will rank merely as an adviser, leaving his disciples completely free to choose whether to believe. But He who comes from above, as God, speaks with a certain divine and ineffable grace and sends His words into the ears of those who come to Him. In proportion to how much He is superior by physis, He will surely work more effectively. The blessed Baptist says these things to his disciples with much profit. Since they were watching him being surpassed by the Savior's glory and were becoming quite offended by this—which is why they came to him and said, "Rabbi, the One who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you gave testimony, is now baptizing, and everyone is going to Him"—the Spirit-clothed Baptist needed to cut off this offense and plant in his disciples a healthy understanding of the most necessary points. He explained the Savior's supremacy over all and taught them the reason why everyone was already going to Him and leaving water baptism alone to go to the more divine and perfect baptism, namely that by the Holy Spirit.

He that is of the earth is earthly and speaketh of the earth. The earthborn (says he) will not effect equally in power of persuasion with Him Who is God over all. For he that is of the earth will speak as man, and will rank merely as an adviser, committing to his disciples the whole reins of desire to believe: but He That cometh from above, as God, having used discourse with a certain Divine and ineffable grace, sends it into the ears of those who come to Him. But in proportion as He is by Nature Superior, so much the more effectually will He surely in-work. And with much profit does the blessed Baptist say such things to his disciples. For since they were beholding him surpassed by the glory of the Saviour, and were now not a little offended thereat, wherefore they came to him and said, Rabbi, He That was with thee beyond Jordan, to Whom thou barest witness, behold the Same baptizeth, and all men come to Him; needs did the Spirit-clad, cutting off the sickness of offence, and implanting in his disciples a healthful perception on most necessary points, explain the Saviour's supremacy over all, and teach no less the cause why all men were already going to Him, and leaving the baptism by water alone, went to the more Divine and perfect one, to wit, that by the Holy Ghost.

He that cometh from heaven is above all. This testifies, he says, that the distinction between earthly things and the Word of God who comes down from above and from heaven is very great and incomparable. If I am not qualified to teach and my word alone is not enough for you, the Son Himself will confirm it, testifying that the earthborn differs from the Beginning who is above all to an incomprehensible degree. For when disputing somewhere with the unholy Jews, the Savior said, "You are from beneath; I am from above." He says that the physis of things originate is from beneath, because it is subject and necessarily in bondage to God who calls them into being. By contrast, he calls the Divine and Ineffable and Lordly physis "from above," since it has all things originate under its feet and subjects them to the yoke of his Authority. For the blessed Baptist did not add these things to those mentioned above without purpose. To prevent his disciples from supposing that he was inventing empty arguments and, out of fear of reasonably seeming inferior to Christ, calling him greater and from above while calling himself from beneath and of the earth, he necessarily seals the force of what was said by what the Savior himself said, and shows that the explanation is not an empty excuse as they thought, but rather a demonstration of the truth.

He that cometh from heaven is above all. This testifieth (saith he) that very great and incomparable the distinction between those of the earth and the Word of God That cometh down from above and from Heaven. If I am not fit to teach, and my word alone suffice you not, the Son Himself will confirm it, testifying that in an incomprehensible degree differs the earth-born from the Beginning Which is above all. For disputing somewhere with the unholy Jews, the Saviour said, Ye are from beneath; I am from above. For He says that the nature of things originate is from beneath, as subject and of necessity in bondservice to God Who calleth them into being: from above again He calleth the Divine and Ineffable and Lordly Nature, as having all things originate under Its feet, and subjecting them to the yoke of His Authority. For not idly did the blessed Baptist add these things to, those above. For that; he may not be supposed by his disciples to be inventing empty arguments, and from fear of seeming with reason inferior to Christ, to call Him greater and from above, himself from beneath and of the earth; needs does he from what the Saviour Himself said, seal the force of the things said, and shew the explanation to be not as they thought, an empty excuse, but rather a demonstration of the truth.

But since the other part of the verse says, "And what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth," let us discuss a few things about this as well. We are naturally structured and accustomed to receive the fullest proof of everything through two particular senses especially, namely sight and hearing. For when we have both heard something with our ears and witnessed it with our eyes, we can speak with certainty about it. Therefore, persuading them to hasten to believe in Christ (for He speaks, he says, what He knows accurately), he draws again, as it were, from our human likeness, so that we may understand it in a more divine way, and says, "What He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth."

But since the other part of the verse runs thus, And what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth, come we will discuss a few things on this too. We are so constituted and habituated, as to receive the full proof of everything, by means of two especial senses particularly, I mean sight and hearing. For having been both ear-witnesses and eye-witnesses of anything, we come to speak positively thereof. Persuading them therefore to hasten to belief in Christ (for He speaks, says he, that He knows accurately), he takes again, as it were, from the likeness to us, that we may understand it more Divinely, and says, What He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth.

The blessed Baptist does not say this as though no one receives the testimony that Christ is God by nature and, sprung from above and the Father, is above all—for many have received and believed it, and before all Peter, who said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Rather, having himself understood the great dignity of the Speaker more correctly than all the others, he practically shakes his head and strikes his thigh with his right hand, marveling at the foolishness of those who disbelieve Him.

Not as though no one receiveth the testimony, that Christ is God by Nature and, sprung from above and the Father, is above all, does the blessed Baptist say this (for many received, and have believed it, and before all Peter, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God): but as having himself conceived of the great dignity of the Speaker more rightly than they all, does he all but shaking his head, and smiting with right hand on his thigh, marvel at the folly of them that disbelieve Him.

In no other way was it possible to show the impiety of unbelievers except by making known the glorious achievement of believers. For by the contrast of good things, evil is easily discerned, and knowledge of what is better convicts what is worse. If anyone, then, he says, has agreed with the words of Him who comes from above, he has sealed and confirmed by his understanding that truth is always closely related and most dear to the Divine Nature. From this, the opposite is clear to those who see. For whoever rejects the faith will surely witness against himself that God is not true. But we must again notice that he removes the Son from being consubstantial with creation, and shows by what has been said that He is by physis God. For if the one who believes the things spoken by Him and receives the testimony which He gave of Himself has sealed and firmly confirmed that God is true, how shall Christ not be understood as God by physis, who is testified to as true by the credibility of the things just mentioned? Or let our opponent again explain how the Divine Nature is honored as being true by our Savior's testimony being received. For if He is not wholly God by physis, the one who believes will not be honoring the Divine Nature as true, but rather one who is (according to them) the fairest of creatures. But since when Christ is believed, the declaration of being true extends to God, it is, I suppose, altogether clear that He, being God and not falsely so called, Himself receives honor to Himself from those who believe.

In no other way was it possible to shew the impiety of them that believe not, except the glorious achievement of the believers were made known. For by the contrast of good things is the evil easily discerned, and the knowledge of what is better convicts the worse. If any then (saith he) have assented to the words of Him That cometh from above, he hath sealed and confirmed by his understanding, that truth is ever akin and most dear to the Divine Nature. Whence the converse is manifest to them that see. For he who thrusts away the faith will surely witness against himself, that God is not true. But we must again take notice, that he removes the Son from consubstantiality with the creation, and shews by what has been said that He is by Nature God. For if he that believeth the things spoken by Him, and receiveth the testimony which He gave of Himself, sealed and well confirmed that God is true; how shall not Christ be conceived of as by Nature God, Who is testified of as true by the credit of the things just said? or let our opponent again say how the Divine Nature is honoured, as being true, by our Saviour's testimony being received. For if He be not wholly by Nature God, he that believeth will not be reverencing the Divine Nature, as true, but rather one (according to them) the fairest of creatures. But since, when Christ is believed, the declaration of being true extendeth to God, it is I suppose altogether clear, that He being God, not falsely so called, Himself taketh honour to Himself from those who believe.

But the enemy of the truth will not (it seems) agree to these words of ours, but will rise up forcefully, refusing to admit that the Son is God by physis, and will say again: You are splitting hairs, sir, and devising elaborate arguments with many twists and turns, constantly avoiding somehow the simple and straightforward meaning. For since the Word of God has come down from heaven, crying out openly, "I speak not of Myself, but the Father who sent Me gave Me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak," and again, "All things that I have heard of My Father I will make known to you," or also, as the holy Baptist declared in the following words, "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God," therefore he is saying of Him, "He that receives His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." For truly God the Father is true, but you are attempting to apply to the Son what belongs to Another.

But the enemy of the truth will not (it seems) agree to these words of ours, but will start up strong, not admitting the Son to be by Nature God: and will say again, Thou cavillest, sir, and contrivest turns of many-varied reasonings, ever rejecting somehow the simple and right sense. For since the Word of God hath come down from Heaven, calling out openly, I speak not of Myself, but the Father Which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak: and again, All things that I have heard of My Father, I will make known unto you: or also, as the holy Baptist averred in the following words, For He Whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: therefore of Him is he saying, He that receiveth His testimony hath set to his seal, that God is True. For verily is God the Father true, but thou attemptest to bring round to the Son what is due to Another.

How should we respond to these things? Should we place the Only-Begotten among the prophets, performing the ministry appropriate to prophets and nothing more? Everyone readily accepts that prophets brought us messages from God. So what excellence does the Son possess if this is all He accomplishes? How is He above all if He is still ranked alongside prophets and clothed in a measure befitting slaves? How, as one who surpasses them in glory, does He say in the Gospels, "If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" In these words He clearly separates Himself from the company of prophets. He says they were called gods because the Word of God came to them, but He declares Himself to be Son. The holy prophets received grace by measure through the Spirit, but in our Savior Christ all the fullness of the Godhead has been pleased to dwell bodily, as Paul says. Therefore we have all received from His fullness, as John affirmed. How then can the Giver be equal with those who receive, or how can the fullness of the Godhead be counted among those who serve?

What then shall we say to these things? shall we class the Only-Begotten among the prophets, fulfilling the ministry befitting Prophets, and doing nought besides? For by whom is it not unhesitatingly received, that Prophets used to bring us voices from God? Then what excellence is there in the Son, if He accomplish this alone? how is He above all, if He is still ranked along with Prophets, and is clad in slave-befitting measure? How, as though surpassing them in glory doth He say in the Gospels, If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God? For in these words He clearly severeth Himself off from the company of Prophets, and saith that they were called gods, because the Word of God came to them, but Himself He con-fesseth Son. For to the holy Prophets was imparted grace by measure through the Spirit; but in our Saviour Christ it hath pleased all the full ness of the God-head to dwell bodily, as Paul saith; wherefore also of His fullness have all we received, as John affirmed. How then will the Giver be On a par with the recipients, or how will the Fullness of the God-head be reckoned in the portion of the minister?

Let them therefore consider carefully how great a blasphemy their argument will lead them into. How one ought to understand the words "I speak not of Myself, but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak" will be explained more fully at the proper time and place. But I think that for now the objections of our opponents ought to be made a foundation of piety, and from what they put forward, we ought to contend for the doctrines of the Church. They claim that the Son has received commandments from the Father and says nothing of Himself, but whatever He heard, as He Himself says, these things He is eager to say to us too. Well, let them hold to this, for we will agree, since this does not wrong the Son at all, at least concerning the question of where He comes from. Rather, it brings in a most beautiful oikonomia (divine plan) with respect to the present subject. Therefore, when they hear Him say "I and the Father are One," "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," and "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," let them receive His testimony, let them set their seal to it, that God the Father is true, persuading the Son to speak what He knows accurately. Let them not disbelieve the words of the Savior, who interprets to us the things of His Father.

Let them then hence consider narrowly, into how great blasphemy their argument will hazard them. And how one ought to understand the words, I speak not of Myself, but the Father Which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak, will be explained more at large in its proper time and place. But I think that at present the objections of our opponents ought to be made a foundation of piety, and from what they put forth, we ought to contend for the doctrines of the Church. They then affirm that the Son has received commandments from the Father, and says nothing of Himself: but whatsoever He heard, as Himself says, these things He is zealous to say to us too. Well, let him hold to this; for we will agree, since this nothing wrongeth the Son, as far at least as concerns the question of whence He is; yea rather it bringeth in a most beautiful ceconomy in respect of the present subject. Therefore when they hear Him say, I and the Father are One; He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: let them receive His testimony, let them set to their seal, that God the Father is true, persuading the Son to speak what He knoweth accurately; let them not disbelieve the words of the Saviour, interpreting to us the things of His Father.

The Father knows that His own Son is in Him the same by physis (for I suppose this is what the words "are One" mean, and nothing else), and He acknowledges Him as Son, not creature—I mean Son of His own ousia, not merely honored with the bare name of Sonship. For He knows that He is the exact image of His own proper self, so that He is perfectly seen in Him and depicts in Himself the One who by physis ineffably beamed forth from Him, and He has in Himself the Son and is again in the Son because of their sameness of ousia.

The Father then knoweth that His own Son is in Him the Same by Nature (for this I suppose the words, are One, signify, and nothing else), and acknowledgeth Him as Son not creature; Son I mean of His own Essence, and not honoured with the bare name of Sonship. For He knows that He is the Exact Image of His own Proper Self, so that He is perfectly seen in Him, and depicts in Himself Him That by Nature Ineffably beamed forth from Him, and hath in Himself the Son, is again in the Son, by reason of Sameness of Essence.

By thinking about these things, heretic, you will free yourself from a bitter disease and free us from the trouble of argument and controversy. For "He whom God has sent speaks the words of God." If we take these words in a simple way, what would be marvelous about the Son? After all, wasn't every one of the holy prophets also sent from God, and didn't he declare His words? Indeed, it is written somewhere to the hierophant (high priest) Moses, "And now come, I will send you into Egypt, and you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord,'" and to the most holy Jeremiah, "Do not say, 'I am a child,' for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and whatever I command you, you shall speak." What more, then, does the Son by nature have because He speaks the words of God and is sent by Him? He will be declared to us again, it seems, as a prophet and nothing else, in respect to His ministry. Therefore you must understand "has sent" here either in respect to the Incarnation and His coming into this world with flesh, or else you must take it in a more God-befitting and higher sense. For the Father did not hide the Son in Himself, but He shone forth from His nature, as brightness from light, according to the unspeakable and inexplicable mode of divine generation. The Only-Begotten was making this known to us when He said, "I came forth from the Father and am come." For the Son has come forth from the Father into His proper being, even though He is in Him by physis (nature). And what "I came forth" means there, "being sent" signifies here. The Word, then (he says), who has appeared and flashed forth from the Father, since He is God of God, will use words befitting God. But the words befitting God are true words, words that reject all stain of falsehood. Therefore, the one who receives the testimony of the Savior has sealed that God is true, for He is indeed God by physis.

These things, o heretic, by considering, thou shalt release thyself from bitter disease, and us from trouble in argument and controversy. For He Whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God. If these words be considered simply, what will there be of marvel in the Son? For was not every one of the holy Prophets also both sent from God, and did he not declare His words? And indeed it is somewhere said to the hierophant Moses, And now come, I will send thee into Egypt, and thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord: to the most holy Jeremiah, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. What more then is there in the Son by Nature Who speaketh the words of God, because He is sent by Him? He will be declared to us again (it seems) as a Prophet, and nothing else, in respect of ministry. Therefore you will here understand hath sent, either in respect of the Incarnation and the Coming into this world with Flesh: or again you will take it in a more God-befitting and higher sense. For the Father hid not the Son in Himself, but He beamed forth of His Nature, as brightness from light, after the unspeakable and inexplicable mode of Divine Generation: which too the Only-Begotten was making known to us, in saying, I came forth from the Father, and am come. For the Son hath come forth from the Father into His Proper Being, even though He be in Him by Nature. And what I came forth there means, this again the being sent here signifies. The Word then (he says) That hath appeared and flashed forth from the Father, in that He is God of God, will use words befitting God: but the words befitting God are true words, and such as reject all stain of falsehood. He then that receiveth the testimony of the Saviour hath sealed that God is true; for He is indeed by Nature God.

For He giveth not the Spirit by measure. Pay close attention now, my good friend, so that you may join me in marveling at the sober wisdom of the Saints. He said that the Son was both sent by God and speaks the words of God. But if we look only at the plain meaning of these words, he seems to be placing Him at the level of the prophets, as we just mentioned. So he removes Him from equality with them through these words, and through this one sign he helps us understand how great—or rather how incomparable—the difference is. For it is impossible, he says, that those who have received the Spirit by measure could give It to another. No saint has ever given the Holy Spirit to another saint. But the Son gives to all from His own fullness. He does not give by measure, nor does He have, like them, just some small portion of the Spirit received through participation. Rather, since He was shown to be the Giver of It as well, it is clear, I think, that He possesses It wholly and essentially in Himself. Therefore, the One who has such great superiority over them will not speak the things of God as one of them does, but being God of God, He will pour forth words fitting for God.

For He giveth not the Spirit by measure. Promise now specially keen attention, my good friend, that with me you may wonder at the sober wisdom of the Saints. He said therefore that the Son was both sent of God, and speaketh the words of God. But he is observed as far as belongs to the simple force of the words to clothe Him with the prophetic measure, as we have just said. He: removes Him then in these words from equality with them, and through this one token gives us to understand, how great, yea, rather now how incomparable the difference. For it is impossible, saith he, that they who have received the Spirit by measure, could give It to another. For never hath saint to saint been the bestower of the Holy Ghost: but the Son giveth to all, as of His own fulness. He then giveth not by measure, nor hath He, as they, some little portion of the Spirit, and this by participation: but since He was shewn to be the Giver too of It, it is manifest I suppose that He hath It wholly Essentially in Himself. He then that hath so great superiority over them, will not speak the. things of God as one of them, but being God of God, will pour forth words befitting God.

But what has been said is not at all hindered by the fact that some people think the Spirit was given to certain people through the apostles' hands. We should understand the apostles as those who called upon the Spirit, rather than as true givers of it. Similarly, even blessed Moses was not commanded to take from the Spirit that was upon him himself, but God reserved this power to Himself alone, saying that Moses must bring forth the seventy men, while He Himself promised to take from the Spirit that was on Moses and put it upon them. For He knew that it is fitting for God alone to perform things that befit God.

But it will no how interfere with what has been said that certain deem that by Apostolic hands the Spirit was given to some: for we will believe them to be invokers of the Spirit, rather than truly givers of It: since the blessed Moses too was not enjoined himself to take of the Spirit that was on him but God kept this too in His Power alone, saying that he must put forth the seventy, and promising to take of the Spirit that was on him, and put it upon them. For He knew that it befits God Alone to perform things God-befitting.

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.

35 The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into His Hand.

Since he had said that it was not fitting for the Son, who had shone forth as God from God, to be able to speak words different from those of the One who begot Him—namely, true words—for he says, "The one whom God has sent speaks the words of God"—he necessarily adds what we have before us and says, "The Father loves the Son." He says: We will not grieve God the Father by giving equal honor to the One begotten from Him; we will not offend Him by crowning with God-befitting glory the One who is essentially the heir of the Father's goods. For He loves the Son. Therefore, He will be pleased when the Son is glorified by us, and grieved by the opposite. And let no one suppose, he says, that the Father makes His own Son heir of only this one divine excellence. For He has given all things into His hand—that is, everything that is essentially good in the Father is altogether in the power of the Son. For in these words he calls power "hand," just as when God says through one of the prophets, "My right hand has spanned the heavens," meaning "My power." But the Son has in Himself the whole property of the Father, not by participation, even though the Father is said to have given it—for in that case He would have an acquired Godhead, not a natural one. Rather, the Father gives all that is His to His Son, just as a man may be understood to give to the child born from him all the properties of humanity, or as fire may be said to give to the heat proceeding from it by way of energy the property of its own nature. In such things, the giving involves no loss to the givers (for what is understood to be given does not go forth by division or separation), and the appearance of receiving is blameless on the part of the recipients. For such things are spoken of only because of their origin, and offspring are understood as being a certain natural quality, so to speak, of their begetters, clearly showing what the generator is by nature and flashing forth the natural energy of their own source. And these things again are brought forward as examples, but God is above them all. We will not for this reason accuse human language, which is weak, for the glory of God hides speech, as it is written. And if we see through a glass and darkly, and know in part, how shall we not be even more powerless in the words we speak? You will then piously understand either that in this way all things are given by the Father to the Son, or you will take it again in reference to the oikonomia with flesh, no longer introducing the giving and receiving with respect to natural properties, but as placing the Son in authority over all created things, so that you may understand it in some such way as this:

For since he had said, that it behoved not the Son Who had beamed forth God of God, to be able to use words other than He That begat Him, to wit, true words; for He Whom God hath sent, saith he, speaketh the words of God, needs does he subjoin what is before us, and saith, The Father loveth the Son. We shall not grieve (saith he) God the Father by clothing in equal honour Him That is begotten of Him, we shall not offend Him by crowning with God-befitting Glory Him Who is Essentially the Heir of the Father's goods. For He loveth the Son. He will therefore be pleased at His being glorified by us, and be grieved by the contrary. And let no one suppose, saith he, that He hath His Own Son Heir of this one Divine Excellence only. For He hath given all things into His Hand; i. e., everything, which is essentially good in the Father, this is altogether in the power of the Son. For he calleth power Hand in these words, as when God saith by one of the Prophets, My right Hand hath spanned the heavens, instead of, My Power. But the Son hath in Himself the whole Property of the Father, not by participation, though the Father be said to have given it (for so He would have an acquired, not a Natural Godhead) but the Father gives all that is His to His Son, just as a man too may be conceived to give to the child born of him all the properties of manhood, or as the fire too may be said to give to the heat proceeding from it in the way of energy, the property of its own nature. In such things, both is the giving no loss to the givers (for not by division or severance is the going forth of what is conceived to be given) and the appearance of receiving is blameless on the part of the recipients. For only because of the 'whence,' are such things said, and the offspring are conceived of as being a certain natural quality, so to say, of their begetters, shewing clearly what the generator is by nature, and flashing forth the natural energy of their own source. And these things again are adduced by way of examples, but God is above them all. We will not for this accuse human language which is weak, for the glory of God hideth speech, as it is written. And if we see through a glass and darkly, and conceive in part, how shall we not be yet more powerless in the words through the tongue? You will then piously conceive, either that in this way all things are given by the Father to the Son: or you will take it again of the oeconomy with Flesh, no longer introducing the giving and receiving in respect of Natural Properties, but as putting the Son in authority over all things originate, that you may conceive of it in some such way as this,

Let those who are slow to listen not become bold in their speech when they see the Lord of all as a Man, nor let them think that the Truth is false, rejecting proper faith in God because of the Flesh. Let them receive His testimony, let them readily confirm their belief that God is true, so they do not grieve the Father in Heaven. For He loves His Son, and the proof of His love for Him is that authority over all has been given to Him. The Savior Himself also says, "All things are delivered unto Me of My Father," and again, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." I do not think that anyone should reasonably consider the Son lesser just because He seems to receive this authority—and why not? Because He receives it when He became Man, when He humbled Himself for our sake, when the Lord was called a slave, when the Son, who is free, became one among servants. For how did He humble Himself? Or how is He said to have descended from His equality with God the Father? Do you not see in these things the one who gives divinely, and the one who is said to receive humanly and as a servant what He already possessed as God? For what established the Son's authority to rule over all things is not strictly a gift from the Father, but rather a return and recovery—now with the Flesh—of the authority He had before the Flesh. For He did not begin to rule creation when He became Man.

Let not the slow to hearken (he says) be bold in speech, at seeing the Lord of all a Man, nor let him suppose that the Truth is false, rejecting the due belief in God by reason of the Flesh. Let him receive His testimony, let him readily set to his seal that God is true, lest he grieve the Father Which is in Heaven. For He loveth His Son: and the proof of His Love for Him, is that authority over all is given to Him. Which also the Saviour Himself says, All things are delivered unto Me of My Father, and again, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Nor do I suppose that because of the Son's seeming to receive it, will He reasonably be predicated by any as lesser: and why? for He receives when He became Man, when He humbled Himself for our sakes, when the Lord was called a slave, when the Son, Who is free, became among servants. For how did He humble Himself? or how is He said to have descended from His Equality with God the Father? Dost thou not in these things see Him Who Divinely giveth, Him Who Humanly and as a servant is said to receive what as God He had? For not strictly a gift from the Father is that which appointed the Son to the beginning of Lordship over all things; but rather a return and regain with the Flesh also of the authority that He had before the Flesh. For not when He became Man, did He then begin to rule the creation.

Since what kind of lowliness would one say He had descended to, if when He became Man He only then began to have lordship? How will He appear in the form of a servant if He is only then and barely declared Lord of all? Away with such absurd reasoning. Rather, when He became Man, He begins to rule even then, not losing His Divine Dignity because of His Flesh, but ascending again with the Flesh also to what He was from the beginning. That the things spoken of as Christ's were simply the regaining of what He had before, He Himself will prove, saying, "Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Do you see that He does not ask for a beginning of glory, but a renewal of His original glory, saying this as Man? That it is because of the human nature that all things are said to be given to the Son, anyone who loves learning will gather proofs from all sides with wisdom and will be able to understand, but especially from that most awesome vision of Daniel. In it he says that he saw the Ancient of Days seated on His Throne, and declares that thousands upon thousands ministered to Him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. And to this he added, "And behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him." You see how the whole Mystery of the Incarnation is accurately outlined for us here; you see how the Son is said to receive the kingdom from the Father, shown to the Prophet not as the bare Word, but as the Son of Man (for He humbled Himself, as it is written, being found in fashion as a Man for our sakes), so that having first brought Himself back to His Kingdom, He might be shown forth to us as a Beginning and Way of Glory into the Kingdom. And just as He, being Life by nature, descended for our sakes to death according to the Flesh for all, so that He might free us from both death and corruption by His likeness to us, having mingled us as it were with Himself and made us partakers of eternal life, so also does He conform Himself to our lowly condition, being Lord of Glory as God, so that He might restore the nature of man to royal honor as well. For in all things He has the preeminence, as Paul says, being both the Way and the Door and the Firstfruits of the good things of human nature—from death to life, from corruption to incorruption, from weakness to might, from bondage to sonship, from dishonor and shame to honor and kingly glory. Therefore, when the Son appears to receive as Man what He had as God, let us not be offended in any way, but let us rather consider the manner of the oeconomy on our account and for us. For in this way we shall preserve our mind unwounded and unhurt.⁸⁸

Since to what lowliness would one say that He had descended, if, when He became Man, He then began to have lordship? how will He appear in the Form of a servant, if then at length and scarcely declared Lord of all? Away with the absurdity of the reasonings herein. But when He became Man, then even so begins He to rule, not losing by reason of His Flesh the Divine Dignity, but mounting again with the Flesh also, to what He was from the beginning. But that the things spoken of as Christ's, were but the regain of what He had before, Himself will prove, saying, Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. Seest thou that He asketh not for a beginning of glory, but a renewal of the pristine glory, saying this too as Man? But that because of the Human Nature is it said that all things are given to the Son, he that is fond of learning will from all quarters heap up proofs with wisdom, and will be able to understand, but specially from that most dread vision of Daniel, wherein he savs that he saw the Ancient of Days set on His Throne, and declares that thousand thousands ministered unto Him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. And hereto he added, And behold one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. Thou seest how here is the whole Mystery of the Incarnation accurately delineated to us; thou seest how the Son is said to receive the kingdom of the Father; shewn to the Prophet as no bare Word, but as the Son of Man (for He humbled Himself, as it is written, being found for our sakes in fashion as a Man), that He first brought back to His Kingdom, might be shewn forth a Beginning and Way to us of Glory into the Kingdom. And as He being by Nature Life did for our sakes descend unto death after the Flesh for all, that He might free us both from death and corruption, by His likeness to us having immingled us as it were with Himself and rendered us partakers of eternal life: so doth He confashion Himself to our low repute, being Lord of Glory as God, that He might restore the nature of man to the royal honour also. For in all things He hath the preeminence, as Paul saith, being both the Way and the Door and the Firstfruits of the good things of human nature, from death to life, from corruption to incorruption, from weakness to might, from bondage to sonship, from dishonour and ignominy to honour and kingly glory. Therefore when the Son appears to receive as Man what He had as God, let us no wise be offended but let us consider rather the mode of the oeconomy on our account and for us. For so we shall preserve our mind unwounded and unhurt.⁸⁸

The very wise Baptist does not simply testify without careful thought that life is set before believers in Christ as their reward. Rather, he brings forth the proof from the very nature of things themselves. For the Only Begotten is by physis Life: for in Him we live and move and are. But He is certainly introduced into us through faith and dwells in us through the Holy Spirit. The blessed John the Evangelist will testify to this, saying in his epistles, "By this we know that He dwells in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Christ will therefore give life to those who believe in Him, since He is Himself Life by physis and dwells in them. Paul will furnish proof that the Son dwells in us by faith, saying, "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power by His Spirit, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." Since then Life by physis enters into us through faith, how is the one not speaking truth who says, "He who believes on the Son has everlasting life"—that is to say, the Son Himself, who is understood as nothing other than Life?

Not simply, nor without examination doth the most wise Baptist testify that to them that believe in Christ is life set forth, as their Reward, but he brings forth to us the proof of it from the very quality so to speak of things. For the Only Begotten is by Nature Life: for in Him we live and move and are. But He is introduced into us of a surety through faith, and dwelleth in us through the Holy Ghost: and the blessed John the Evangelist will testify saying in his epistles Hereby know we that He dwelleth in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. Christ will therefore quicken them that believe in Him, as being Himself Life by Nature and dwelling in them. But that the Son indwelleth in us by faith, Paul will furnish proof, saying, For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, of Whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. Since then through faith Life by Nature entereth into us, how is he not true that saith, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life? that is to say, the Son Himself, nought else than Him being conceived of as Life.

Does the Baptist (someone might ask) preach a different teaching to us and corrupt the doctrine of the resurrection by saying that the believer will be given life, while firmly stating that the unbeliever will not see life? It seems we won't all rise; his words introduce this distinction to us. Where then does that statement go, which is spoken absolutely and as if to everyone: "The dead shall be raised"? What is Paul also doing when he says, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad"? I suppose that the person eager for learning deserves praise, but we must examine Holy Scripture most carefully. Look closely, I ask you, at the distinction between what is said. Concerning the believer, he says he will have everlasting life; concerning the unbeliever, the statement has a different meaning. He does not say the unbeliever will not have life—for he will be raised by the common law of the resurrection—but he says he will not see life. That is, he will not even arrive at the bare sight of the life of the saints; he will not touch their blessedness; he will remain without tasting their life passed in bliss. For that is truly life. But to exist in punishment is more bitter than any death, holding the soul in the body only to feel sufferings. Paul also presents a similar distinction in life. Hear what he says to those who are dead to evil for Christ's sake: "For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ, your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory." Do you see how he calls appearing in glory with Christ the life of the saints? And when the Psalmist also sings to us, saying, "What man desires life and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil"—shall we not say that this signifies the life of the saints? I think this is obvious to everyone. He does not, after all, tell some to refrain from evil so they may obtain the resurrection of the flesh later (for they will rise again even if they don't stop doing evil), but rather he stirs them toward that life in which they may truly see good days, passing an endless life in bliss and glory.⁹⁹

Doth then (will haply some one say) the Baptist preach to us another opinion, and corrupt the doctrine of the resurrection, saying that he that believeth shall be quickened, wholly asserting that he that doth not shall not see life? We shall not all, it seems, rise; his word introducing to us this distinction. Whither then will that pass away, that is said absolutely and as it were to all, The dead shall be raised? What is Paul too about, saying, For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad? I suppose then that he that is eager after learning ought to be praised, nevertheless most accurate scrutiny must be made in Holy Scripture. For see clearly, I pray you, the distinction between the things said. For of the believer he says that he shall have everlasting life, of the unbeliever, the word hath a different significance. For he does not say that he shall not have life: for he shall be raised by the common law of the resurrection; but he says that he shall not see life, that is, he shall not so much as arrive at the bare sight of the life of the saints, he shall not touch their blessedness, he shall remain untasting of their life passed in bliss. For that is indeed life. But to exist in punishment is bitterer than all death, holding the soul in the body only for the sensation of sufferings. Some such difference in life Paul also brings forward. Hear what he says to those who are dead to evil for Christ's sake, For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God; when Christ, your life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory. Seest thou how he calls appearing in glory with Christ the life of the saints? But what when the Psalmist too sings to us, saying, What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil. Shall we not say that herein is signified the life of the saints? but it is, I think, evident to all. For he does not, forsooth, bid some to refrain from evil, that they may obtain the resurrection of the flesh hereafter (for they will rise again even if they do not cease from evil), but he rouses them rather to that life, wherein they may wholly see good days, passing an endless life in bliss and glory.⁹⁹

The blessed Baptist showed us the goal of what has been said more openly through what follows. Let whoever loves to investigate consider carefully the force of the thought. He says, "He that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Now if it were possible to understand that the unbeliever would truly be deprived of life in the body, he would surely have immediately added, "but death abideth on him." But since he calls it the wrath of God, it is clear that he is contrasting the punishment of the ungodly with the enjoyments of the saints, and that he calls that life the true life in glory with Christ, and calls the torments of the ungodly the wrath of God. That punishment is often called wrath by the Divine Scriptures, I will bring forward two witnesses, Paul and John: for one said to the converted among the Gentiles, "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others," and the other said to the Scribes and Pharisees, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

More openly by means of this which follows did the blessed Baptist shew us the aim of what has been said. Let him who loves to search consider carefully the force of the thought. He that believeth not (he saith) on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. But if it were possible to understand that the unbeliever should be indeed bereft of the life in the body, he would surely have immediately added, "but death abideth on him." But since he calls it the wrath of God, it is plain that he is contrasting the punishment of the ungodly with the enjoyments of the saints, and that he calls that life, which is the true life in glory with Christ, and the torments of the ungodly, the wrath of God. That punishment is ofttimes called wrath by the Divine Scriptures, I will adduce two witnesses, Paul and John: for the one said to the converted among the Gentiles, And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others; and the other to the Scribes and Pharisees, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples did), He left Judea and went back to Galilee.

Chap. iv.2, 3 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself baptized not but His disciples), He left Judaea and departed again into Galilee.

Here's where our account reaches this point, or from what starting point the narrative's progression presents the Lord as knowing that the Pharisees had learned what they were asking about—it seems appropriate to explain this. For when the holy Evangelist says "When therefore the Lord knew," it clearly indicates that something was already under discussion. For He knew all things without anyone telling Him, by Himself, as God, and not only when they first came into being, but even before they existed, as the prophet testified. But He waits for the right time for each thing, and yields to the natural order of events rather than to His foreknowledge: for this too was fitting for a God-befitting oeconomy.

Whence our history proceeds to this point, or from what commencement the order of the narrative progressing, introduces the Lord as knowing that the Pharisees had learnt what they enquired, it will not be amiss (it appears) to say. For in that the holy Evangelist saith When therefore the Lord knew, it clearly brings forth a certain declaration of a subject previously under consideration. For He knew all things, without any one telling Him, of Himself, as God, and not at their first coming into existence, but even before they be, as the prophet testified. But He awaiteth the right season for each, and yields rather to the order of things, than to His foreknowledge: for this too was worthy of God-befitting ceconomy.

There was a question between some of John's disciples and a Jew about purifying, and there was much disputing on both sides. On one side, those taking their own master's part were contending that his baptism was far superior to the legal sprinklings and typical purifications of the others. Indeed, they were probably offering as proof that many came to him and very gladly left the more ancient and older customs. On the other hand, when the argument was being overwhelmed by the opposing party, and the force of truth rushing down like waters was overpowering the feeble mind of its opponents, they went against their own opinion and against their own will and said that the baptism given through Christ is far more excellent. Now they began to gain the upper hand, using similar arguments for their proof and rising up against their conquerors with the same arguments. They were affirming that many more are seen going to Christ, and that all people hasten to Him rather than to John. From this, I suppose, John's disciples were kindled with grief and went to their master and said, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bore witness, behold, He baptizes, and all people come to Him." The propositions or arguments the Jews put forward out of strife, they presented as questions. Therefore the Evangelist says that the Lord knew the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made more disciples than John, and that He, avoiding their lawless jealousy and keeping His Passion for its proper time, retreated from the land of the Jews and withdrew again into Galilee.

There being then a question between some of John's disciples and a Jew about purifying, there was much disputing on both sides. For the one taking the part of their own master, were contending that his Baptism was far superior to the legal sprinklings and typical purifications of the others. And indeed probably they were adducing as a proof of this, that many came to him, and very gladly left the more ancient and older customs. These again on the other hand, when the argument was being borne down headlong by the opposite party, and the force of truth rushing down like waters, was overwhelming the feeble mind of its opponents, go against their own opinion, and against their own will say that the baptism bestowed through Christ is far more excellent. And now they begin to have the upper hand, using like arguments for their proof, and rising up against their conquerors with the same arguments. For they were affirming that many more are seen going to Christ, and that all men hasten to Him rather than to John. Whence I suppose the disciples of John kindled with grief go to their master and say, Rabbi, He That was with thee beyond Jordan, to Whom thou barest witness, behold, the Same baptizeth, and all men come to Him. The propositions or arguments of the Jews put forth out of strife, they put forward interrogatively. Hence therefore the Evangelist says that the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made more disciples than John, then that He shunning their lawless jealousy, and keeping His Passion for its own time, retreats from the land of the Jews, and withdraws again into Galilee.

He had to go through Samaria. Then He came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the piece of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

4, 5 And He must needs go through Samaria. Then cometh He to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

What great mental alertness and profound wisdom! He anticipates through his answers the questions that would have been asked of him. For someone would immediately have said, either speaking to another person or reasoning silently, Why did our Lord Jesus Christ give illumination to the Samaritans at an inappropriate time? For once the Syrophoenician woman came to Him, tearfully begging mercy for her wretched daughter, and what did the Compassionate One say to her? He says, It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to dogs. For He did not think it proper, I believe, to pour out upon the Gentiles before the appointed time the grace allotted to them from Israel. And He Himself made this clearer by saying, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. How then, one might ask, did He who was sent to Israel alone begin to instruct the race of the Samaritans, even though Israel had not yet completely rejected the grace? To such questions he introduces a reply that persuasively demonstrates divine power, namely, that He must needs go through Samaria. For He did not arrange His stay with the Samaritans solely for this reason—that He might preach the word among them and completely transfer the entire blessing away from Israel—but rather, since He had to pass through anyway, He therefore teaches, fulfilling the work of wisdom.

O great readiness of mind and deep prudence! He prevents by his answers the things that would have been asked of him. For some one would straightway have said, either speaking to another, or secretly reasoning, Why did our Lord Jesus Christ, in not fit season, give illumination to the Samaritans? For once there came to Him the Syrophenician woman, with tears entreating mercy for her wretched daughter; and what said the Compassionate to her? It is not meet, saith He, to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. For He did not think it right, I suppose, to pour forth upon the Gentiles before the time the grace assigned to them of Israel. And this Himself made clearer by saying, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. How then (will one say) did He Who was sent to Israel alone begin to instruct the race of the Samaritans, albeit Israel had not yet wholly spurned the grace? To such things does he introduce the reply persuasive with power, to wit, that He must needs go through Samaria. For not for this reason alone did He arrange His sojourn with the Samaritans, that He might preach the word among them, and wholly transfer the whole blessing from Israel: but since He must needs pass through, therefore doth He teach, fulfilling the work of wisdom.

Just as fire never stops burning according to its natural properties, I believe it is completely impossible for the Wisdom of all things not to do what is fitting for wisdom. And just as He said it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to dogs, yet gave grace to the woman who wept and pleaded for mercy with many words—not because someone else told Him when to give it, but because He Himself with the Father determines the right time, as Son and God and Lord—so He also took pity on the Samaritans. By revealing the Ineffable Power of His God-befitting Authority, He made the enlightenment of an entire region a secondary purpose of His journey.

For as fire will never cease from its inherent natural operation of burning; so I deem it wholly impossible, that the Wisdom of all should not work what befits wisdom. And as, while saying that it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it unto dogs, yet to the woman who wept and entreated for pity with many words, He cast the grace, not admonished by another of the season for giving it, but Himself with the Father being Appointer of it, as Son and God and Lord: so did He pity the Samaritans too, and unveiling the Ineffable Might of His God-befitting Authority, He made the illumination of a whole country the bye-work of a journey.

It would also be strange if Israel, who was already consumed by foolishness and plotting murder against the Lord, should be perfectly loved. But since they are not yet thoroughly persecuting Him, but only to a degree, our Lord Jesus Christ does not yet completely withdraw His grace from them, but instead gradually transfers the blessing to others. However, His complete departure from the land of the Jews and His eagerness to go to the land of foreigners, because of the cruelty of His persecutors, was a warning depicted in the nature of the event as a symbolic pattern, showing that they would suffer the complete loss of grace and would hand over to others their own possession, that is, the Christ, unless they stopped their violence against Him.

It were besides strange, that Israel, who was already mad in folly, and imagining slaughter against the Lord, should be perfectly loved. But since they do not yet thoroughly persecute Him, but as yet only in measure, therefore our Lord Jesus the Christ also doth not yet wholly strip them of His grace, but doth nevertheless draw off the blessing by little and little to others. But His departing wholly from the country of the Jews, and hasting to go into that of aliens, by reason of the cruelty of His persecutors, was a threat, depicted on the nature of the thing as in a type, that they should endure the total loss of grace, and should dismiss unto others their own good, that is, the Christ, unless they abstained from their violence against Him.

Having crossed the borders of Judea and being now among foreigners, the Savior rests at Jacob's well, showing us again as in a symbol and dimly that even though the preaching of the Gospel should leave Jerusalem and the Divine Word should eventually go out to the Gentiles, Israel will not thereby lose the love shown to their fathers. Rather, Christ will hold fast to them again and will again be refreshed and rest, as He does in His saints, preserving for them the original unfading grace. For He loves to dwell in the memories of His saints, so that He may make Himself an example to us in this also and may become the Beginning and Door of the honor given to the fathers. But being wearied with His journey, as it is written, He rests, so that in this too He may expose the impiety of those who drove Him away. For whereas they ought to have won His friendship through kind honors, treating Him with reverence and fear as a Benefactor, they instead afflict the Lord with toil and labors, so that He may truthfully say of them in the book of Psalms, And they rewarded Me evil for good.

Having crossed the borders of Judaea, and being now among aliens, the Saviour rests upon Jacob's well: shewing us again as in a type and darkly, that even though the preaching of the Gospel should depart from Jerusalem, and the Divine Word at length hasten forth to the Gentiles, there shall not be lost therewith to Israel the love to their fathers, but Christ shall cleave to them again, and shall again be refreshed and rest, as in His Saints, preserving to them the pristine unfading grace. For He loveth to dwell in the memories of His saints, that He may make Himself an en-sample to us in this also, and may become the Beginning and Door of the honour given to the fathers. But being wearied with His journey, as it is written, He resteth, that in this too He may accuse the impiety of those that drove Him away. For whereas they ought to have gained His friendship by kindly honours, cherishing Him with reverence and fear, as a Benefactor, they maltreat the Lord with toil and labours, that He may be true, saying of them in the book of Psalms, And they rewarded Me evil for good.

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

In this we see the boldness of the Jews. But what will the Arians answer us about this—those who are neighbors to the Jews in foolishness? Indeed, it could rightly be said to them, "Sodom was justified by you." For the Jews crucify Christ in the flesh, but the Arians rage against the ineffable physis itself of the Word. Look, he was wearied by his journey. Who was it who suffered this? Will you present to us the Lord of Hosts as lacking in power, and will you assign to the Only Begotten of the Father the exhaustion of the journey, so that he may be thought of as even capable of suffering—he who cannot suffer? Or will you rightly refuse to think this way and assign responsibility for these things to the nature of the body alone? Indeed, will you say that the exhaustion belongs to the human nature rather than to him who is and is thought of as the bare Word by himself? So then, he who possesses in his own nature power over all things and is himself the strength of all is said to be wearied (for I beg you, do not divide the one Christ into two Sons, even though he makes his own the sufferings of his human nature), yet he remains impassible, since he became man—he who did not have it in him to be weary. Likewise, if he speaks at all of things we think are more fitting for man than for God, let us not chase after words. And when we most need skill in piety, let us not then be caught in extreme foolishness by pushing far away from us the plan of the oeconomia of the flesh, ascending rashly to the very Godhead of the Word, and grasping with great foolishness at the things above us. For if he were not called man at all, if he were not made in the form of a servant, it would be right to be troubled when someone said anything servile about him, and to demand instead all things according to what befits God. But if in firm faith and without wavering we are confident that according to the voice of John, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," when you see him speaking as flesh—that is, as man—accept discourse befitting man for the confirmation of the preaching. For in no other way could we know with certainty that he, being God and Word, became man, unless the impassible one were recorded as having suffered something and the exalted one as having uttered something lowly.

Herein then is seen the daring of the Jews. But what will the Arians again, neighbours of these in folly, answer us to this, yea rather to whom it would rightly be said, Sodom was justified by thee? For the one crucify Christ in the Flesh, but the others rage against the Ineffable Nature Itself of the Word. Lo, He was wearied with His journey: Who was He Who suffered this? will ye bring before us the Lord of Hosts lacking in might, and will ye lay upon the Only Begotten of the Father the toil of the journey, that He may be conceived of as even Passible, Who cannot suffer? Or will ye, acting rightly, refuse so to think, and attribute the charge of these to the nature of the Body only, yea rather will ye say that the toil befits the Human Nature, rather than Him Who is, and is conceived of, as bare Word by Himself? As then He Who possesseth in His Own Nature Power over all things, and is Himself the Strength of all, is said to be wearied (for do not I pray do not divide the One Christ into a Duality of Sons, even though He make His own the sufferings of His Human Nature) albeit He abideth Impassible, since He became Man, Who had it not in Him to be weary; so if He at all speak also of things which we think rather befit man, and not God, let us not hunt after words, nor, when we most need skill unto piety, be then caught in exceeding folly, putting the plan of the oeconomy of the Flesh far away from us, ascending hotly to the Very Godhead of the Word, and laying hold with much folly of the things above us. For if He were not altogether called Man, if He were not made in the form of a servant, it were right to be troubled, when one said anything servile of Him, and to demand rather all things according to what befits God. But if in firm faith and unswervingly we are confident, that according to the voice of John, The Word was made Flesh, and tabernacled among us, when thou seest Him speaking as Flesh, that is, as Man, receive discourse befitting man, for confirmation of the preaching. For in no other way could we know certainly, that He being God and Word, became Man, had not the Impassible been recorded to have suffered something, and the High One to have uttered something lowly.

He shows that Jesus rested at the well at an appropriate time. For when the sun pours down its strongest rays from directly overhead upon those on the earth and consumes bodies with its unrelenting heat, it would not have been harmless to go further, but it was more suitable to rest a little. This was especially true when He could easily have dismissed any accusation of indulgence, since the appropriateness of the time agreed with this decision.

He shews that opportunely did Jesus rest upon the well. For the sun pouring down its strongest rays from the mid-vault on those upon the earth, and consuming bodies with its unmitigated strokes, it would not have been without hurt to have gone further, but was more convenient to rest a little, especially when He would easily have thrust away the charge of luxuriousness, if the fitness of the season had agreed thereto.

He does not say it was precisely the sixth hour, but about the sixth hour, so that we too may learn not to be careless even about the smallest things, but rather to try and practice truthfulness in ordinary matters.

He does not say that it was the sixth hour precisely, but about the sixth hour, that we too may learn not to be indifferent even about the least things, but rather to try and practise truth in common things.

A woman from Samaria comes to draw water. Jesus says to her, "Give Me a drink." (His disciples had gone away to the city to buy food.) Then the Samaritan woman says to Him,

7, 8, 9 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give Me to drink. (For His disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat). Then saith the woman of Samaria unto Him,

The Savior was not unaware that the woman was coming. Being truly God, He knew very well that she would soon arrive to draw the cold water from the well. But when she had come, He began to catch His prey in the net, and immediately offering the word of teaching, He based His discourse on what was at hand.

The Saviour was not ignorant of the woman's coming. For right well did He know being Very God, that she would forthwith be there to draw the cold stream from the fountain. But when she was now come, He began to get His prey within the toils, and straightway holding forth the word of teaching, made His discourse from what was before Him.

The Law appointed for the Jews that they must not be defiled in any way, and therefore commanded them to withdraw from every unclean thing and not to mix themselves up with foreigners or the uncircumcised. But they, pushing the force of the commandment even further and following the most empty observances rather than the precision of the Law, did not venture even to touch the flesh of any foreigner. They used to think that they would incur complete uncleanness if they were found having anything to do with the Samaritans. Their disagreement eventually advanced to such a great extent that they recoiled from tasting water or food brought to them by the hand of foreigners. So in order that the woman might exclaim, and that His unusual conduct might invite her to ask who He is, and where He is from, and how He despises the Jewish customs, and so the conversation might at length reach His goal, He pretends to be thirsty, saying, Give Me to drink. But she said,

The Law appointed for the Jews that they must not be defiled in any way, and therefore ordered them to withdraw from every unclean thing, and not to mix themselves up with strangers, or uncircumcised. But they, carrying forward the force of the commandment to something more, and following most empty observances, ratter than the exactness of the Law, nor venturing so much as to touch the flesh of any alien, used to think that they would incur all uncleanness, if they were found having to do with the Samaritans in anything. To so great an extent did their disagreement at length advance, that they recoiled from tasting water or food brought to them by the hand of aliens. In order then that the woman may exclaim, and that His unwonted conduct may invite her to ask Who He is, and whence, and how He despises the Jewish customs; and so at length the conversation may come to His aim, He makes as though thirsty, saying, Give Me to drink. But she said,

How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink when I am a Samaritan woman? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. Jesus answered and said to her,

10 How is it that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her,

Investigation is the start of learning, and for those who are ignorant about any topic, questioning it is the foundation of understanding. This is what the conversation is aiming for: therefore the Savior wisely suggests that He considers the customs of the Jews to be of no value.

Enquiry is the beginning of learning, and to those who are ignorant upon any subject, doubt concerning it is the root of understanding. This commencement the discourse aims at: wherefore the Saviour wisely hints, that He accounts of no value the customs of the Jews.

If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, "Give me to drink," you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water. The woman says to him,

11 If thou knewest the gift of God, and Who It is That saith to thee, Give Me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto Him,

Not knowing the Essence of the Only Begotten, which surpasses earth and heaven, and being completely ignorant of the Incarnate Word, the woman was calling Him a Jew. He is wisely silent about this, so that the foundation of His conversation with her may be preserved. Yet He lifts her to a higher understanding of Himself, saying that she does not know who it is who asked for a drink, or how great the grace of Divine gifts is—so much so that if she had known, she would not have held back, for she would have asked the Lord first. He stirs her through these things to a very earnest desire to learn. Notice how even now, crafting His words skillfully and without boasting, He says that He is God, even though the woman is slow to understand. For by leading her to marvel at the gift of God, He presents Himself as the One who gives it. For if, He says, you knew the gift of God and who it is that says to you this, you would have asked of Him. But whom would it be fitting to give the things of God? Would it not be Him who is by Nature God?

Not knowing the Essence of the Only Begotten, surpassing earth and heaven, yea rather being wholly ignorant of the Incarnate Word, the woman was calling Him a Jew. And profitably is He silent to this, that the foundation of His discourse with her may be kept. Yet does He uplift her to a higher conception of Himself, saying that she knows not Who It is Who asked drink, or how great grace Divine gifts have, insomuch that if she had had knowledge of it, she would not have endured to be behindhand, for she would have prevented the Lord in asking. He rouses her then by these things to a very earnest wish to learn. Observe how now too fashioning His discourse skillfully and free from boast, He says that He is God, even though the woman be slow to understand. For inducing her to marvel at the gift of God, He introduces Himself as the Giver of it. For if (says He,) thou knewest the gift of God and Who It is That saith to thee, thou wouldest have asked of Him. But whom would it befit to give the things of God? would it not Him Who is by Nature God?

But He calls the life-giving gift of the Spirit living water. Through this alone, human nature—though nearly dried up at its very roots and made barren of all virtue by the devil's wickedness—returns to its original beauty of nature. Drinking in the life-giving grace, it is adorned with various forms of good things. Shooting forth into a virtuous character, it puts forth thriving shoots of love toward God. God says something like this to us through the Prophet Isaiah: The beast of the field shall honor Me, the dragons and the owls, because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen, whom I have formed for Myself to declare My excellencies. And another of the Saints says that the soul of the righteous shall be as a fruitful tree, and shall spring up as grass among the waters, and shall appear as the willow by running water.

But He calls the quickening gift of the Spirit living water, whereby alone human nature, albeit well nigh parched to its very roots, rendered now dry and barren of all virtue by the villainies of the devil, runneth back to its pristine beauty of nature, and drinking in the life-giving grace, is adorned with varied forms of good things, and shooting forth into a virtuous habit puts forth most thriving shoots of love towards God. Some such thing as this God says to us by the Prophet Isaiah also, The beast of the field shall honour Me, the dragons and the owls, because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen, whom I have formed for Myself to declare Mine excellencies. And another of the Saints says that the soul of the righteous shall be as a fruitful tree, and shall spring up as grass among the waters, and shall appear as the willow by running water.

We could pile up many other testimonies from Divine Scripture besides those already quoted, which would make it very easy to show that the Divine Spirit is often named under the term "water." But this is not the time to dwell on this point. Therefore we will move on to other topics, pressing forward upon the great and vast ocean of Divine meditations.

We might heap up, besides those already quoted, many other testimonies also from the Divine Scripture, whence it would be very easy to shew, that under the name of water, the Divine Spirit is often named. But it is no time to linger here. Wherefore we will swim to other places, pressing on upon the great and wide sea of Divine meditations.

The woman imagines nothing beyond what she is used to, and she completely fails to understand the meaning of what is being said. Instead, she assumes that, like some people who are accustomed to performing wonders through spells and demonic trickery, He will draw up the water to her from the depths of the well without a rope or any other device. But she calls it living water according to her own understanding, meaning water that has just flowed fresh from the source of the spring.

The woman imagines nothing more than what she is accustomed to; and by no means understands the force of what is said, but supposes that like some of those who are accustomed to work wonders by means of charms and devilish deceit, without a line or other contrivance He will draw up the water to her from the depths of the well. But she calls that living water, according to her own meaning, which has fresh flowed from the breasts of the fountain.

Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, along with his children and his cattle? Jesus answered and said to her,

12, 13 Art Thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her,

The woman stops herself as quickly as possible, realizing that her ideas about Him had been neither holy nor certainly true. For it was impossible that she should not be completely helped toward understanding, since she was fully receiving the Divine words. Since it was possible that the One speaking might not be a magician, but rather a Prophet, and one of those excelling in holiness, and had therefore promised to give her the living water without the usual means of buckets, or having found water far better to use from another source, she immediately changes her manner of speaking to something more sober, and compares saint with saint, saying, "Are You greater than our father Jacob who gave us this well?" Understand her thought from this: she no longer wonders at His promising water without a rope, but speaks only of its quality to the taste.

The woman arrests herself, and that as quickly as possible, being conscious that she had taken up ideas of Him neither holily nor surely true. For it was not possible that she should not be altogether profited to understanding, who is wholly enjoying the Divine words. Since then it was possible that He Who speaks should not be a magician, but rather a Prophet, and one of those surpassing in holiness, and had therefore promised to give her the living water, without the usual means of buckets, or having found water far better to use from another source, she straightway changes her discourse for the soberer, and as it were compares saint with saint, saying, Art Thou greater than our father Jacob who gave us this well? Receive the intelligence of her thought, from her no longer wondering at His promising water with out a rope, but speaking only of its quality to the taste.

The Samaritans were foreigners (since they were colonists from Babylon), but they called Jacob their father for two reasons. First, because they lived in a region bordering on and neighboring the Jewish land, they had adopted some elements of Jewish worship themselves and were in the habit of boasting about the Jewish ancestors. Second, it was actually true that most of the inhabitants of Samaria were descended from Jacob's line. For Jeroboam the son of Nebat had gathered together ten tribes of Israel and the half-tribe of Ephraim, and departed from Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, taking control of Samaria and building houses and cities there.

The Samaritans then were aliens (for they were colonists of the Babylonians), but they call Jacob their father for two reasons. For as inhabiting a country bordering on, and the neighbour of the Jews' land, they were taking a little impression themselves of their worship, and were accustomed to boast of the Jews' ancestors. Besides, it was really true that the greater number of the inhabitants of Samaria were sprung from the root of Jacob. For Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, having gathered together ten tribes of Israel, and the half-tribe of Ephraim, departed from Jerusalem in the time of the kingdom of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and took Samaria, and built houses therein and cities.

Verses 14-15: "Whoever drinks from this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never be thirsty. Instead, the water that I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." The woman says to Him,

14, 15 Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto Him,

The Samaritan woman raises this as a challenging and difficult question: "Are You greater than our father Jacob?" The Savior very skillfully avoids any boasting. He does not say clearly that He is greater, yet through the nature of the actions He persuades her to recognize Him as superior. Therefore He shows that the difference between the spiritual waters and the physical, earthly ones is incomparable, saying, "Whosoever shall drink of this water shall thirst again, but he that is filled with My water," He says, "shall not only be shown to be free from thirst from now on, but he shall have in him a well of water able to nourish him to eternal life." Therefore He who gives the greater gift is greater, He says, than he who has the lesser, and the one who is defeated will not carry away the same glory as the victor.

The woman of Samaria proposing, as a hard question and difficult to cope with. Art Thou greater than our father Jacob; the Saviour most skilfully avoids all boasting, not saying clearly that He is greater, yet from the nature of the actions does He persuade her to approve Him who excels. Therefore He shews that incomparable is the difference between the spiritual waters, and the sensible and grosser ones, saying, Whosoever shall drink of this water shall thirst again, but he that is filled (saith He) with My water, shall not only be shewn to be superior to thirst henceforth, but he shall have in him a well of water able to nourish him to eternal life. Therefore He that giveth the greater, is greater (saith He) than he that hath the less, and the worsted will not carry off the same glory as the conqueror.

We must understand again that here the Saviour calls the grace of the Holy Spirit water. If anyone shares in this water, he will have the gift of Divine teaching constantly flowing up within him, so that he will no longer need instruction from others. Instead, he will be readily able to encourage those who thirst after the Divine and heavenly Word, just as some who still lived in this present life and on earth did—the holy Prophets and Apostles, and the heirs of their ministries, about whom it was written, "And you shall draw water with joy out of the wells of salvation."

We must know again, that the Saviour here calls the grace of the Holy Ghost water, whereof if any be partaker, he shall have the gift of the Divine teaching evermore flowing up within him, so as no more to be in need of admonition from others, yea rather, readily to suffice to exhort those who thirst after the Divine and heavenly Word, such as were some yet living in this present life and upon earth, the holy Prophets and Apostles, and the heirs of their ministrations, of whom it was written, And ye shall draw water with joy out of the wells of salvation.

Once again she both speaks and thinks only of ordinary matters, and she doesn't understand anything of what has been said. She assumes that the whole purpose of our Savior consists in freeing her from minor labors, and she limits the measure of God's grace to nothing more than not being thirsty anymore, not even conceiving in her mind of things beyond this world.

Again does she both speak and imagine only ordinary things, and of the things that were said understands no whit; but she supposes that in being released from petty toils, will consist all the aim of our Saviour, and to thirsting no more does she bound the measure of the grace of God, not so much as in bare idea receiving things above the world.

Well and not untruly might one say that the minds of women are womanish, and that an effeminate soul is in them, never having the power of understanding readily. But the nature of man somehow is more apt for learning, and far more ready for reasoning, having a mind awake to wisdom, and (so to speak) warm, and of mature manhood. For this reason, I suppose, He told the woman to call her husband, secretly convicting her as having a heart most slow to learn, not practiced in the words of wisdom; yet He is at the same time planning something else most beautiful.

Well and not untruly might one say, that the minds of woman are womanish, and that an effeminate soul is in them, never having the power of understanding readily. But the nature of man somehow is apter for learning, and far more ready for reasoning, having a mind awake to wisdom, and (so to say) warm, and of matured manhood. For this reason (I suppose) did He bid the woman call her husband, secretly convicting her as having a heart most slow to learn, not practised in the words of wisdom; yet He is at the same time contriving something else most beautiful.

The woman says to Him, "I have no husband." Jesus says to her, "You have spoken well when you said 'I have no husband,' for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. In this you spoke truly." The woman says to Him,

17, 18, 19 The woman saith to Him I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou hast well said I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto Him,

To whom is it not now clear that the Savior was not ignorant that she was without any lawful husband, and that He made the inquiry about her husband—who did not exist—as a basis for revealing hidden things? For He was—yes, He was—only with difficulty able to help her, so that she would no longer marvel at Him as one of us, but as now above man, because of His remarkable knowledge of her situation. And He profitably confirms her statement that she has no husband, even though she had had so many; for it is not the physical union based on pleasure, but the approval of the law and the bond of pure love that make marriage blameless.

To whom is it not now evident that the Saviour was not ignorant that she was bereft of any rightful husband and that He made the enquiry about her husband who was not, a plea for making known hidden things? For He was, He was thus with difficulty able to help her no longer marvelling at Him as one of us, but as now above man, by reason of His wondrous knowledge of her circumstances. And profitably does He approve her saying she has no husband, although she had had so many; for not the coming together out of pleasure, but the approval of the law and bond of pure love make marriage blameless.

With difficulty she begins to understand, though her understanding is still not complete. For she still calls the Lord of Prophets a Prophet. But she has gradually shown herself better than before, not at all ashamed when corrected, seizing for her own benefit the power of the sign and thus moving beyond her weak understanding, gaining to some degree a stronger mind, and extending the eye of her heart to an unusual way of seeing things. In this we must especially admire both the patience and power of our Savior, who easily reshapes our untrained understanding to an excellent condition.

With difficulty does she brighten up to apprehension, and that again not yet perfect. For she still calls the Lord of Prophets a Prophet. But she has by degrees shewn herself better than before, in no way ashamed at reproof, seizing to her own profit the force of the sign and so going forth from her effeminate understanding, attaining to some extent to a vigorous mind, and stretching forth the eye of her heart to an unwonted view of things. Wherein we must chiefly admire alike the forbearance and power of our Saviour, who easily remodels our untutored understanding to an admirable condition.

Realizing that the Lord is truly a Prophet and a Jew, she boasts greatly about her country's customs and claims that the Samaritans are far wiser than the Jews. The Jews, holding overly crude ideas about the Divine and Incorporeal Nature, insisted that God over all should be worshipped only in Jerusalem or nearby Zion, as if the entire Ineffable and Incomprehensible Nature had permanently settled there and was contained in man-made temples. Therefore, they were proven to be completely lacking in understanding by the voice of the Prophets, when God said, "Heaven is My Throne and earth is My Footstool, what house will you build Me, says the Lord, or what is the place of My rest?" The Samaritans, in turn, differing little from the foolishness of the Jews and being similarly close to them both in location and in ignorance, supposed that they ought to pray and worship on the mountain called Gerizim, and rightly could not avoid being ridiculed. But their excuse for this foolishness was also that the blessing was given on Mount Gerizim, as we find written in Deuteronomy. The woman presents this question to the Savior as if it were some great and difficult problem, saying, "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain," and so on.

Conceiving that the Lord is in truth a Prophet and a Jew, she boasts exceedingly of the customs of her country, and asserts that the Samaritans are far superior in wisdom to the Jews. For the Jews admitting too gross notions of the Divine and Incorporeal Nature, contended that in Jerusalem alone, or its neighbour Sion, ought the God over all to be worshipped, as though the whole Ineffable and Incomprehensible Nature had once for all there taken abode, and was enclosed in temples made with hands. Wherefore they were convicted of being utterly without understanding, by the voice of the Prophets, God saying, Heaven is My Throne and earth is My Footstool, what house will ye build Me, saith the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? The Samaritans again little remote from the folly of the Jews, bordering both in country alike and uninstructedness, supposing that in the mount called Gerizim they ought both to pray and worship, rightly escape not being laughed at. But the plea to them also of their senselessness was, that the blessing was given in Mount Gerizim, as we find written in Deuteronomy. This question the woman proposes to the Saviour, as some great and difficult problem, saying, Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, &c.

He condemns the folly of both groups equally, saying that the mode of worship for both will be transformed into something more truthful. For no longer, He says, will people seek a specific place where they believe God properly dwells, but rather, understanding Him as filling and able to contain all things, they will worship the Lord each one from his own place, as one of the holy Prophets says. He says that His own presence in the world in a Body is the time and season for changing such customs.

He condemns alike the folly of all, saying that the mode of worship of both shall be transformed to the more truthful. For no longer (saith He) shall a place be sought, wherein they shall deem that God properly dwells, but as filling and able to contain all things, shall they worship the Lord every one from his place, as one of the holy Prophets says. He says that His own sojourn in the world with a Body is the time and season for a change of such customs.

Notice how, with a very gentle way of guiding the conversation, He leads the woman's mind toward correct understanding about the Son by calling God the Father. For how can the Father be conceived of at all if the Son does not exist?

Observe how with most gentle leading of discourse, does He guide the mind of the woman to right conceptions respecting the Son, by calling God the Father. For how shall the Father at all be conceived of, if the Son be not?

You worship what you do not know: we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

He speaks again as a Jew and a man, since the economy of the matter at hand requires this mode of speaking even now (for Christ would not have let the appropriate opportunity pass by). Yet He does attribute something greater in terms of understanding to the worship of the Jews. For the Samaritans worship God simply and without inquiry, but the Jews have received through the Law and the Prophets knowledge of Him Who Is, to the extent they were able. Therefore He says that the Samaritans do not know, but that the Jews have good knowledge, and it is from them He declares that salvation will be revealed—that is, Himself. For Christ was from the seed of David according to the flesh, and David was from the tribe of Judah. He places Himself among the worshippers again as Man, though He is worshipped together with God the Father both by us and by the holy angels. For since He had taken on the form of a servant, He fulfills the ministry appropriate to a servant, without having lost His being God and Lord and being worthy of worship. For He remains the Same, even though He has become Man, preserving throughout the plan of the economy according to the Flesh.

He speaks again as a Jew and a man, since the economy of the matter in hand demands now too this mode of speaking (for Christ would not have missed meet opportunity): yet does He attribute something more in respect of understanding to the worship of the Jews. For the Samaritans worship God simply and without search, but the Jews having received through the Law and Prophets the knowledge of Him Who is, as far as they were able. Therefore He says that the Samaritans know not, but that the Jews have good knowledge, of whom He affirms, that salvation shall be revealed, that is Himself. For Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, David of the tribe of Judah. Amongst the worshippers again as Man does He class Himself, Who together with God the Father is worshipped both by us and the holy angels. For since He had put on the garb of a servant, He fulfilleth the ministry befitting a servant, having not lost the being God and Lord and to be worshipped. For He abideth the Same, even though He hath become Man, retaining throughout the plan of the dispensation after the Flesh.

And even though you see a humbling that is both great and supernatural, approach it with wonder, not with accusations or criticism, but rather by imitating it. For this is how Paul wants to see us, saying, "Let this mind be in each of you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself." Do you see how the Son became for us a Pattern of lowliness, being in Equality and Form of the Father as it is written, yet descended for our sakes to a voluntary obedience and lowliness? How then could the appearance of obedience, how could that of lowliness appear, except through deeds and words beneath His dignity as God, and having a great inferiority to those things in which He existed while He was still bare Word with the Father and not involved in the form of a servant? How can we say that He descended at all if we allow Him nothing unworthy of Him? How was He made in the likeness of men, according to what Paul says, if He did not imitate what is appropriate to man? But something most appropriate to men is worship, regarded as a debt and offered by us to God. Therefore He worships as Man, when He became Man; He is worshipped forever with the Father, since He was and is and will be God by physis and truly.

And even though thou see an abasement great and supernatural, approach wondering, not accusing, not faultfinding, but rather imitating. For such Paul desireth to see us, saying, Let this mind be in each of you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself: taking upon Him the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself. Seest thou how the Son became to us a Pattern of lowliness, being in Equality and Form of the Father as it is written: yet descended for our sakes to a voluntary obedience and lowliness? How then could the garb of obedience, how could that of lowliness appear, otherwise than through deeds and words beneath His God-befitting Dignity, and having a great inferiority to those wherein He was while yet bare Word with the Father, and not involved in the form of a servant? How shall we say that He has at all descended, if we allow Him nothing unworthy of Him? How was He made in the likeness of men, according to the voice of Paul, if He imitated not what befits man? But a thing most befitting men is worship, regarded in the light of a debt, and offered by us to God. Therefore He worshippeth as Man, when He became Man; He is worshipped ever with the Father, since He was and is and will be, God by Nature and Very.

But our opponent will not accept this. Instead, he will resist us, saying: "Don't think it strange when we say that the Son worships, because we don't suppose that the Son ought to worship the Father in the same way as we do or as the angels do, for example. Rather, the worship of the Son is something special and far better than ours."

But our opponent will not endure this, but will withstand us, saying: "Think it not strange when we say that the Son worships: for we do not suppose that the Son ought to worship the Father, in the same way as we or the angels, for example: but the worship of the Son is something special and far better than ours."

What should we say to these claims? You think, friend, that you can deceive us by placing a supposedly noble form of slavery on the Only-Begotten and covering up the status of a servant with deceptive words. Stop glorifying the Son in a way that dishonors Him, while claiming to honor the Father. For whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either, as Scripture says. Tell me, what good does it do the Only-Begotten in terms of His freedom that His worship of the Father should be superior to ours? As long as He is counted among worshippers, He will be completely a slave, and even if He is thought of as a superior worshipper, He will in no way differ from creatures in being created—only in other excellent qualities. This would be like how Michael or any other holy and rational powers are superior to human beings. These beings appear to have a superiority over earthly beings in holiness or abundant glory, as decreed by the Chief Craftsman of all things, God. But being classified with created things, as something that was made, is something they share with everything else. The Word who is in the Father and of the Father by physis will never escape being created, even if He is said to worship in a superior way. How then will something that is made still be Son, or how will a slave and worshipper be Lord by physis? I would say that royal and lordly dignity consists precisely in being worshipped, while the role of servant and slave is defined by offering worship. We confess that by being subject, we consider ourselves bound to worship the physis that is superior and above all. This is why the all-wise Moses proclaimed to all creation: You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve. So whatever has servitude by nature, and whatever bows under the yoke of the Godhead, must necessarily worship and submit itself to the act of adoration. When he says Lord, he defines the slave; when he says God, he defines the creature. They are understood together and set in contrast: the slave with the one who is Lord by physis, and that which has been brought into being with the unbegotten Godhead.

What then shall we reply to these things? Thou thinkest, fellow, to mislead us, by putting a most noble bondage about the Only-Begotten, and gilding over the dignity of a servant by certain words of deceit. Cease from glorifying the Son with dishonour, that thou mayest continue to honour the Father. For he that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father, as it is written. For what (tell me) will it profit the Only-Begotten in respect of freedom, that His worship of the Father should be made more excellent than ours? For so long as He is found among worshippers, He will be altogether a bondman, and even though He be conceived of as a superior worshipper, yet will He by no means differ from creatures in respect of being originate, but only in the remaining excellencies, as to men is superior Michael or any other of the holy and reasonable powers, to whom superiority to those upon earth seems essentially to belong, either in respect of holiness or any superabundance of glory, it having been so decreed by the Chief Artificer of all things, God: but the being classed with things originate, as having been created, is common to them with the rest. The Word then Who is in the Father and of the Father by Nature will never escape being originate, even though He be said to worship in a more excellent way. Then how will that which is made be yet Son, or how will the bondman and worshipper be by Nature Lord? For I suppose that the royal and lordly dignity is pre-eminent in being worshipped: but the office of servant and slave is defined in his paying worship. We confess then by being subject that we hold ourselves bound to worship the Nature which is superior and above all. Wherefore it was proclaimed to the whole creation by the all-wise Moses, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve. So that to whatsoever servitude belongs by nature, and whatever boweth under the yoke of the Godhead, this full surely must needs worship, and submit to the garb of adoration. For in saying Lord, he defines the bond, in saying God, the creature. For together are they conceived of, and contrasted, the bond with Him who is by Nature Lord, and that which is brought into being, with the Inoriginate Godhead.

Since the Son is eternally in the Father and is Lord as God, I cannot understand how He could be thought to owe worship. But let them continue their empty talk: "The Only Begotten," they say, "will worship the Father, not as a slave or created being, but as a Son worships the Father." We must therefore include adoration in the very definition of Sonship, and say that it is entirely necessary for the Son to worship the Father, because this is what His being consists in, just as our being consists in being rational mortal creatures capable of receiving mind and knowledge, rather than in being subject to external and impulsive movements and to mere shifts of will. For if the duty to worship entirely and necessarily has been implanted by nature into the Only Begotten, and they maintain and say this, how will they not be caught in outright blasphemy against the Father Himself? For it is entirely necessary to conceive of Him in the same way, since the Son is His Image and exact representation, and things that are in exact likeness will surely differ in nothing. But if they say that the Son offers worship to the Father by will alone, they are merely guessing rather than knowing the truth. For what would prevent others from saying—inventing a reckless piety—that it was the Father's will to worship the Son, even though He is not a worshipper by nature?

But seeing the Son is eternally in the Father and is Lord as God, I am at a loss to shew whence He can appear to owe worship. But let them proceed with their babbling: "The Only Begotten (says he) will worship the Father, neither as bond nor created, but as a Son the Father." We must therefore take adoration into the definition of Sonship, and say that it altogether behoves the Son to worship the Father, for that in this consists His being, even as does ours in being reasonable mortal creatures, recipient of mind and knowledge, rather than in committing ourselves to motions external and impulsive, and to the mere swayings of will. For if there have been implanted by Nature into the Only Begotten, the duty wholly and of necessity to worship, and they so hold and say, how will they not be caught in naked blasphemy against the Father Himself? For it is altogether necessary to conceive of Him too as such, since the Son is His Image and Impress, and whatever things are in exact likeness, these full surely will differ in nothing. But if they say that the Son pays worship to the Father in will alone, they are guessers, rather than knowers of the truth. For what would hinder others too from saying, fabricating a hazardous piety, that it was the will of the Father to worship the Son, though not a worshipper by Nature?

But he says that fittingness itself will set apart the Person of the Father and will make the Son subject to this—that His worship of the Father is not unwilling.

"But (says he) fitness itself will remove the Person of the Father, will subject the Son to this, His worship of the Father not unwilled."

What are you saying, sir? Are you again bringing us oracles as if from shrines or Greek tripods, or do you come like that Shemaiah the Nehelamite, belching forth from your own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord? And don't you blush, putting forward fitness to us as though it were invincible in these matters? For don't you think it befits Him Who is by physis (nature) God to have the Word begotten of Him as God, and that He Whom the whole creation worships should be called and be by physis the Father of a Son Who is worshipped, rather than a worshipper? But I think I say nothing displeasing to the truly wise. But how shall we define that it also befits the Father to be worshipped by His own offspring, when such a conception concerning Both suffers such great damage? For in the first place, that which does not worship will be neither in equality of dignity nor in exact Image of physis with that which worships. For it worships as inferior, and that not measurable by quantity in respect of any natural quality (for He Who is God or Lord will not be lesser), but as differing in the definition of mode of being. Then how will He be shown to be true in saying, He that has seen Me has seen the Father? How does He say that He ought to be honored in no less degree than the Father, if He is not His Equal in glory by reason of His worshipping? Then besides, the Father Himself will also appear to be in no slight unseemliness. For it is His glory to beget such as He Himself is by physis; on the other hand it is no slight disgrace to have a son of another kind and alien, and to be in such a condition as even the very physis of created things shrinks from. For those that have received power to bear do not bear worse than themselves, by the ordinance and will of the Artificer of all things. For, He says, let the earth bring forth grass, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind and after his likeness. The Godhead then will be in worse condition than created things, since they are thus but It is not so—rather, that which was judged both to befit and to have been well arranged for the successions of things which are, this It alone will be found without.

What sayest thou, o sir? Dost thou again bring forth to us oracles as from shrines, or Greek tripods, or comest thou like that Shemaiah the Nehelamite, belching forth out of thine own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord? and dost thou not blush, opposing to us fitness, as though invincible in these matters? For dost thou not think it befits Him Who is by. Nature God, to have the Word begotten of Him God, and that He Whom the whole creation worships, should be called and be by Nature the Father of a Son Who is worshipped, rather than a worshipper? But I think I say nothing displeasing to the truly wise. But how shall we define that it also befits that the Father be worshipped by His Own offspring, when such a conception as to Both endures so great damage? For in the first place that which worships not will be neither in equality of dignity, nor in exact Image of nature with that which worships. For it worships as inferior, and that not measurable by quantity, in respect of any natural quality (for He That is God or Lord will not be lesser), but as differing in the definition of mode of being. Then how will He be shewn to be true in saying, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? how doth He say that He ought to be honoured in no less degree than the Father, if He be not His Equal in glory by reason of His worshipping? Then besides, the Father will Himself too appear to be in no slight unseemliness. For it is His glory to beget such as Himself is by Nature: on the other hand it is no slight disgrace, to have a son of another kind and alien, and to be in such case as even the very nature of things originate shrinks from. For they that have received power to bear, bear not worse than themselves, by the ordinance and will of the Artificer of all things. For, saith He, let the earth bring forth grass, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind and after his likeness. The Godhead then will be in worse case than things originate, since they are thus, It not so, but that which was adjudged alike to befit and to have been well arranged for the successions of things which are, this It Alone will be found without.

Who then, most excellent sirs, will tolerate you saying that it is appropriate for the Son to worship His Father? But when you have added to those words of yours that this is not unwilled by the Only-Begotten, and you strengthen this gratuitous argument of yours merely by appropriateness, come, let us consider this too from the Divine Scriptures, from which I think one ought to seek proof zealously on every disputed point. The law therefore commanded that half of a didrachm be paid by every one of the Jews to Him Who is God over all, not as devising a way of obtaining wealth, nor contributions of money for no purpose, but imparting instruction to us through clearest types: first, that no one is lord of his own head, but that we all have one Lord, enrolled into servitude by the deposit of tribute; next, depicting the mental and spiritual fruits, as in a more tangible representation and act. For he says, Honor the Lord with your righteous labors, and render Him the first fruits of your fruits of righteousness, which came to pass through the Gospel teaching, the worship after the law being at last brought to an end. For we no longer think we ought to worship the Lord of all with external offerings, striving to pay the didrachm of corruptible matter, but being true worshipers, we worship God the Father in Spirit and in truth. We must suppose this meaning to lie hidden in the letter of the law.

Who then, most excellent sirs, will endure you saying, that it befits the Son to worship His Father? But when it has been added to those words of yours, that neither is this unwilled by the Only-Begotten, and this gratuitous argument of yours ye fortify merely by fitness; come, let us consider this too from the Divine Scriptures, whence I think one ought zealously to look for proof on every disputed point. The law therefore enjoined the half of a didrachm to be paid by every one of the Jews to Him Who is God over all, not as devising a way of getting wealth, nor contributions of money to no purpose, but imparting us instruction by clearest types: first, that no one is lord of his own head, but that we all have one Lord, enrolled unto servitude by the deposit of tribute; next, depicting the mental and spiritual fruits, as in a grosser representation and act. For (says he) Honour the Lord with thy righteous labours, and render Him the first fruits of thy fruits of righteousness, which came to pass through the Gospel teaching, the worship after the law being at last closed. For no longer do we think we ought to worship with external offerings the Lord of all, pressing to pay the didrachm of corruptible matter: but being true worshippers, we worship God the Father in Spirit and in. truth. This meaning we must suppose to lie hid in the letter of the law.

When the Lord was in Jerusalem, the collectors of the temple tax were asking Peter, "Doesn't your Master pay the temple tax?" But when Peter came into the house, as it is written, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or taxes? From their own children or from foreigners?" When Peter said, "From foreigners," Jesus said, "Then the children are free. But so that we don't offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. When you open its mouth, you will find a coin. Take that and give it to them for Me and you." Do you see that the Son would not endure being subject to taxation, and as one of those under the yoke of slavery, to undergo something servile? For knowing the free dignity of His own physis, He declares that He owes nothing servile to God the Father, for He says, "The children are free." How then does He have the worship that befits a slave, and that of His own will? If He shrank back from even the mere image of such a thing, how could He accept the reality? Should we not consider worship as a tribute and spiritual fruit-bearing, and say that it is a kind of service? For why did the law join service to worship, saying, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve"? For worship is, so to speak, the gate and way to service in deed, being the beginning of servitude to God. Therefore the Psalmist says to some, "O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker." Do you see how the duty of falling down follows upon and is joined to worshipping? In the judgment of those who rightly weigh the qualities of things, I cannot say what would be more befitting a servant than this.

When then the Lord was in Jerusalem, the gatherers of the didrachm were asking of Peter, saying, Doth not your Master pay the didrachm? But when he was come into the house, as it is written, Jesus prevented him, saying, of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own. children or of strangers? When he said, Of strangers, Jesus said, Then are the children free; yet lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a stater: that take and give unto them for Me and thee. Seest thou that the Son endured not to be under tribute, and as one of those under' the yoke of bondage, to undergo a servile thing? For knowing the free dignity of His Own Nature He affirms that He owes nothing servile to God the Father: for He says, The children are free. How then hath He the worship befitting a slave, and that of His own will? He who shrank at even the bare type of the thing, how could He accept the verity? For shall we not reckon worship as a tribute and spiritual fruit-bearing, and say that it is a kind of service? For why did the law join service to worship, saying, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve? For worship is so to say the gate and way to service in deed, being the beginning of servitude to God. Wherefore the Psalmist says to some, O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker. Seest thou how the duty of falling down follows upon, and is joined to, worshipping? than which what will be more befitting a servant, at least in the estimation of those who rightly weigh the qualities of things, I cannot say.

But if our opponents persist, conducting themselves arrogantly with still unbroken impudence, and do not stop making their uninformed arguments about these matters, let them go through all of Holy Scripture and show us the Son worshipping God the Father while He was still the bare Word, before the time of the Incarnation and the taking on of the servant's form. For now as Man, He worships without blame, but then, not yet so. But they will not be able to show this from the divine and sacred Scriptures. Instead, piling up conjectures and speculations from corrupt imaginations, they will rightly hear: You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the glory of the Only Begotten. For that He does not worship in that He is Word and God, but having become as we are, He undertook to endure this too as befits man, by reason of the dispensation of the Flesh—the proof shall not be sought by us from outside sources, but we shall know it from His own words. For what is He saying to the woman of Samaria? You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship. Is it not also clear to everyone from this that in using the plural number and numbering Himself with those who worship by necessity and as servants, He is saying this as one made in human nature which is servile? For what, tell me, would prevent Him from separating the worship into His own Person alone, if He wished to be understood by us as a worshipper? For He should rather have said, I know what I worship, so that, unclassed with the rest, He might appropriate the force of the statement to Himself alone. But now most excellently and with complete certainty He says we, as one already ranked among the servants by reason of His Manhood, as numbered among the worshippers, as a Jew by nationality.

But if our opponents persist, bearing themselves haughtily in yet unbroken impudence, and cease not from their uninstructed reasonings on these subjects, let them going through the whole Holy Scripture, shew us the Son worshipping God the Father, while He was yet bare Word, before the times of the Incarnation and the garb of servitude. For now as Man, He worships unblamed: but then, not yet so. But they will not be able to shew this from the Divine and sacred Scriptures, but heaping up conjectures and surmisings of corrupt imaginations, will with reason hear. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the glory of the Only Begotten. For that He does not worship in that He is Word and God, but having become as we, He undertook to endure this too as befits man, by reason of the dispensation of the Flesh—-; the proof shall not be sought by us from without, but we shall know it from His own Words. For what is it that He is saying to the woman of Samaria? YE worship ye know not what, WE k now what we worship. Is it not hence too clear to every body that in using the plural number and numbering Himself with those who worship of necessity and as bond, that it is as made in human nature which is bond that He is saying this? For what (tell me) would hinder His drawing the worship apart into His own Person, if He wished to be conceived of by us as a worshipper? for He should rather have said, I know what I worship, in order that, unclassed with the rest, He might appropriate the force of the utterance to Himself alone. But, now most excellently and with all security He says WE, as already ranked among the bond by reason of His Manhood, as numbered among the worshippers, as a Jew by country.

The hour is coming and is now here when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. The woman said to Him,

23, 24, 25 But the hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. The woman saith to Him,

He is indicating the present time of His own coming and says that the symbolic type will be transformed into truth and the shadow of the Law into spiritual worship. He explains that through the Gospel teaching, the true worshipper—that is, the spiritual person—will be led to a way of life pleasing to the Father, hastening toward union with God. For God is understood to be a Spirit in relation to bodily nature. Therefore He rightly accepts the spiritual worshipper, who does not carry out the form of godliness through outward form and symbolic type in the Jewish manner, but in the Gospel manner shines brightly in the accomplishments of virtue and in correctness of the divine teachings, thus fulfilling the truly genuine worship.

He is intimating the time now present of His Own Presence and says that the type shall be transferred to truth and the shadow of the Law to spiritual worship: He tells that through the Gospel teaching the true worshipper, that is, the spiritual man, shall be conducted to a polity well-pleasing unto the Father, hasting unto ownness with God. For God is conceived of as a Spirit, in reference to the embodied nature. Rightly therefore does He accept the spiritual worshipper, who does not in form and type carry in Jewish wise the form of godliness, but in Gospel manner resplendent in the achievements of virtue and in rightness of the Divine doctrines fulfilleth the really true worship.

When Christ taught that the hour and season would come—or rather was already present—when true worshipers would offer to God the Father worship in spirit, the woman immediately rose in her thoughts beyond her usual concerns to the hope that the Jews spoke of. She confesses that she knows the Messiah will come in His own time, though she does not say exactly to whom He will come. She received (as seems likely) the common reports about Him without any careful examination, being a pleasure-loving and carnally minded woman. Nevertheless, she was not entirely ignorant that He would be revealed to Israel as one who brings better teaching, having certainly found this information as well in the reports about Him.

Upon Christ teaching that the hour and season will come, rather is already present, wherein the true worshippers shall offer to God the Father the worship in spirit; forthwith the woman is winged to thoughts above her wont unto the hope spoken of by the Jews. She confesses that she knows that the Messiah will come in His own time, and to whom He will come, she does not exactly say, receiving (as is like) the common reports of Him without any investigation, as being a laughter-loving and carnal-minded woman; yet is she not wholly ignorant that He will be manifested to Israel as a bringer in of better teaching, finding most certainly this information too in the reports about Him.

Not to untaught or completely ignorant souls does Christ reveal Himself, but He shines upon and appears rather to those who are more ready to desire to learn, and who, laboring with the beginning of faith in simple words, press forward to knowledge of what is more complete. The woman of Samaria was also shown to us as such a person, applying her mind more crudely than she should to truly divine ideas, but not entirely removed from the desire to understand something. For first, when Christ asked for a drink, she did not readily give it, but seeing Him breaking (as far as one can speak in human terms) the national customs of the Jews, she began to seek first the reason for this, almost inviting the Lord to an explanation by mentioning it: How is it that You being a Jew ask a drink from me, a woman of Samaria? But when during the course of questioning, she at last began to confess that He was a Prophet, having received His reproof as medicine for salvation, she added another inquiry, saying with eagerness to learn: Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and You say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. But He was teaching this again, that the time will come, indeed is already present, when the true worshipers, rejecting worship on the mountains of earth, will offer the higher and spiritual worship to God the Father. She, attributing the best of all as belonging to the Christ alone and keeping the more complete knowledge for those times, says, We know that Messiah comes, Who is called Christ; when He comes, He will tell us all things. Do you see how ready to believe the woman was already becoming, and as though climbing a staircase, springs up from small questions to a higher condition? It was right then to lay open to her with now clearer voice what she longed for, telling her that what was preserved in good hope is at last set before her in sight, I that speak to you am He.

Not to untutored or wholly ignorant souls doth Christ reveal Himself, bat shines upon and appears the rather to those who are more ready to desire to learn, and travailing with the beginning of the faith in simple words, press forward to the knowledge of what is more perfect. Such an one as this was the woman of Samaria also shewn to us, giving her mind more grossly than she ought to the truly Divine ideas, but not entirely removed from the desire of understanding somewhat. For first, on Christ asking for drink, she does not readily give it: but beholding Him breaking (as far as one can speak humanly) the national customs of the Jews, she begins to seek first the reason of this, all but, by her mentioning it, inviting the Lord to an explanation: How is it (says she) that THOU being a Jew askest drink of me which am a woman of Samaria? But when during the progress of questioning, she at length begun to confess that He was a Prophet, having received His reproof a medicine unto salvation, she added another inquiry saying with zeal for learning: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and YE say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. But He was teaching this again, that the time shall come, yea, is already present, when the true worshippers, rejecting worship on the mountains of earth, shall offer the higher and spiritual worship to God the Father. She attributing the best of all as the due of the Christ alone, and keeping the more perfect knowledge for those times, says, We know that Messias cometh Which is called Christ; when He is come, He will tell us all things. Seest thou how ready to believe the woman was already getting, and as though ascending a staircase, springs up from little questions to a higher condition? It was right then to lay open to her with now clearer voice what she longed for, telling her that that which was preserved in good hope is at length set before her in sight, I that speak unto thee am He.

Let those who have the responsibility of teaching in the Churches give new believers the word of teaching to be absorbed, and then eventually reveal Jesus to them, bringing them up from basic instruction to the more complete knowledge of the faith. But let those who take hold of the outsider and convert, bringing him inside the inner veil, allow him to offer the Lamb with hands still unwashed, and bestow the dignity of the Priesthood on someone not yet instructed, prepare to give a serious account on the day of judgment. It is enough for me simply to say this.

Let them therefore who have the care of teaching in the Churches commit to the new-born disciples, the word of teaching to be digested, and so at length let them shew them Jesus, bringing them up from slight instruction to the more perfect knowledge of the faith. But let them who, taking hold of the alien and so proselyte, and bringing him within the inner veil, suffer him to offer the Lamb with hands yet unwashen, and crown with the dignity of the Priesthood him who is not yet instructed, prepare for a mighty account in the day of judgment. It is sufficient for me only to say this.

The arrival of the disciples marks the end of His conversation with the woman. For the Savior finally falls silent, and having placed in the Samaritans the glowing spark of faith, He entrusts it to their inner being to be kindled into a mighty flame. In this way you can understand what He said: I came to send fire on the earth, and what do I desire, if it is already kindled?

The presence of the disciples is the conclusion of His conversation with the woman. For the Saviour is at length silent, and having placed in the Samaritans the glowing spark of the faith, commits it to their inward parts to be kindled to a mighty flame. Thus you may understand what was said by Him, I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled?

The disciples are once again amazed at the Saviour's gentleness and marvel at His meek manner. For He did not think it right to avoid conversation with the woman in the way of those who are harsh with unrelenting religious zeal, but instead He extends His loving-kindness to all. By this He shows that He, being entirely One Artificer, does not grant life through faith to men alone, but draws the female race to it as well.

The disciples again are astonished at the gentleness of the Saviour, and wonder at His meek way. For not after the manner of some who are fierce with unslacked religion, did He think right to shun conversation with the woman, but unfolds His Loving-kindness to all, and hereby shews, that He being wholly One Artificer, doth not to men alone impart the life through faith, but snareth the female race also thereto.

Let the teacher in the Church also take this as a pattern and not refuse to help women. For in everything one must follow not one's own will, but the service of preaching.

Let him that teacheth in the Church gain this too as a pattern, and not refuse to help women. For one must in every thing follow not one's own will, but the service of preaching.

It was the work of wise disciples who knew how to preserve their Master's honor not to appear, through unnecessary questions, to be falling into strange speculations because He was talking with a woman. Instead, they restrained their speech out of reverence and fear, and waited for their Lord to speak on His own initiative and give them a voluntary explanation. We must therefore marvel here at Christ for His gentleness, and at the disciples for their wisdom, understanding, and knowledge of what is appropriate.

It was the work of wise disciples, and knowing how to preserve their Master's honour, not to seem by their superfluous questions to be going off into strange surmises, because He was talking with a woman, but rather in reverence and fear to restrain their tongue within their teeth, and to await their Lord speaking of His own accord, and giving them a voluntary explanation. We must therefore herein marvel at Christ for His gentleness, at the disciples for their wisdom and understanding and knowledge of what is becoming.

The woman now shows herself superior to and above the cares of the body—she who two or three days ago was the wife of many, and who often was easily taken captive by vain pleasures. Now she overcomes the flesh's necessary want, disregarding both thirst and drink, and is transformed into another character through faith. Immediately, exercising love, the fairest of all virtues, and neighborly affection, she diligently proclaims to others also the good that appeared to her, hastening quickly into the city. For probably the Savior was telling her, and secretly whispering in her mind, "Freely you received, freely give." Let us learn from this not to imitate that sloth-loving servant who hid his talent in the earth, but rather let us be diligent to trade with it. That much-talked-of woman, doing this well, communicates to the rest the good that came to her, no longer taking the water she came to draw from its fountain-depths, nor carrying home her earthly waterpot, but rather filling the storehouses of her understanding with divine and heavenly grace and the all-wise teaching of the Savior.

The woman now shews herself superior to and above the cares of the body, who two or three days ago was the wife of many, and she who ofttimes was easily taken captive by vain pleasures, now overreaches the flesh of its necessary want, disregarding alike thirst and drink, and is re-wrought unto another habit through faith. Forthwith doth she, exercising love the fairest of all virtues, and neighbourly-affection, diligently proclaiming to others also the good which appeared to her, hasten quickly into the city. For probably the Saviour was telling her, and secretly whispering in her mind, Freely ye received, freely give. Learn we hereby, not to imitate that sloth-loving servant, and who therefore hid his talent in the earth, but rather let us be diligent to trade with it. Which thing too that much-talked-of woman well doing, communicates to the rest the good which fell to her, no longer taking the water which she came to draw, from its fountain-depths, nor carrying home her waterpot of the earth, but rather with Divine and heavenly grace and the all-wise teaching of the Saviour filling the garners of her understanding.

We must learn from this, as from a pattern and example, that by completely despising small and bodily things, we will receive from God things many times greater and better. For what is earthly water compared to heavenly wisdom?

We must hence learn, as in a type and outline, that by thoroughly despising little and corporal things, we shall receive of God things manifold more and better. For what is earthly water, compared with Heavenly wisdom?

What an amazing transformation! What a truly great and God-befitting power, shining with unspeakable wonder! She becomes a skilled teacher of doctrine and an initiator, even though she understood nothing of what was said at first, and therefore rightly heard, "Go, call your husband and come here." For see how skillfully she spoke with the Samaritans. She does not immediately say that she has found the Christ, nor does she introduce Jesus right away in her account. For she would rightly have been rejected, as far exceeding what would be appropriate for her to say, since her hearers were not ignorant of her way of life. She first prepares the way for this wonder, and having first amazed them with the miracle, makes the path smoother, so to speak, toward faith. "Come and see," she wisely says, practically crying out with even greater urgency: seeing alone will be enough for belief, and will convince those present through its more remarkable wonders. For He who knows hidden things and has this great and God-befitting dignity, how could He not advance with successful progress toward the fulfillment of whatever He wills?

O wondrous change! O truly great and God-befitting Might, translucent with unspeakable marvel! Skilful workwoman unto doctrine, and initiater is she, who understood none of the things that were said at first, and therefore rightly heard, Go, call thy husband and come hither. For see how skilfully she conversed with the Samaritans. She does not say at once that she has found the Christ, nor does she introduce Jesus at first into her account. For rightly would she have been rejected, as far surpassing the measure of words befitting her, finding her hearers not ignorant of her habits. She first then prepares the way for this wonder, and having first astonished them with the miracle, makes the way smoother, so to say, to the faith. Come and see, she wisely says; all but crying aloud with more earnest voice, Sight alone will suffice to belief, and will assure those present with its more note-worthy marvels. For He Who knoweth the hidden things, and hath this great and God-befitting dignity, how shall He not speed with prosperous course to the fulfilment of those things which He willeth?

The obedience of the Samaritans exposes the hard-heartedness of the Jews, and the gentleness of these people clearly reveals Jewish inhumanity. Let anyone who seeks to learn observe again the difference in behavior between the two groups, so they can rightly marvel at Jesus, who left the Jewish synagogue and gave himself instead to foreigners. The law of Moses declared to us that Christ would come to the Jews and explained why he would be revealed. The venerable assembly of prophets proclaimed him and pointed him out so clearly that he was practically at the door, saying, "Behold your God, behold the Lord." Finally, John, the greatest among those born of women, revealed him when he had already appeared and was living among us, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Even more remarkably than all this, the Savior was revealing himself through many mighty works and divine authority. So what were these people, who were driven toward strange ideas, finally planning? They unjustly plot murder, they scheme impiously, they stubbornly envy, they drive out of their land and city the Life, the Light, the Salvation of all, the Way to the kingdom, the Forgiveness of sins, the Giver of sonship. Therefore the Savior rightly said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not! Behold, your house is left to you." But the Samaritans show themselves superior to the foolishness of the Jews, and through obedience they overcome their natural ignorance. Having heard about just one miracle, they quickly flock to Jesus, not persuaded by the voices of the holy prophets, or by the proclamations of Moses, or by John's direct testimony, but only by a single woman—a sinful one at that—telling them about him. With good reason then, we too, admiring the Savior's judgment against them, should say, "You are righteous, O Lord, and your judgment is just."

30 They went out of the city, and came unto Him. The obedience of the Samaritans is a conviction of the hardness of heart of the Jews, and their inhumanity is clearly shewn in the gentleness of these. And let the seeker of learning see again the difference of habit in both, that he may justly wonder at Jesus, departing from the Synagogue of the Jews, and giving Himself rather to the aliens. For that Christ should come to the Jews, and for what causes He should be revealed, the law of Moses declared to us, the all-august choir of the Prophets did proclaim, and did point Him out at length all but present at the doors, saying, Behold your God, Behold the Lord; and last of all John, the great among them that are born of women, did manifest Him already appeared, and dwelling among us, saying, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; and (yet more wonderfully than all) the Saviour was revealing Himself through many deeds of power and God-befitting authority. What then do these men unbridled unto strange counsels at last meditate yet? They devise murder unjustly, they plot impiously, they envy stubbornly, they drive forth of their land and city, the Life, the Light, the Salvation of all, the Way to the kingdom, the Remission of sins, the Bestower of sonship. Wherefore rightly said the Saviour, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you. But the Samaritans shew themselves superior to the folly of the Jews, and by obedience victorious over their innate unlearning, having given ear to one miracle only, they flock quickly to Jesus, not persuaded thereto by the voices of the holy Prophets, or by the proclamations of Moses, nor yet the actual pointings of John, but one only woman and she a sinner telling them of Him. With reason then, let us too admiring the sentence of the Saviour against them, say, Righteous art Thou, o Lord, and upright Thy Judgment.

The Divine Evangelist manages the composition of this book most excellently and leaves out nothing he believes will be useful to his readers. Listen, then, to how he presents Jesus once again as the model of a remarkably significant action. I do not think anything has been included pointlessly in the writings of the saints. Rather, what someone considers minor often turns out to contain considerable benefit. Since the conversion of the Samaritans had begun and they were about to seek Him (for as God He knew they would come), He was completely focused on the salvation of those who were being called and paid no attention to physical food, even though He was tired from His journey, as Scripture records. Through this He intended once again to benefit the teachers in the Churches and persuade them to disregard all weariness and show more diligent concern for those who are being saved than for caring for their own bodies. For the Prophet says, "Cursed be he who does the Lord's work negligently." So that we might learn that the Lord regularly went without food at such times, the Evangelist presents the disciples begging Him—practically on their knees—to take a little of their provisions as essential and necessary food, since they had gone into the city to buy food, which they had now obtained and brought back with them.

Most excellently doth the Divine Evangelist manage the compilation of this book, and omits nothing which he believes will at all be of use to the readers. Hear therefore how he introduces Jesus again as the Ensample of a most note-worthy act. For I do not think that any thing has been put in vain in the writings of the saints, but what any man deems small, he sometimes finds pregnant with no contemptible profit. The conversion of the Samaritans being then begun, and they on the point of looking for Him (for He knew as God that they would come): wholly and entirely is He intent upon the salvation of them which are called, and makes no account of bodily food, although wearied with His journey, as it is written: that hereby again He might profit the teachers in the Churches, and persuade them to disregard all fatigue, and use more diligent zeal for those who are being saved, than for the care of their bodies. For Cursed, saith the Prophet, be he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently. In order then that we may learn that the Lord was accustomed to go without food at such times, he introduces the disciples, begging and all but on their knees, that He would take a little of their provisions, as inevitable and necessary food. For they had gone away into the city to buy meat which they had now got and come with.

The Savior skillfully fashions His answer from what was before Him. He almost says in a veiled way that if they knew the conversion of the Samaritans was at hand, they would have urged Him to cling to that as a delicacy rather than to nourish the flesh. From this we may learn again how great a love for humanity the Divine Nature has, for it considers the return of the lost to salvation as both food and pleasure.

Skilfully does the Saviour fashion His answer from what was before Him. He all but says darkly, that if they knew that the conversion of the Samaritans was at the doors, they would have persuaded Him rather to cling to that as a delicacy than to nourish the flesh. From this again we may learn how great love for man the Divine Nature hath: for It considereth the return of the lost unto salvation as both meat and treat.

The disciples, not yet understanding the unclear discourse, were reasoning about what had often happened among themselves and descended to commonplace ideas, imagining that someone had brought Him food and that it was perhaps more expensive or better tasting than what they had gathered.

The disciples not yet understanding the discourse which was obscure, were reasoning about what had often happened among themselves, and descend to common place ideas, fancying that food had been brought Him by some one, and that it was perhaps more costly or sweeter than what had been got together by them.

Having completely removed the veil from His speech, He showed them with full transparency the truth, and immediately presents Himself as a model for future teachers of the world, demonstrating steadfast and supremely excellent zeal, particularly regarding the duty of teaching, and for this reason appropriately keeping concern for the necessary care of the body as secondary. For in saying that it was most pleasant food to Him to do the Will of Him that sent Him and to finish His Work, He depicts the office of the Apostolic ministry and clearly shows what kind of men they ought to be in character. For it was necessary (as it seems) that they should be devoted to concern for teaching alone, and they needed to be so far removed from bodily pleasure that at times they would not even desire the sustenance necessary for merely keeping themselves alive.

Having wholly torn away the veil from His speech, He shewed them in full translucence the truth, and forthwith introduces Himself as a type unto future teachers of the world, of steadfast and most exceeding excellent zeal, to wit in respect of the duty of teaching, and on this account fitly keeping thought for the needful care of the body secondary. For in saying that it was to Himself most pleasant meat, to do the Will of Him that sent Him and to finish His Work, He limns the office of the Apostolic ministry and clearly shews, what manner of men they ought to be in habit. For it was necessary (as it seems) that they should be strung to taking thought for teaching only, and it behoved them to be so far removed from the pleasure of the body, as at times not even to desire the service necessary for the mere accomplishing its preservation from death.

And let this be said for the present as tending toward the pattern and model of apostolic conduct. But if we must, in addition to what has been said, apply ourselves to speak more doctrinally, He says that He was sent, clearly by God the Father, either in respect of the Incarnation, in which He appeared in the world with flesh by the good pleasure and approval of the Father, or as the Word proceeding in some way from the begetting Mind, sent and fulfilling His decree—not as though taken on as a minister of others' wills, but Himself being both the living Word and the most evident Will of the Father, readily saving those who were lost. Therefore in saying that it is the work of Him who has sent Him, He Himself is shown as its fulfiller, for all things are by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. That the Son is the Word and Counsel and Will and Power of the Father is, I suppose, evident to all, but it is no trouble to prove it from the divine Scripture as well. Therefore let anyone see that He is the Word in this: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Let him see Counsel in that the Psalmist says, as to God the Father, In Your Counsel You guided me and with glory You received me. Let him see Will again in his saying, Lord in Your Will give strength to my beauty. For He strengthened the beauty of His saints, that is, their vigor unto every virtue, He, the living and hypostatic Will of the Father, that is the Son. That He is Power also, you shall again understand from this: Command, O God, Your strength; strengthen, O God, that which You worked for us. You see clearly in this that by the good pleasure of God the Father, His Power, that is the Son, was incarnate, that He might strengthen this body which He perfected for us. For if He had not dwelt among us, neither would the nature of the flesh at all have put off the weakness of corruption. The Son then, being Himself the good Will of the Father, perfects His work, being shown forth salvation to those who believe in Him.¹⁰¹⁰

And let this be said for the present, as tending to the type and pattern of Apostolic polity. But if we must in addition to what has been said, apply ourselves to speak more doctrinally, He says that He was sent, clearly by God the Father, either in respect of the Incarnation, wherein He beamed on the world with Flesh, by the good Pleasure and Approbation of the Father; or as the Word proceeding in some way from the begetting Mind, and sent and fulfilling His decree, not as though taken as a minister of others' wills, but Himself being alike both the Living Word and the most evident Will of the Father, readily saving those that were lost. Therefore in saying that it is the work of Him That hath sent Him, Himself is shewn as its Fulfiller: for all things are by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. For that the Son is the Word and Counsel and Will and Power of the Father is, I suppose, evident to all: but it is no trouble to prove it from the Divine Scripture also. Therefore let any one see that Ho is the Word in this, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God: let him see Counsel, in that the Psalmist says, as to God the Father, In Thy Counsel Thou guidedst me and with glory didst Thou receive me: let him see Will again in his saying, Lord in Thy Will give strength to my beauty. For He strengthened the beauty of His saints, that is, their vigour unto every virtue, He, the Living and Hypostatic Will of the Father, that is the SON. That He is Power also, thou shalt again understand hence, Command, O God (he says) Thy strength: strengthen, O God, that which Thou wroughtest for us. Thou seest clearly herein, that by the good Pleasure of God the Father, His Power, that is, the Son, was Incarnate, that He might strengthen this body, which He perfected for us. For if He had not tabernacled among us, neither would the nature of the flesh at all have put off the infirmity of corruption. The Son then being Himself the good Will of the Father, perfects His Work, being shewn forth salvation to them that believe on Him.¹⁰¹⁰

But someone will object: "If the Son is Himself the Will of the Father, what will was He sent to fulfill? The thing fulfilled must be different from the one who fulfills it." So what do we say to this? The way we use names does require that the things named be different from each other, but often there is no such difference when it comes to God, and language about the supreme Nature cannot achieve precision in this matter. God's properties are spoken of not exactly as they truly are, but only as human speech can express them and human ears can hear them. For whoever sees dimly also speaks dimly. What will you do when the One who is by physis Simple presents Himself to us as compound, saying of the Israelites, "They made their children pass through the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart"? Must not the heart be something other than the one who has it? And how then can God still be understood as Simple? The things said about God are therefore spoken in human terms. They are to be understood as befits God, and the limitations of our language will not damage the Nature that is above all. Therefore, even if the Son is found speaking of the Father's Will as something other than Himself, you should make no distinction, rightly recognizing that our weak words are unable to express anything greater or to convey their meaning in any other way.

But some one will say to this: "If the Son is Himself the Will of the Father, what will was He sent to fulfil? for the fulfilled must needs be other than the fulfiller." What therefore do we say to this? The giving of names indeed demands difference in the things signified, but often there is no difference in respect of God, and word regarding the supreme Nature rejects accuracy herein. For Its Properties are spoken of, not altogether as they are in truth, but as tongue can express, and ear of man hear. For he that seeth darkly, darkly also he speaketh. For what wilt thou do when He Who is by Nature Simple introduceth Himself to us as compound, in that He saith of them of Israel, And their children they made pass through the fire, which I commanded not, neither came it into My heart? for must not the heart needs be other than he in whom it is? and how then shall God be yet conceived of as Simple? The things therefore about God, are spoken of after the manner of men: they are so conceived of, as befits God, and the measure of our tongue will not wrong the Nature That is above all. And therefore even though the Son be found speaking of the Will of the Father, as of something other than He, you will make no difference, attributing fitly to the weakness of our words their not being able to say any thing greater, nor to signify their meaning in any other way.

And let these things be said as proof that the Son can be understood as also the Will of the Father. But in the passage before us, no reason will force us to understand that the Will of the Father means the Son. Rather, we may well receive it as His good will toward the lost.

And let these things bo said in proof of the Son being conceived of as also the Will of the Father; but in the passage before us, no reason will compel us to conceive that the Will of the Father means the Son, but rather we may well receive it as His good Will to the lost.

He again takes opportunities for His teaching from the time and circumstances, and from the physical things we can see, He shapes His explanation of spiritual truths. For it was still winter at that time, and the tender sprouting and fresh stalk of the seed was barely bristling forth from the soil, but after four months had passed, it would be ready to fall into the hand of the reaper. So do not say, you men (He says), that there are yet four months and the harvest comes?

He again taketh occasions of His Discourse from the time and event, and from the grosser things of sense He fashioneth His declaration of spiritual ideas. For it was yet winter at that time, and the tender sprouting and fresh stalk of the seed was scarce bristling forth from the soil: but after the expiration of four months, it was awaiting its fall into the hand of the reaper. Do not therefore YE men say (saith He) that there are yet four months, and the harvest cometh?

In other words, if you lift the eye of your understanding a little from earthly matters, consider that the spiritual sowing has already advanced and ripened to whiteness on the threshing floor, and now calls for the reaper's sickle to itself. You will understand what is meant from comparing it to actual life. For you will grasp that the spiritual sowing and multitude of spiritual grain are those who, cultivated beforehand by the voice of the Prophets, are brought to the faith that was to be revealed through Christ. They are white because they are already mature and ready for the faith, and established in piety. The reaper's sickle is the bright and very sharp word of the Apostle, cutting the hearers away from worship according to the law and transferring them to the threshing floor, that is, to the Church of God. There, bruised and pressed by good labors, they shall be revealed as pure wheat worthy of the storehouse of the One who gathers them.

That is, raising up the eye of your understanding a little from the affairs of the earth, consider ye the spiritual sowing, that it hath progressed already and whitened unto the floor, and at length calls for the reaper's sickle unto itself. But from the similarity to things in actual life, you will see what is meant. For you will conceive that the spiritual sowing and multitude of spiritual ears, are they who, tilled beforehand by the voice of the Prophets, are brought to the faith that should be shewn through Christ. But it is white, as being already ripe and ready to the faith, and confirmed unto piety. But the sickle of the reaper is the glittering and most sharp word of the Apostle, cutting away the hearers from the worship according to the law, transferring them to the floor, that is, to the Church of God: there they bruised and pressed by good toils shall be set forth pure wheat worthy of the garner of Him Who gathereth it.

The one who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit that leads to eternal life, so that both the one who sows and the one who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true: one person sows and another person reaps.

36, 37 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal, that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For herein is the saying true, One soweth and another reapeth.

This is the time, He says, when the Word calls people to faith and shows those who hear that the Law and the Prophets have reached their fulfillment. For the Law, through its symbolic rituals, as though in shadows, foretold the one who was to come, namely Christ. The Prophets who came after it, interpreting the words of the Spirit—"Yet a little while"—were indicating that He was now at hand and about to arrive. But since He has already entered through the doors, the message of the Apostles will not push what was expected off to some distant hope but will reveal it as already present. It will reap from legal worship those who are still enslaved to the Law and who remain bound to the letter alone, and will transfer them like harvested sheaves into the way of life and community of the Gospel. Likewise, it will cut off from polytheistic wandering the worshipper of idols and will transfer him to the knowledge of the one who is truly God. To say it all briefly and concisely: it will transform those whose minds are set on earthly things into the life of the angels through faith in Christ.

It is the time (saith He) of the Word calling to the Faith, and shewing to the hearers the arrival at its consummation of the legal and Prophetic preachings. For the law by typical services, as in shadows did foreshew Him That should come, that is, Christ: the Prophets after it, interpreting the words of the Spirit, Yet a little while, were fore-signifying that He was even now at hand and coming. But since He hath stepped within the doors, the word of the Apostles will not remove to far distant hope that which was expected, but will reveal it already present: and will reap from legal worship those who are yet in bondage to the law and who rest in the letter only, and will transfer them as sheaves into the Evangelic habit and polity; and will likewise cut off from polytheistic straying the worshipper of idols, and will transfer him to the knowledge of Him That is in truth God, and, to speak all in brief and succinctly; will transform them who mind things on the earth unto the life of the Angels through faith to Christ-ward.

Christ says that the work of the reapers will accomplish this, yet it will not be without compensation: for it will certainly gather for them fruit that nourishes unto life eternal. Nor will those who receive this rejoice by themselves alone, but having entered into the labors of the Prophets and having reaped the seed previously prepared by them, they will form one company together with them. But I believe that the most wise Paul, having thoroughly learned the types of things to come, says for this reason concerning the holy fathers and Prophets that "these all, perfected through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." For the Savior thought it good that the reaper should rejoice together with the one who had previously sown.

This (saith He) the word of the reapers will effect, yet shall it not be without an hire: for it shall surely gather for them fruit which nourisheth unto life eternal: nor shall they who receive rejoice in themselves alone but as having entered into the labours of the Prophets, and having reaped the seed fore-tilled by them, shall fill up one company with them. But I suppose that the most wise Paul, having throughly learnt the types of things to come, hence says of the holy fathers and Prophets that, These all, perfected through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. For the Saviour thought good, that the reaper should rejoice together with him who before had sown.

He finally reveals to them the complete mystery, and having removed the obscure covering of words, makes the understanding of His meaning very clear. For the Saviour, being a Lover of the Prophets and a Lover of the Apostles, makes neither the labor of the former separate from the work of the Apostles, nor does He assign entirely to the holy Apostles the glory regarding those who would be saved through faith in Him. Rather, having mingled the toil of each with their mutual cooperation, He says, and with good reason, that the honor shall be one for both. He declares that the Apostles had entered into the labors of the holy Prophets, not allowing them to seize the good reputation of those who preceded them, but instead persuading them to honor them as having gone before them in labor and time. Who will refuse to admit that this will be a most excellent lesson for us as well?

He at length unveils to them the whole mystery, and having removed the dark cloak of words, renders most clear the understanding of His meaning. For the Saviour being a Lover of the Prophets, and a Lover of the Apostles, makes neither the labour of those to be apart from the hand of the Apostles, nor does He allot entirely to the holy Apostles the glorying in respect of those who should be saved through faith in Him: but having mingled as it were the toil of each with their mutual co-work, He says (and with great reason) that one shall be the honour to both. He affirms that the Apostles had entered into the labours of the holy Prophets, not suffering them to spring upon the good fame of those who proceded them, but persuading them rather to honour them, as having gone before them in labour and time. That this will be to us too a most beautiful lesson, who will refuse to admit?

Israel is once again condemned by this, and through the obedience of the Samaritans is shown to be equally careless about knowing and stubborn. For the Evangelist expresses great wonder at the many who believed in Christ, saying it was because of the woman's testimony, even though those who had been instructed through the law toward this knowledge neither accepted Moses' words nor recognized that they should believe the proclamations of the Prophets. In these words he prepares the way beforehand, or rather wisely presents a defense in advance, for why Israel should reasonably be pushed away from the grace and hope that is directed toward Christ, and why the more obedient fullness of the Gentiles, or foreigners, should come in their place instead.¹¹¹¹

Israel is again hereby too condemned, and by the obedience of the Samaritans, is convicted of being alike reckless of knowing and harsh. For the Evangelist marvels much at the many who believed on Christ, saying, For the saying of the woman; although they who were instructed through the law to the knowledge hereof, neither received the words of Moses, nor acknowledged that they ought to believe the heraldings of the Prophets. He in these words prepares the way before, or rather wisely makes a defence before, for that Israel should with reason be thrust away from the grace and hope that is to Christ-ward and that instead should come in the more obedient fulness of the Gentiles, or aliens.¹¹¹¹

When the Samaritans came to Him, they begged Him to stay with them, and He remained there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.

40, 41 So when the Samaritans were come unto Him, they besought Him that He would tarry with them: and He abode there two days. And many more believed because of His Own Word,

He explains in simple words what happened, but he also provides another proof that Israel deserved to be cast off from their hope, and that the Gentiles should be transplanted into it. For the Jews, with their bitter and intolerable suspicions, spitefully mistreated Jesus, who performed many miracles and shone with God-befitting glory, and were not ashamed to rage to such an extent that they made Him an exile and eagerly drove out of their city the One who gave them all joy. Meanwhile, the Samaritans, persuaded by the words of one woman, considered that they should come to Him with all speed. And when they came, they began eagerly to ask Him to come into their city and to pour out to them the word of salvation. Christ readily agreed to both requests, knowing that the grace would not be unfruitful. For many believed because of His own Word.

He explains in simplicity of words what took place: but prepares again another proof, that Israel ought justly to be cast off from their hope, and the aliens to be transplanted into it. For the Jews with their bitter and intolerable surmises, spitefully entreat Jesus manifoldly working miracles and radiant in God-befitting glory, and blush not to rage to so great an extent as to make Him an exile, and zealously to drive out of their city Him Who is the giver to them of all joy: while the Samaritans persuaded by the words of one woman, consider that they ought to come to Him with all speed. And when they were come, they began zealously to entreat Him to come into their city, and to pour forth to them of the word of salvation; and readily does Christ assent to both, knowing that the grace will not be unfruitful. For many believed because of His own Word.

Let the person who loves God and is devout understand from this that Christ departs from those who grieve Him, but He dwells in those who bring Him joy through obedience and genuine faith.

Let him that is God-loving and pious hence know, that from them that grieve Him Christ departeth, but He dwelleth in them that gladden Him through obedience and good faith.

The faith of the Samaritans springs from greater things, and no longer from what they learn from others, but from those things of which they are the wondering ear-witnesses. For they say that they know that He is indeed the Savior of the world, making the confession of their hope in Him the pledge of their faith.

From the greater things does the faith of the Samaritans spring, and not any longer from what they learn from others, but from those whereof they are the wondering ear-witnesses. For they say that they know that He is indeed the Saviour of the world, making the confession of their hope in Him the pledge of their faith.

He leaves Samaria, having now planted the Word of salvation, and like a farmer hidden the faith in those who live there—not so that it might be held captive in the silence of those who received it, quiet and deeply buried, but rather so that it might grow in the souls of all, spreading and always advancing to something greater, and moving toward more obvious power. But since He passes by Nazareth lying in between, where it is said that He was also raised, so that He seemed to be from there and its citizen, and goes down instead to Galilee, He necessarily provides an explanation for His passing it by, and says that Jesus Himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. For it is our nature to think nothing of what we are used to, even if it is great and valuable. And the Savior did not think it good to seek honor from them, like a vain and boastful man, but knew well that to those who have no thought that one ought to honor one's teacher, the word of faith would no longer be sweet and acceptable either. With good reason then does He pass by, not thinking it right to spend useless effort on those who gain no profit, and thus to set grace before those who despise it. For it was not reasonable that those who sinned so deeply should go unpunished, since it is completely acknowledged and beyond doubt that they will undergo the severest punishments who knowingly despise Him and reject a gift so worthy of amazement.

He departs from Samaria, having now sown the Word of salvation, and like a husbandman hidden the faith in them that dwell there, not that it might be bound captive in the silence of them that received it, quiet and deep buried, but rather that it might grow in the souls of all, creeping on and advancing ever to the greater, and running to more evident might. But since He passes by Nazareth lying in the midst, wherein it is said that He was also brought up, so that He seemed to be from thence and its citizen, and goes down rather to Galilee; of necessity he offers an explanation of His passing it by, and says that Jesus Himself had testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. For it is our nature to think nothing of what we are accustomed to, even though it be great and of price. And the Saviour thought not good to seek honour from them, like a vain-glorious man and a braggart, but knew well that to those who have no thought that one ought to honour one's teacher, neither would the word of the faith be any longer sweet and acceptable. With reason then does He pass by, not thinking it right to expend useless labours upon them who are nothing profited, and thus to lay down grace before them that despise it. For it was not reasonable that they who sinned so deeply should do so unpunished; since it is altogether confessed and undoubted, that they will undergo the severest punishments, who knowingly despise Him and spurn a gift so worthy of marvel.

When He came into Galilee, the Galileans welcomed Him because they had seen all the things He did at Jerusalem during the feast, for they too had gone to the feast.

45 When therefore He was come into Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast; for they also went unto the feast.

The Galileans did not receive Jesus thoughtlessly, but with justified amazement at the miraculous works they had already seen Him perform. By their devotion toward Him, they condemned the foolishness of the Jews and proved themselves far superior in good will to those who had been instructed in the law.

Not without consideration do the Galileans receive Jesus, but in just astonishment at the wondrous works which they themselves had already seen Him do, both by their piety towards Him condemning the folly of the Jews, and found far superior in good feeling to those who were instructed in the law.

Christ loves to dwell among those who are well disposed, and to those who more readily advance toward the perception and knowledge of benefits done to them, He pours forth supplies of greater goods. He comes then to work miracles in Cana, thinking it fitting to confer an additional benefit on those there, since through His signs already worked there, He had previously implanted in their minds the idea that He could do all things.

Christ loveth to dwell among those that are well disposed, and to those who more readily advance unto the perception and knowledge of benefits done them, He poureth forth supplies of greater goods. He cometh then to work miracles in Cana, thinking it fit to confer an additional benefit on those therein, in that He had through His signs already wrought there, the idea previously implanted in their minds, that He could do all things.

There was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he begged Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. Jesus therefore said to him,

47, 48 And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he besought Him that He would come down and heal his son: for he was at the point of death. Jesus therefore said unto him,

The nobleman comes to Jesus as someone able to heal, but he does not yet understand that He is by nature God. He calls Him Lord, but does not give Him the true dignity of Lordship at all. For he would have immediately fallen down and begged Him, not that He should by all means come to his house and go down with him to the sick boy, but rather that He should drive away the sickness that had fallen on him with authority and a command befitting God. For what need was there for Him to be present with the sick person, whom He could easily heal even when absent? How was it not completely lacking in understanding to suppose that He is superior to death, yet in no way to consider Him God who is filled with power befitting God?

The nobleman cometh as to One able to heal, but he understandeth not yet that He is by Nature God: he calleth Him Lord, but giveth not at all the true dignity of Lordship. For he would have straightway fallen down and besought Him, not that he should by all means come to his house, and go down with him to the sick lad; but should rather with authority and God-befitting command drive away the sickness that fell on him. For what need for Him to be present to the sick, whom He could easily heal, even absent? how was it not utterly without understanding to suppose that He is superior to death, and in no wise to hold Him God Who is filled with God-befitting Power?

A hard mind still dwells in those who are deceived, but the wonder-working power of the One who calls them to faith will be even mightier. Therefore the Savior says they need wonders so they may easily be re-instructed toward what is profitable and acknowledge Him who is by physis God.

A mind yet hard dwelleth in them who arc deceived, but mightier will be the more wonder-working power of Him That calleth them unto faith. Wherefore the Saviour says that they need wonders, that they may easily be re-instructed unto what is profitable, and acknowledge Him Who is by Nature God.

The nobleman is weak in his understanding, for he is childlike in his request for grace and nearly foolish without realizing it. If he had believed that Christ possessed power not only when present but would surely be effective even when absent, he would have held the most worthy understanding of Him. But instead, thinking and acting very foolishly, he asks for power that belongs to God, yet does not think Christ accomplishes all things as God, nor that He will be superior to death, even though he is begging Him to overcome what had nearly conquered—for the child was at the point of death.

Feeble indeed unto understanding is the nobleman, for ho is a child in his petition for grace, and almost dotes without perceiving it. For by believing that Christ had power not only when present, but that He would surely avail even absent, he would have had a most worthy conception of Him. But now both thinking and acting most foolishly, he asks power befitting God, and does not think He accomplishes all things as God, nor yet that He will be superior to death, although beseeching Him to gain the advantage over him that had all but overcome; for the child was at the point of death.

Thus, believing, he ought to have come, but Christ does not reject our lack of understanding; rather, He helps even those who stumble, as God. What the man should have been praised for doing, Christ teaches him even though he does not do it, showing Himself equally as the Teacher of the most excellent things and the Giver of good things in prayer. For in "Go thy way" is faith, and in "thy son liveth" is the fulfillment of his desires, granted with abundant and God-befitting authority.

Thus believing he ought to have come, but Christ doth not reject our lack of apprehension; but benefiteth even the stumbling, as God. That then which the man should have been admired for doing, this does he teach him even when he doth it not, revealed alike as the Teacher of things most lovely, and the Giver of good things in prayer. For in Go thy way is Faith: in thy son liveth is the fulfilment of his longings, granted with plenteous and God-befitting Authority.

The Savior's single command heals two souls. For in the nobleman it produces unusual faith, and it rescues the child from bodily death. Which is healed first is hard to say. Both, I think, simultaneously, with the disease departing at the Savior's command. And his servants, meeting him, tell him about the child's healing, showing at the same time the swiftness of the divine commands (Christ ordering this very wisely), and by fulfilling his hope, quickly confirming their master who is weak in faith.

The one command of the Saviour healeth two souls. For in the nobleman it worketh unwonted faith, the child it rescueth from bodily death. Which is healed first it is hard to say. Both, I suppose, simultaneously, the disease taking its departure at the command of the Saviour. And his servants meeting him tell him of the healing of the child, shewing at the same time the swiftness of the Divine commands (Christ ordering this very wisely), and by the fulfilment of his hope, speedily confirming their master weak in faith.

He asked them what time his son began to get better, and they told him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." So the father knew that it was at the same hour when Jesus said to him, "Your son lives," and he believed, along with his whole household. This was the second miracle that Jesus performed when he came from Judea into Galilee.

52, 53, 54 He therefore enquired of them the hour when he began to amend; and they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. So the father knew that it was at the same hour in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed and his whole house. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when He was come out of Judaea into Galilee.

He asks them when the sick child began to get better in order to confirm whether it coincided with the time of the grace. When he learned that this was indeed the case and no different, he and his whole household were saved, attributing the power of the miracle to the Savior Christ and offering Him a stronger faith as a fruit of thanksgiving for these things.

He enquires of them the hour of the turn for the better of the sick child, to prove whether it coincides with the time of the grace. When he had learnt that thus it was, and no otherwise, he is saved with his whole house, attributing the power of the miracle to the Saviour Christ, and bringing to Him a firmer faith as a fruit of thank-offering for these things.

Chapter 5:2–4. After this was a Jewish feast, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now at Jerusalem there is a pool called in Hebrew Bethesda, which has five porches. In these a large crowd of sick people lay—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed—waiting for the water to be stirred. For an angel of the Lord would go down at certain times into the pool and stir up the water. Whoever stepped in first after the water was stirred was healed of whatever disease he had.

Chap. v.2, 3, 4 After this was the feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem the pool which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel of the Lord used to go down at a certain season into the pool, and trouble the water: whosoever therefore first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Not for nothing does the blessed Evangelist immediately connect the Savior's return to Jerusalem with what he has just said. His purpose was probably to show how much more obedient the foreigners were than the Jews, and how great a difference in behavior and character is seen between them. For this is the only way we could learn that by the just judgment of God, who rules all and does not show favoritism, Israel rightly falls from their hope, and the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in to take their place. It is not hard to test what has been said by looking at the contrast between the chapters. He showed that by one miracle Christ saved the city of the Samaritans, and by another he saved the nobleman, and through this he certainly benefited those who were there greatly and abundantly. Having demonstrated through these events the extreme readiness of the foreigners to obey, the Evangelist brings the Miracle-worker back to Jerusalem and shows him accomplishing a God-befitting act. For he miraculously freed the paralytic from a long-standing disease just as he had freed the nobleman's son who was dying. But the nobleman believed with his whole household and confessed that Jesus is God, while the others, who should have been amazed, immediately wanted to kill and persecute their Benefactor as if he were blasphemously transgressing. In doing so, they pronounced a more shameful condemnation against themselves by proving to fall short of the understanding and piety toward Christ shown by the foreigners. This is what was spoken of them in the Psalms, addressed to our Lord Jesus: "You shall make them the back." For though they were placed first because of the election of the fathers, they will come last, after the calling of the Gentiles. For when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel shall be saved.¹²¹²

Not for nothing does the blessed Evangelist straightway connect with what has been said the Saviour's return thence to Jerusalem: but his aim probably was to shew how superior in obedience were the aliens to the Jews, how great a difference of habit and manners is seen between them. For thus and in no other way could we learn, that by the just judgment of God Who ruleth all and knoweth not to accept the person of man, Israel with reason falleth from the hope, and the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in in his place. It is not hard by looking at the contrast of the chapters to test what has been said. He shewed therefore that He had by one miracle saved the city of the Samaritans, by one likewise the nobleman, and by it had profited full surely (I ween) and exceeding much those who were therein. Having by these things testified the extreme readiness of the aliens to obedience, he brings the Miracle-worker back to Jerusalem, and shews Him accomplishing a God-befitting act. For He wondrously frees the paralytic from a most inveterate disease even as He had the nobleman's son just dying. But the one believed with his whole house, and confessed that Jesus is God, while the others. who ought to have been astonished, straightway desire to kill, and persecute, as though blasphemously transgressing, their Benefactor, themselves against themselves pronouncing more shameful condemnation in that they are found to fall short of the understanding of the aliens, and their piety towards Christ. And this it was which was spoken of them in the Psalms, as to our Lord Jesus, Thou shalt make them the back. For they having been set in the first rank because of the election of the fathers, will come last and after the calling of the Gentiles. For when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, then shall all Israel be saved.¹²¹²

The well-organized structure of how the chapters are compiled brings this line of thought before us. But we will carefully examine the meaning of individual verses, one part at a time.

This line of thought the well-arranged order of the compilation of chapters brings forth to us. But we will make accurate inquiry part by part of the meaning of single verses.

After the Jews celebrated their feast of unleavened bread, during which they customarily kill the sheep at the time of Passover, Christ left Jerusalem and mingled with the Samaritans and foreigners, teaching among them because He was grieved by the stubbornness of the Jews. Having only just returned at the holy Pentecost (which was the next festival in Jerusalem and not much later), He healed the paralytic at the waters of the pool, who had endured his sickness for a long time (it was now his thirty-eighth year), but who had not yet reached the perfect number of the Law, that is, four times ten or forty.

The Jews having celebrated their feast of unleavened bread, in which it is their custom to kill the sheep, to wit, at the time of the Passover, Christ departeth from Jerusalem, and mingleth with the Samaritans and aliens, and teacheth among them, being grieved at the stubbornness of the Jews. And having barely returned at the holy Pentecost (for this was the next solemnity in Jerusalem and at no great interval), He heals at the waters of the pool the paralytic, who had passed long time in sickness (for it was even his thirty-eighth year): but who had not yet attained unto the perfect number of the Law, I speak of four times ten or forty.

This marks the end of the historical account, but we must now transform the literal text into its spiritual meaning. When Jesus, grieved, leaves Jerusalem after the killing of the sheep, goes to the Samaritans and Galileans, and preaches the word of salvation among them, what else can this mean except His actual departure from the Jews after His sacrifice and death at Jerusalem on the Precious Cross? It was then that He at last began to give Himself freely to the Gentiles and foreigners, instructing His disciples after His Resurrection that He would go before them all into Galilee. His return to Jerusalem at the completion of the weeks of holy Pentecost signifies in types and obscurely that in the last ages of the present world, there will be a gracious return of our Saviour to the Jews. Those who have been saved through faith in Him will celebrate the all-holy feasts of the saving Passion. The healing of the paralytic before the full time of the law signifies in a corresponding type that Israel, having blasphemously raged against Christ, will be infirm and paralytic and will spend a long time doing nothing. Yet Israel will not proceed to complete punishment but will receive some visitation from the Saviour and will also be healed at the pool through obedience and faith. That the number forty is perfect according to the Divine Law will not be difficult to understand for those who have read the Divine Scriptures.

Here then will end the course of the history; but we must transform again the typical letter unto its spiritual interpretation. That Jesus grieved departs from Jerusalem after the killing of the sheep, goes to the Samaritans and Galileans, and preaches among them the word of salvation, what else will this mean, save His actual withdrawal from the Jews, after His sacrifice and Death at Jerusalem upon the Precious Cross, when He at length began to freely give Himself to them of the Gentiles and aliens, bidding it to be shewn to His Disciples after His Resurrection, that He goeth before them all into Galilee? But His return again at the fulfilment of the weeks of holy Pentecost to Jerusalem, signifies as it were in types and darkly, that there will be of His Loving Kindness a return of our Saviour to the Jews in the last ages of the present world, wherein they who have been saved through faith in Him, shall celebrate the all-holy feasts of the saving Passion. But that the paralytic is healed before the full time of the law, signifies again by a corresponding type, that Israel having blasphemously raged against Christ, will be infirm and paralytic and will spend a long time in doing nothing; yet will not depart to complete punishment, but will have some visitation from the Saviour, and will himself too be healed at the pool by obedience and faith. But that the number forty is perfect according to the Divine Law, will be by no means hard to learn by them who have once read the Divine Scriptures. 7 Jesus saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered Him,

An evident proof of Christ's extreme goodness is that He does not wait for entreaties from the sick, but anticipates their request through His Loving Kindness. For as you see, He runs to the man as he lies there, and has compassion on him who was sick without comfort. But the enquiry whether he would like to be relieved from his infirmity was not that of someone asking out of ignorance about something manifest and evident to all, but rather of someone stirring up more earnest desire and inciting most diligent entreaty. The question whether he wanted to obtain what he longed for carries a kind of force and expression, showing that He has the power to give and is even now ready to do so, and only waits for the request of the one who receives the grace.

An evident proof of the extreme goodness of Christ, that He doth not wait for entreaties from the sick, but forecometh their request by His Loving Kindness. For He runneth, as you see, to him as he lieth, and compassionateth him that was sick without comfort. But the enquiry whether he would like to be relieved from his infirmity was not that of one asking out of ignorance a thing manifest and evident to all, but of one stirring up to more earnest desire, and inciting to most diligent entreaty. The question whether he willed to obtain what he longed for is big with a kind of force and expression, that He has the power to give, and is even now ready thereto, and only waits for the request of him who receiveth the grace.

Around the time of the holy Pentecost, Angels descending from heaven used to stir the water of the pool, and the splashing would announce their presence. The water would be made holy by the holy spirits, and whoever among the crowd of sick people got down into it first would come back up freed from whatever illness troubled him. However, the power of healing was given to only one person—the one who entered first. But this was also a symbol of the benefit of the law given through the hands of Angels, which applied only to the one race of the Jews and healed no one else. For from the place called Dan to Beersheba, the commandments given by Moses were proclaimed, delivered by Angels on Mount Sinai during the days later identified as the holy Pentecost. For this reason, the water of the pool was not stirred at any other time, indicating through this the descent of the holy Angels upon it. The paralytic, having no one to put him into the water, was lamenting his lack of helpers while suffering from his disease, saying, "I have no man"—meaning no one to lower him into the water. For he fully expected that Jesus would tell and advise him to do this.

About the day of the holy Pentecost, Angels coming down from heaven used to trouble the water of the pool, then they would make the plash therefrom the herald of their presence. And the water would be sanctified by the holy spirits, and whoever was beforehand of the multitude of sick people in getting down, he would come up again disburdened of the suffering that troubled him,, yet to one alone, him who first seized it, was the might of healing meted out. But this too was a sign of the benefit of the law by the hands of Angels, which extended to the one race of the Jews alone, and healed none other save they. For from Dan so called even unto Beer-sheba, the commandments given by Moses were spoken, ministered by Angels in Mount Sinai in the days afterwards marked out as the holy Pentecost. For this reason, the water too of the pool used not to be troubled at any other time, signifying therethrough the descent of the holy Angels thereon. The paralytic then not having any one to thrust him into the water, with the disease that holds him, was bewailing the want of healers, saying, I have no man, to wit to let him down into the water. For he fully expected that Jesus would tell and advise him this.

The command was appropriate to God and possessed the clearest evidence of power and authority surpassing that of man. For He did not pray for the removal of the patient's sickness, lest He too should appear to be like one of the holy prophets, but as the Lord of Powers He commanded with authority that it should be so, telling him to go home rejoicing, to take his bed on his shoulders as a memorial to those who saw it of the power of Him who had healed him. Immediately the sick man did as he was told, and through obedience and faith he obtained for himself the grace he so deeply desired. But since we previously presented him as the image and type of the multitude of the Jews who would be healed in the last times, let us now consider something that again fits with the thoughts related to this, similar to those we examined before.

God-befitting the injunction, and possessing clearest evidence of power and authority above man. For He prays not for the loosing of his sickness for the patient, lest He too should seem to be as one of the holy Prophets, but as the Lord of Powers He commandeth with authority that it be so, telling him to go home rejoicing, to take his bed on his shoulders, to be a memento to the beholders of the might of Him That had healed him. Forthwith the sick man does as is bidden him, and by obedience and faith he gaineth to himself the thrice longed for grace. But since in the foregoing we introduced him as the image and type of the multitude of the Jews, who should be healed in the last times: come let us think of something again harmonizing with the thoughts hereto pertaining, analagous to those before examined.

Christ heals the man on the Sabbath day, and when he is healed, Christ immediately commands him to break through the custom of the law by instructing him to walk on the Sabbath—and this while carrying his bed—even though God clearly proclaims through one of the holy Prophets, "Neither carry forth a burden out of your house on the Sabbath day." I suppose no one who is sober-minded would say that the man was made a despiser of the Divine commands or rebellious against them. Rather, Christ was making known to the Jews in a type that they would be healed by obedience and faith in the last times of the world (for I think this is what the Sabbath signifies, being the last day of the week). But having once received healing through faith and having been reshaped into newness of life, it was necessary that the oldness of the letter of the law should become ineffective, and that the typical worship conducted in shadows, as it were, and the empty observance of Jewish custom should be rejected. Hence, I think, the blessed Paul also, taking occasion to speak, writes to those who were returning to the Law after receiving the faith: "I say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"; and again, "You are severed from Christ, whoever among you are justified by the law; you have fallen from grace."

On the Sabbath day doth Christ heal the man, when healed He immediately enjoins him to break through the custom of the law, inducing him to walk on the Sabbath and this laden with his bed, although God clearly cries aloud by one of the holy Prophets, Neither carry forth a burthen out of your house on the Sabbath day. And no one I suppose who is sober-minded would say that the man was rendered a despiser or unruly to the Divine commands, but that as in a type Christ was making known to the Jews, that they should be healed by obedience and faith in the last times of the world (for this I think the Sabbath signifies, being the last day of the week): but that having once received the healing through faith, and having been re-modelled unto newness of life, it was necessary that the oldness of the letter of the law should become of no effect, and that the typical worship as it were in shadows and the vain observance of Jewish custom should be rejected. Hence (I think) the blessed Paul too taking occasion of speech writes to them who after the faith were returning again to the Law, I say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and again, Ye are severed from Christ, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.

I think it's very appropriate that He cries out over them, "Hear now this, O foolish people and heartless, which have eyes and see not." For what could be more ignorant than such people, or what could be more senseless? They don't even allow themselves to consider that they should marvel at the Power of the Healer. Instead, being harsh critics and skilled only in this, they accuse the man who had just barely recovered from a long illness of breaking the law, and foolishly tell him to lie down again, as if honoring the Sabbath meant having to remain sick.

Most seasonably (I think) doth He cry over them, Hear now this O foolish people and heartless, which have eyes and see not. For what can be more uninstructed than such people, or what greater in senselessness? For they do not even admit into their mind that they ought to wonder at the Power of the Healer: but being bitter reprovers, and skilled in this alone, they lay the charge of breaking the law about him who had just and with difficulty recovered from a long disease, and foolishly bid him lie down again, as though the honour due to the Sabbath were paid by having to be ill.

The sentence is full of the wisest meaning and rejects the stubbornness of the Jews. When they say that it is not lawful on the Sabbath day to take up his bed and go home, devising an accusation of breaking the law against the man who was healed, he necessarily brings against them a more determined defense, saying that he had been ordered to walk by Him who was revealed to him as the Giver of health. He is almost saying something like this: I say that He is most worthy of honor, sirs, even though He commanded me to violate the honor of the Sabbath, since He has such great power and grace that He drove away my disease. For if excellence in these things does not belong to just any random person, but belongs rather to God-befitting Power and Might, how, he says, can the one who does these things do wrong? Or how can He who possesses God-befitting Power not surely give counsel that is well-pleasing to God? The speech, then, has within itself some sharp meaning.

The sentence is replete with, wisest meaning and repulsive of the stubbornness of the Jews. For in that they say that it is not lawful on the sabbath day to take up his bed and go home, devising an accusation of breaking the law against him that was healed, needs does he bring against them a more resolved defence, saying that he had been ordered to walk by Him, Who was manifested to him as the Giver of health, all but saying something of this sort, Most worthy of honour (sirs) do I say that Ho is, even though He bid me violate the honour of the sabbath, Who hath so great power and grace, as to drive away my disease. For if excellence in these things belongeth not to every chance man, but will befit rather God-befitting Power and Might, how (saith he) shall the worker of these things do wrong? or how shall not He Who is possessed of God-befitting Power surely counsel what is well-pleasing to God? The speech then has within itself some pungent meaning.

What man is he who said to you, "Take up your bed and walk"? But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away because there was a crowd in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him,

13, 14 What Man is He Which said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? But he that was healed wist not Who it was: for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in the place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple and said unto him,

Insatiable for bloodshed is the mind of the Jews. They search out who it was who had commanded this, intending to involve Him together with the one miraculously healed (for he alone, it seems, was likely to be troubling them regarding the Sabbath, having just escaped impossible difficulties and snares and been drawn away from the very gates of death). But he could not identify his Physician, though they make diligent inquiries, since Christ had wisely and economically concealed Himself in order to escape the immediate heat of their anger. And He does not practice flight as though He could suffer anything by necessity unless He willed to suffer, but rather makes Himself an example to us in this also.

Insatiable unto bloodshed is the mind of the Jews. For they search out who it was who had commanded this, with design to involve Him together with the miraculously healed (for he alone, it seems, was like to be vexing them in respect of the Sabbath, who had but now escaped impassable toils and snares, and had been drawn away from the very gates of death) but he could not tell his Physician, although they make diligent enquiries, Christ having well and economically concealed Himself, that He might escape the present heat of their anger. And not as though He could suffer anything of necessity, unless He willed to suffer, doth He practise flight: but making Himself an Example to us in this also.

Having hidden Himself at first for a deliberate purpose, He appears again for a deliberate purpose, observing the right time for each action. For it was not possible that anything should be done by Him who knew no sin that did not truly have its proper reason. The reason for His speaking to the man, then, He made into a message for his soul's health, saying that he must transgress no more, lest he be tormented by worse evils than those he had already suffered. In this He teaches that God not only stores up man's transgressions for the coming judgment, but also punishes in many ways those still living in their bodies, even before the great and notable day when He shall judge all. That we are often struck down when we stumble and offend God, the most wise Paul will testify, crying out, "For this reason many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep: for if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged: but when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, so that we may not be condemned with the world."

Being hid at first economically, He appears again economically, observing the time fit for each. For it was not possible that ought should be done by Him Who knew no sin, which should not really have its fit reason. The reason then of His speaking to him He made a message for his soul's health, saying that it behoved him to transgress no more, lest he be tormented by worse evils than those past. Herein He teaches that not only does God treasure wp man's transgressions unto the judgment to come, but manifoldly scourgeth those yet living in their bodies, even before the great and notable day of Him. That shall judge all. But that we are oftentimes smitten when we stumble and grieve God, the most wise Paul will testify, crying, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep: for if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged: but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, thai we be not condemned with the world.

He makes Jesus known to the Jews, not so they would dare to do anything against Him and be found blasphemers, but so that if they too were willing to be healed by Him, they might know the wondrous Physician. Notice how this was his goal. He doesn't come like one of the critics and say that it was Jesus who had told him to walk on the Sabbath day, but rather that He had made him whole. This was the action of someone doing nothing other than making his Physician known.

He makes Jesus known to the Jews, not that they by daring to do anything against Him should be found to be blasphemers, but in order that, if they too should be willing to be healed by Him, they might know the wondrous Physician. For observe how this was his aim. For he does not come like one of the faultfinders, and say that it was Jesus Who had bidden him walk on the Sabbath day, but Which had made him whole. But this was the part of one doing nought save only making known his Physician.

The narrative here does not simply record the madness of the Jews, for the Evangelist does not only show that they persecute Him, but also why they are not ashamed to do this, stating most emphatically, "Because He was doing these things on the sabbath day." They persecute Him foolishly and blasphemously, as if the law forbade doing good on the sabbath day, as if it were not lawful to pity and show compassion to the sick, as if the law of love, the praise of brotherly kindness, and the grace of gentleness should be set aside. What good things can one not show that the Jews spurned in many ways, not understanding the Lawgiver's purpose regarding the Sabbath, and making its observance completely meaningless? For as Christ Himself said somewhere, each one of them takes his ox or his sheep and leads them away to water, and a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day so that the law of Moses will not be broken—yet they are angry because He made a man completely whole on the sabbath day. This is because of the extreme stubbornness and lack of discipline in their habits: they do not even prefer the one made in the Divine Image over brute animals, but think that one should pity a sheep on the sabbath day and be blameless in freeing it from hunger and thirst, yet that those who are gentle and good to their neighbor on the sabbath are extremely guilty of breaking the law.

The narrative does not herein contain the simple relation of the madness of the Jews: for the Evangelist does not shew only that they persecute Him, but why they blush not to do this, saying most emphatically, Because He was doing these things on the sabbath day. For they persecute Him foolishly and blasphemously, as though the law forbad to do good on the sabbath day, as though it were not lawful to pity and compassionate the sick, as though it behoved to put off the law of love, the praise of brotherly kindness, the grace of gentleness: and what of good things may one not shew that the Jews did in manifold ways spurn, not knowing the aim of the Lawgiver respecting the Sabbath, and making the observance of it most empty? For as Christ Himself somewhere said, each one of them taketh his ox, or his sheep, and leadeth them away to watering, and that a man on the sabbath day receiveth circumcision, that the law of Moses be not broken: and then they are angry, because He made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day, by reason of the exceeding stubbornness alike and undisciplinedness of their habits, not even to brutes preferring him that is made in the Divine Image, but thinking that one ought to pity a sheep on the sabbath day, and unblamed to free it from famine and thirst, yet that they are open to the charge of transgressing the law to the last degree, who are gentle and good to their neighbour on the sabbath?

But to show that they were extremely senseless, and therefore justly deserve to hear "You do err, not knowing the Scriptures," let us take something from the Divine Scriptures and clearly demonstrate that Jesus was long ago depicted in a type as taking no account of the sabbath. The all-wise Moses, having departed from human life at a great age (as it is written) and been removed to the dwellings above by the judgment and decree of God Who rules all, Joshua the son of Nun obtained and inherited the command over Israel. When he, having arranged ten thousand heavily armed soldiers around Jericho, was planning to finally capture and overthrow it, he arranged with the Levites to carry the ark around for six whole days, but on the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, he commanded the innumerable multitude of the army to shout along with the trumpets, and so the wall was thrown down, and they rushed in and took the city. They did not observe the untimely rest of the Sabbath, nor did they refuse their victory on that day because of the law restraining them, nor did they resist the leadership of Joshua, but they kept the man's command entirely free from reproach. And this is the type: but when the Truth came, that is Christ, Who destroyed and overcame the corruption set up against man's physis by the devil, and is seen doing this on the Sabbath—as a preface and beginning of action in the case of the paralytic—they foolishly take offense and condemn the obedience of their fathers, not allowing physis to conquer on the sabbath day the harm done to it by sickness, to such an extent that they are zealous in persecuting Jesus Who was working good on the sabbath day.

But that we may see that they were beyond measure senseless, and therefore with justice deserve to hear, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures; come let us taking somewhat from the Divine Scriptures too shew clearly, that Jesus was long ago foredepicted as in a type taking no account of the sabbath. The all-wise Moses then, having at a great age (as it is written) departed from things of men and been removed to the mansions above, by the judgment and decree of God That ruleth all, Joshua the son of Nun obtained and inherited the command over Israel. When he therefore, having set in array heavy armed soldiers ten thousand strong round about Jericho, was devising to take at length and overthrow it, he arranged with the Levites to take the ark round about for six whole days, but on the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, he commanded the innumerable multitude of the host to shout along with the trumpets, and thus the wall was thrown down, and they rushing in, took the city, not observing the unseasonable rest of the Sabbath, nor refusing their victory thereon, by reason of the law restraining them, nor yet did they then withstand the generalship of Joshua, but wholly free from reproach did they keep the command of the man. And herein is the type: but when the Truth came, that is Christ, Who destroyed and overcame the corruption set up against man's nature by the devil, and is seen doing this on the Sabbath, as in preface and commencement of action, in the case of the paralytic, they foolishly take it ill, and condemn the obedience of their fathers, not suffering nature to conquer on the sabbath day the despite done it by sickness, to such extent as to be zealous in persecuting Jesus Who was working good on the sabbath day.

Christ is speaking, so to speak, on the sabbath day (for the word "hitherto" must necessarily signify this, so that the force of the idea may receive its proper meaning). But the Jews, who were untaught and did not know who the Only-Begotten is by physis, attributed to God the Father alone the giving of the Law through Moses, and insisted that we ought to obey Him alone. Christ attempts to clearly convince them that He works all things together with the Father, and that, having the physis of the One who begot Him in Himself, because He is not Other than He as far as Sameness of ousia is concerned, He will never think anything different from what seems good to the One who begot Him. But as being of the same ousia, He will also will the same things—or rather, being Himself the living Will and Power of the Father, He works all things in all with the Father.

Christ is speaking, as it were, on the sabbath day (for this the word Hitherto must necessarily signify, that the force of the idea may receive its own fitting meaning) but the Jews, who were untutored, and knew not Who the Only-Begotten is by Nature, but attributed to God the Father alone the appointing of the Law through Moses, and asserted that we ought to obey Him Alone; these He attempts to clearly convince, that He works all things together with the Father, and that, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him in Himself, by reason of His not being Other than He, as far as pertains to Sameness of Essence, He will never think ought else than as seemeth good to Him Who begat Him. But as being of the Same Essence He will also will the same things, yea rather being Himself the Living Will and Power of the Father, He worketh all things in all with the Father.

In order to counter the empty complaints of the Jews and to shame those who were persecuting Him for reasons they thought justified—as if the honor due to the sabbath were being disrespected—He says, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." For He practically wants to convey something like this: If you believe, O man, that God, having created and arranged all things by His command and will, governs creation on the sabbath day as well—so that the sun rises, rain-producing springs flow forth, and fruits grow from the earth without withholding their growth because of the sabbath, and fire does its own work, serving human needs without prohibition—then acknowledge and know for certain that the Father performs God-befitting operations on the sabbath as well. Why then, He asks, do you ignorantly accuse Him through Whom He does all things? For God the Father will not work in any other way except through His Power and Wisdom, the Son. Therefore He says, "And I work." He thus shames the unrestrained thinking of His persecutors with arguments pointing out absurdities, showing that they are not so much opposing Him as speaking against the Father, to Whom alone they were eager to attribute the honor of the Law, not yet knowing the Son Who is from Him and through Him by physis. For this reason He calls God specifically His own Father, leading them very skillfully to this most excellent and valuable teaching.

In order then that He might repel the vain murmuring of the Jews and might shame them who were persecuting Him on those grounds whereon they thought good to be angry, as though the honour due to the sabbath were despised. He says, My Father worketh hitherto and I work. For He all but wisheth to signify some such thing as this, If thou believest, O man, that God, having created and compacted all things by His Command and Will ordereth the creation on the sabbath day also, so that the sun riseth, rain-giving fountains are let loose, and fruits spring from the earth, not refusing their increase by reason of the sabbath, the fire works its own work, ministering to the necessities of man unforbidden: confess and know of a surety that the Father worketh God-befitting operations on the sabbath also. Why then (saith He) dost thou uninstructedly accuse Him through Whom He works all things? for God the Father will work in no other way, save through His Power and Wisdom, the Son. Therefore says He, And I work. He shames then with arguments ad absurdum the unbridled mind of His persecutors, shewing that they do not so much oppose Himself, as speak against the Father, to Whom Alone they were zealous to ascribe the honour of the Law, not yet knowing the Son Who is of Him and through Him by Nature. For this reason does He call God specially His own Father, leading them most skilfully to this most excellent and precious lesson.

For this reason, then, the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was also saying that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

18 For this therefore did the Jews seek the more to kill Him, because He was not only breaking the sabbath, but saying also that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God.

The Jewish leaders' minds were set on cruelty, and what should have healed them only made them sicker, so they rightly deserve to hear, "How can you say, 'We are wise'?" When they should have been softened in their attitude and transformed by proper reasoning toward godliness, they instead plotted murder against the One who proved by His actions that He had not violated God's Law at all by healing a man on the sabbath. They added to their anger about the sabbath the truth itself, treating it as blasphemy, trapping themselves in their own sins and leading to unending wrath. They seemed to be pious in their distress that He, being a man, should say that God was His Father. They did not yet know that He who was made in the form of a servant for our sake is God the Word, the Life flowing from God the Father—that is, the Only-Begotten, to whom alone God is rightly and truly called Father, but not to us in the same way. We are adopted, rising to excellence beyond our nature through the will of the One who honored us, and gaining the title of gods and sons because of Christ who dwells in us through the Holy Spirit. Looking only at the flesh and not recognizing God who dwelt in the flesh, they could not endure His rising to a measure beyond human nature when He said that God was His Father (for in saying "My Father," He reasonably conveyed this idea). But they understood that the One whose Father God properly is must be by nature equal with Him—in this alone they thought correctly, for that is how it is and no other way. Yet even though these words convey this meaning, they twisted the true and correct statement and became even angrier.

The mind of the Jews is wound up unto cruelty, and whereby they ought to have been healed, they are the more sick, that they may justly hear, How say ye, WE are wise? For when they ought to have been softened in disposition, transformed by suitable reasoning unto piety, they even devise slaughter against Him Who proves by His Deeds, that He hath in no whit transgressed the Divine Law by healing a man on the sabbath. They weave in with their wrath on account of the sabbath, the truth as a charge of blasphemy, snaring themselves in the meshes of their own transgressions unto wrath indissoluble. For they seemed to be pious in their distress that He being a Man, should say that God was His Father. For they knew not yet that He Who was for our sakes made in the form of a servant, is God the Word, the Life gushing forth from God the Father, that is, the Only-Begotten, to Whom Alone God is rightly and truly inscribed and is Father, but to us by no means so: for we are adopted, mounting up to excellency above nature through the will of Him That honoured us, and gaining the title of gods and sons because of Christ That dwelleth in us through the Holy Ghost. Looking therefore to the Flesh alone, and not acknowledging God Who dwelleth in the Flesh, they endure not His springing up to measure beyond the nature of Man, through His saying that God was His Father (for in saying, My Father, He would with reason introduce this idea) but they deem that He Whose Father God properly is, must be by Nature Equal with Him, in this alone conceiving rightly: for so it is, and no otherwise. Since then the word introduces with it this meaning, they perverting the upright word of truth are more angry.

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself except what He sees the Father doing. For whatever things the Father does, the Son does likewise."

19 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise.

What we have spoken of above, He now interprets in another way, drawing the hearers from every direction toward finding the truth. For the statement that was not understood at first, because of the weakness of those who could not grasp it, He reshapes in another form, and by going through the same ideas He presents it in multiple ways. For this too is the work of a teacher's proper skill—namely, not to make his teaching rushed and moving beyond the students' understanding, but carefully crafted and variously expressed, so that by frequently changing the wording he removes the difficulties in the subjects being discussed. Mixing human and divine together, and forming one teaching from both, He gently lowers the honor that belongs to the Only-Begotten, and raises up human nature. Being at once Lord and counted among servants, He says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. For in that He is able to do the works of God the Father without any difference and to work in the same way as the One who begat Him, He testifies to the identity of His essence (ousia). For things that have the same nature (physis) with one another will work in the same way, but those whose mode of being is different will also have a mode of working that is not the same in every respect. Therefore, as Very God of Very God the Father, He says that He can do these things equally with Him. But so that He may appear not only equal in power to the Father, but also likeminded in all things and having in all things the same will as Him, He says that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.

What we have spoken of above, this again He interprets in another way, from all quarters snaring the hearers unto finding of the truth. For the word which was not received at first, by reason of the weakness of them that could not understand, He re-forms in another way, and going through the same thoughts introduceth it manifoldly. For this too is the work of the virtue that befits a teacher, namely not to make his word rapid and speeding beyond the knowledge of the pupils, but carefully wrought and diversely fashioned and that by frequent change of expression strips off the difficulties in the things under consideration. Mingling then human with Divine, and forming one discourse of both, He as it were gently sinks the honour befitting the Only-Begotten, and raises the nature of man; as being at once Lord and reckoned among servants, He says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. For in that He is able to do without distinction the works of God the Father and to work alike with Him That begat Him, He testifieth the identity of His Essence. For things which have the same nature with one another, will work alike: but those whose mode of being is diverse, their mode of working too will be in all respects not the same. Therefore as Very God of Very God the Father, He says that He can do these things equally with Him; but that He may appear not only Equal in Power to the Father, but likeminded in all things, and having in all things the Will One with Him, He saith that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.

Just as if He were saying clearly to those who are trying to persecute Him for healing a man on the Sabbath day: You think the honor of the Sabbath has been broken, but I would not have done this if I had not seen My Father do the same thing. For He works for the good ordering of the world on the Sabbath too, even though through Me. It is impossible, then (He says), that I, the Son of Him by Nature, should not entirely and in all things work and will the works of the Father—not as if I received from outside by being taught the pattern of action, or were moved by a deliberate choice to will the same things as the Father, but by the laws of Uncreated Nature I rise to Equal Counsel and Action with God the Father. For the inability to do anything of Himself is perfectly defined here. And so I believe that we ought, in a godly way, to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, as it is written.

Just as though He should say distinctly to those who aro trying to persecute Him for healing a man on the Sabbath day, Ye deem the honour of the Sabbath broken, but I would not have done this, had I not seen My Father do the like; for He worketh for the good order of the world on the Sabbath too, even though through Me. It is then impossible (saith He) that I, the Son of Him by Nature, should not wholly in all things work and will the works of the Father, not as though I received from without by being taught the exemplar of action, or were called by a deliberate motion to will the same with the Father, but by the laws of Uncreated Nature I mount up to Equal Counsel and Action with God the Father. For the being able to do nothing of Himself, is excellently well defined herein. And thus I deem that piously minded we ought to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, as it is written.

But perhaps the opponent of the truth will not believe and will turn these words into fuel for his own misguided reasoning, saying: "If the Son were equal to the Father, attributing to Him no superiority out of necessity because of the inferiority of His own physis, what led Him to say so openly that He could do nothing of Himself except what He sees the Father do? For clearly (he says) He confesses in this that He can do nothing at all of Himself, since He knows the One who is better and superior to Himself. But now refute our argument again."

But perchance the opposer of the truth will disbelieve, and will make what is said the food so to say of his own ill counsel saying: "If the Son were Equal to the Father, attributing to Him no Preeminence as of necessity, by reason of the inferiority of His Own Nature, what induced Him so unconcealedly to say, that He could do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do? For clearly (saith he) does He herein confess that He can do nothing at all of Himself, as knowing Him that is the Better and superior to Himself. But do thou again refute our argument."

How should we respond to these objections? The enemy of Christ is bold to the point of blasphemy and so drunk with foolishness that he doesn't even realize it. For one must, most excellent sir, carefully examine the meaning of what has been said, and not rush hastily into arguments that spring from ignorance. For what kind of equality with the Father do you think it right to reduce the Son to, because of His saying that He can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do? Is it that He lacks equality in power that He says these things, even though from the very passage we are considering one can see that the Son is equal in power with the Father, rather than inferior in divine might? For clearly He does not say, "The Son can do nothing of Himself unless He receives power from the Father" (for this would be the statement of one truly weak), but rather, "but what He sees the Father do." But that through the sense of seeing we are not usually called to be powerful, but to look at something, I suppose no one will dispute. The Son, then, in saying that He looks upon the works of His Father does not show Himself impotent, but rather a zealous imitator or beholder—and how this is so will be explained more carefully in what follows. But that through His exact and most similar working—I mean in all things—He is shown to have equality in power, He Himself will clearly teach below, adding as concerning His Father, "for whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise." How then is He inferior, when He is eminent in equal workings with God the Father? For will the offspring of fire work anything different from fire, with any change being seen in its work? How could that be? How then will the Son work in the same manner as the Father, if by reason of having inferiority He falls short of equal might with Him?

What then is to be said to these things by us? Bold unto blasphemy is the enemy of Christ and drunken with folly he perceives it not. For one must, most excellent sir, test accurately the force of what has been said, and not dash offhand to reasonings springing from unlearning. For to what kind of equality with the Father dost thou deem it right to bring down the Son, by reason of His saying that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do? Is it as not having Equality in Power that He says these things, although from the very passage under consideration one may see that the Son is Equal in Power with the Father, rather than inferior in God-befitting Might? For plainly He does not say, The Son can do nothing of Himself, except He receive Power of the Father (for this would be the part of one really weak) but, but what He seeth the Father do. But that by the sense of seeing, we are not usually called to be powerfnl, but to look at something, I suppose no one will dispute. The Son then in saying that He looketh on the works of His Father doth not shew Himself impotent, but rather a zealous Imitator, or Beholder: and how, shall be more accurately spoken of in what follows. But that through His exact and likest working, I mean in all things, He is shewn to have Equality in Power, Himself will clearly teach below, adding as of His Father, for what things soever He doeth, these (saith He) doeth also the Son likewise. How then is He inferior, Who is Eminent in equal workings with God the Father? for will the offspring of fire work ought different from fire, any change being seen in its work? how could it be so? How then will the Son work in like manner with the Father, if by reason of having inferiority He come short of equal Might with Him?

And these things were taken from the words we're currently examining. But let us consider, going through other points as well, whether the physis of the Son admits any law of inferiority to that of the Father. Let the consideration of Power also be before us. Do they confess that the Son is God of God by physis and truly and of the actual ousia of the Father, or do they say indeed that He is God, but blasphemously add that He is outside of the ousia of the Father? If then they say that He is not of the ousia of the Father, He will neither be God by physis, nor Very Son. For that which is not of God by nature, neither ought it at all to be conceived of as by nature God, nor yet Son if it is not begotten of the ousia of the Father, but they are bringing in secretly to us some bastard and new god. If they do not say this, blushing at the absurdity that is in their own doctrines, but will grant that the Only-Begotten is truly of the Father, and is God by physis and Verily: how will He be inferior to the Father, or how powerless to anything, and this not accuse the ousia of Him Who begat Him? For if it is possible that He Who is by physis God should at all be impotent, what is to prevent the Father from being in the same case, if the Divine and Ineffable physis once has the power of being so, and is already so manifested in the Son, according to their account? Hence then neither will the Divinity be Impassible, nor will It remain in sameness and Bliss wholly Unchangeable. But who (tell me) will endure those that hold such opinions? Who when the Scripture cries aloud that the Son is the Lord of Hosts, will not shudder to say that He must needs be strengthened, and is imperfect in that which of right is His alone with the Father and Holy Spirit?

And these things were taken from the words at present under comment. But let us consider, going through other considerations also, whether the Nature of the Son admits any law of inferiority to that of the Father. Let the consideration of Power also be before us. Do they confess that the Son is God of God by Nature and verily and of the actual Essence of the Father; or do they say indeed that He is God, but blasphemously add, that He is outside of the Essence of the Father? If then they say that He is not of the Essence of the Father, He will neither be God by Nature, nor Very Son. For that which is not of God by nature, neither ought it at all to be conceived of as by nature God, nor yet Son if it be not begotten of the Essence of the Father, but they are bringing in privily to us some bastard and new god. If they do not say this, blushing at the absurdity that is in their own doctrines, but will grant that the Only-Begotten is truly of the Father, and is God by Nature and Verily: how will He be inferior to the Father, or how powerless to ought, and this not accuse the Essence of Him Who begat Him? For if it be possible that He Who is by Nature God should at all be impotent, what is to hinder the Father from being in the same case, if the Divine and Ineffable Nature once has the power of being so, and is already so manifested in the Son, according to their account? Hence then neither will the Divinity be Impassible, nor will It remain in sameness and Bliss wholly Unchangeable. But who (tell me) will endure them that hold such opinions? Who when the Scripture crieth aloud that the Son is the Lord of Hosts, will not shudder to say, that He must needs be strengthened, and is imperfect in that which of right is His alone with the Father and Holy Ghost?

But our opponent will say again, "We say that the Father surpasses the Son in this. For the One is the First Beginner of works, since He has Perfection both in Power and in the knowledge of all things, but the Son becomes first a spectator and then a worker by receiving into Himself the imitation of the Father's working, so that through the similarity of works He too might be thought to be God. For this He teaches us, saying that He can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do."

But our opponent will say again, "We say, that the Father surpasses the Son in this. For the One is the First Beginner of works, as having Perfection both in Power and in the knowledge of all things: but the Son becomes first a spectator then a worker by receiving into Himself the imitation of the Father's working, in order that through the similarity of works, He too might be thought to be God. For this He teacheth us, saying that He can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do."

What are you saying, you utterly reckless person? Does the Son receive into Himself the patterns of the Father's working so that through this He may be thought to be God? Then He will be God by learning, not by Nature. Just as knowledge and skill exist in us, so in Him would be the dignity, and He would be more of a craftsman of divine works than Very God. Yet He is (I suppose) completely different from the skill that is in Him, even though it is God-befitting. Then how do the angels in heaven worship Him whom you have placed outside the boundaries of the Godhead and whose glory consists only in skill? And how do we worship Him without blame, even though Holy Scripture warns us that we ought not to serve anyone except Him Who is truly God? For it says, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve." Yet the holy multitude of angels in particular did not err from what is proper, but they worship the Son and serve Him along with us, acknowledging Him to be God by Nature, and not by learning, as these babblers claim. For they do not perceive (it seems) into what great absurdities they will consequently fall. For in the first place, the Son will admit change and variation as from lesser to greater, even though He Himself says through the Prophet, "Behold, behold I am, and I do not change." The Psalmist too will surely lie in the spirit when crying out to the Son, "But You are the Same." For He awaits, as they say, the Father's working at something, as a Guide and Teacher, so that He may see and imitate. Then how will such a one not appear to advance from ignorance of certain things to knowledge of them, and to turn from worse to better, if we consider that knowledge of any good thing is better than not knowing it?

What art thou saying, thou all-daring? doth the Son receive into Himself the types of the Father's Working, that thereby He may be thought to be God? By learning then will He be God, not by Nature. As in us is (it may be) knowledge and art, so is in Him the Dignity, and He is rather an Artificer of the works of Deity than Very God: yet is He (I suppose) altogether other than the art that is in Him, though it be God-befitting. Him then that has passed forth of the boundaries of the Godhead, and has his glory in the art alone, how do angels in Heaven worship Him, we too worship without blame, albeit the Holy Scripture admonisheth us that we ought not to serve any apart from Him Who is truly God? for it says, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve. Yet the holy multitude of Angels in particular erred not from what is befitting, but they worship the Son and serve Him with us, acknowledging Him to be God by Nature, and not by learning, as those babbling say: for they perceive not (it seems) into how great absurdities they will thence fall. For in the first place the Son will admit change and variation as from the less to the greater, albeit Himself saith through the Prophet, Behold, behold I am, and change not. The Psalmist too will surely lie in the spirit, crying out to the Son, But Thou art the Same. For He awaiteth, as those say, the Father's working at something, as a Guide and Teacher, that He may see and imitate. Then how will not such an one appear to mount up from ignorance of certain things unto knowledge thereof, and to turn from worse to better, if we reckon that knowledge of any thing-good is better than not knowing it?

What further absurdity do we find here? Let those who present God as an Instructor rather than a Father tell us this: Does the Son wait to see His Father's works in ignorance of them, or with complete knowledge of them? If they say He waits even though He knows them, they clearly show that He is doing something entirely pointless, and the Father is engaged in something utterly futile. For the Son, as though ignorant, looks at what He knows perfectly, while the Father tries to teach One who already knows. Who cannot see that such things are extremely absurd? But perhaps they won't say this and will shift to the opposite view instead. They will claim that He must wait for the Father to work in order to learn by watching. But then how does He know all things before they came to be? And how can His words about Himself be true: "Am I a God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off? Shall anything be hidden from Me?" How is it not absurd and ignorant to believe that the Spirit searches and knows the deep things of God, while supposing that the Giver of the Spirit is ignorant of the Father's works and of His own Spirit, falling short in knowledge? Won't the Son eventually cease to be Wisdom if He is completely ignorant and learns by instruction? For He would be a receiver of wisdom rather than Wisdom Itself by physis. Wisdom is what makes things wise, not what is shaped to become wise—just as light is what gives light, not what is shaped to receive light. Therefore He would be something other than the wisdom within Him. First, He would not be Simple but composed of two things. Beyond this, He would also cease to be God—I mean God by physis and essentially. For the Divine physis cannot endure being taught by anyone at all, nor the doubling of composition, since it has as its proper good being both Simple and All-Perfect. And if the Son is not God by physis, how does He both work and do things that belong to God alone? Will they say that merely seeing the Father working is enough for Him to have God-befitting power, and that by this sight alone He attains being God by physis and being able to do such things as the One who shows Him does? Then nothing would prevent many others from being revealed to us as gods, if the Father were willing to show them too the manner of His works. And the excellence of the Father's ousia would consist in learning something additional. For the one who was taught (as they claim) would turn out to have risen to the dignity of the Godhead by physis, saying, "I and My Father are One," and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

Next, what additional absurdity is herein beheld? Let them tell us who introduce God as an Instructer rather than a Father, Doth the Son await the sight of His Father's works in ignorance of them, or having most perfect knowledge of them? If then they say that He awaits though He knows them, they clearly shew that He is doing something very superfluous, and the Father practising a most idle thing: for the One, as though ignorant looks at what He knows perfectly, the Other attempts to teach One Who knows: and to whom is it not evident, that such things incur the charge of the extremest absurdity? But perchance they will not say this; but will go over to the opposite alternative. For they will affirm that He awaiteth of necessity the Father working in order to learn by seeing. How then doth He know all things before they were? or how will He be true saying of Himself, Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Shall ought be hidden from Me? But how is it not absurd and unlearned to believe that the Spirit searcheth and knoweth the deep things of God, and to suppose that the Giver of the Spirit is in ignorance of the works of the Father and of His own Spirit, so as to come short in knowledge? For will not the Son at length lose His being Wisdom, if He be wholly ignorant and receive by learning? for He will be a recipient of wisdom, rather than Wisdom Itself by Nature. For wisdom is that which maketh wise, not that which is formed to become wise, just as light too is that which enlighteneth, not that which is formed to receive light. Therefore is He again other than the wisdom which is in Him, and in the first place He is not Simple, but compounded of two: next besides this, He will also lose the being God, I mean God by Nature and Essentially. For the Divine Nature endureth not the being taught by any at all, nor the duplication of composition, seeing It hath as Its Proper Good the being both Simple and All-Perfection. And if the Son be not God by Nature, how doth He both work and do things befitting God Alone? will they say that it suffices for Him unto God-befitting Power, only to see the Father working, and by the mere sight does He attain to being by Nature God, and to being able to do such things as He That sheweth Him doth? There is therefore nothing to hinder, but that many others too should be manifested to us as gods, if the Father be willing to shew them too the mode of His works, and the excellence of the Father's Essence will consist in learning something over and above. For He that was taught (as those say) is found to have mounted up to the dignity of the God-head by Nature, saying, I and My Father are One, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

Let them consider, then, how many blasphemies they pile up by choosing to think this way, and let them think correctly about the Son as Scripture teaches. For the Son is not a Doer or Wonder-worker, and therefore God, by observing what the Father does, nor by having the Father go before Him in actions. Rather, it is because a certain law of nature (physis) carries Him to the exact likeness of the One who begot Him—though this shines forth and is revealed through the constant likeness of Their works. But let us set the verse before us again, if you will, and examine it with more careful attention. Let us consider precisely what the words mean, and let us now see how we must think about this with proper reverence. Therefore,

Let them weigh then how great a crowd of blasphemies is heaped up by them, from their choosing so to think, and let them think truly of the Son as it is written. For neither by contemplation of what is performed by the Father, nor yet by having Him as antecedent to Himself in actions, is the Son a Doer or Wonder-worker, and by reason hereof God: but because a certain law of Nature carries Him to the Exact Likeness of Him who begat Him, even though it shine forth and is manifested through the unceasing likeness of Their Works. But setting before us again, if you please, the verse, and testing it with more diligent scrutiny, let us consider accurately, what is the force of the words and let us now see how we must think with piety. Therefore,

Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself except what He sees the Father doing: for whatever things the Father does, the Son likewise does these same things.

Verily verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise.

You see how through the exact likeness in His works, He shows Himself like the Father in all things, so that He may be shown to be the heir of His essence also. For since He must necessarily and undeniably be understood as being God by nature, who has equal working with God the Father, the Savior speaks this way. But let no one be troubled when He speaks economically, saying that He can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. For since He was now clothed in the form of a servant and made man by being united to flesh, He did not make His speech unrestricted, nor did He completely let loose with speech befitting God, but rather used at times by an economy speech that befits both God and man alike. For He was truly both in the same.

Thou seest how through the exact likeness too in the works, He sheweth Himself like in all things to the Father, that thereby He may be shewn to be Heir of His Essence also. For in that He must of necessity and incontrovertibly be conceived of as being God by Nature, Who hath Equal working with God the Father, the Saviour says thus. But let no one be offended, when He says economical, that He can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. For in that He was now arrayed in the form of the servant and made Man by being united to flesh, He did not make His discourse free, nor altogether let loose unto God-befitting boldness, but used rather at times by an economy such discourse as befits alike God and Man. For He was really both in the same.

This is one true interpretation, but I think we should explain what's in front of us in another way as well, and engage more carefully with the precise meaning of the passage. The Son (it says) can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. The word "cannot," or impossibility, is predicated of certain things, or is applied to certain things that exist. When this word is used, we should understand that it doesn't necessarily indicate compulsion or weakness; rather, it often indicates the stability of natures and the unchangeable condition of essences, with respect to what each thing mentioned either is or has been, and what it can accomplish by its physis without change. But let our argument proceed through demonstration as well, if you agree. For instance, when a man says he cannot carry a piece of wood that is perhaps immeasurably large and heavy, he is expressing his innate weakness. But when another person says, "I, being by physis a rational man and born of a father who is by physis rational, cannot do anything on my own and by myself that I do not see belonging to the physis of my parent," the words "I cannot" express the stability of essence and its inability to change into anything other than what it is. For he says, "I cannot by myself be anything other than a rational creature, strengthened by the capacities that accrue to me by physis, for I do not see the power to do otherwise in the physis of my father." In this way, then, you may understand Christ saying, "The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do." For do not (He says) condemn the works of the Son, for He, beholding—as if in His own proper thoughts or natural motions—the ousia of Him who begot Him, does those things and no others that He sees that nature fittingly accomplishing, being unable to undergo anything contrary to His nature by reason of His being from it. Thus, the nature of the Father has the will to show compassion; the Son, seeing this inherent in it, is compassionate as being from Him by physis, unable to be other than what it is. For He has from the Father both the ousia and the good qualities of the ousia—simply and without composition, as God. Therefore He wisely adds to the previous words, "For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise." In these words He is summing up, so to speak, the whole meaning of His being able to do nothing of Himself except what He sees the Father do. But by considering the reason why the Son says these things, you will apply your mind more accurately to what we have said.

And this is one true word, but I think one ought again to explain what is before us in another way too, and to apply more keenly to the accurate meaning of the passage. The Son (it says) can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. The word cannot, or impossibility, is predicated of certain things, or is applied to certain of things that are. For this being predicated we say is not indicative at all of necessity, nor of weakness; but often denotes the stability of natures and the immoveable condition of essences, in respect of what each thing mentioned either is or has been, and of what it can effect by nature and without change. But let our argument, if you please go through demonstration also. When for instance a man says that he cannot carry a piece of wood, immeasurable perhaps and heavy, he predicates his innate weakness: but when another says, I being by nature a reasonable man, and born of a father by nature reasonable, cannot do anything my own and of myself, which I do not see belonging to the nature of my parent; the words "I cannot" express the stability of essence, and its inability to change into any thing but what it is. For (says he) I cannot of myself be not a reasonable creature, strengthened by increases accruing to me by nature: for I do not see the power of doing this in the nature of my father. In this way then you may hear Christ saying, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. For do not (saith He) blame the works of the Son: for He beholding, as in His Proper Thoughts or Natural Motions, the Essence of Him That begat Him; what things He seeth That Nature befittingly work, these He doeth and none other, not being able to suffer ought contrary to His Nature, by reason of His being of It. Thus, the Nature of the Father hath the Will to compassionate: the Son seeing this inherent therein, is Compassionate as being of Him by Nature, not being able to be Other than what It is. For He hath of the Father, as Essence, so the good things too of the Essence, simply that is and uncompound as God, therefore He wisely subjoins to the former words, For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise: in these words collecting, so to say, the whole meaning of His being able to do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do. But by considering the cause why the Son says these things, you will apply your mind more accurately to the things spoken by us.

When Christ showed compassion on the paralytic on the sabbath day, the Jews began trying to persecute Him. But Christ put them to shame by showing that God the Father has mercy on the sabbath day, for He did not think He should prevent things that were working toward our salvation. At the beginning He said, "My Father works until now, and I work." But when they, in their great foolishness, showed they were angry at these things, He adds again, "The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise." For since the Father does not refuse to have mercy on the sabbath day, I, seeing that He is completely full of compassion, am therefore Myself also completely compassionate, unable to cut out anew in Myself the ousia of My Father by not appearing and being such as He is by physis. For I completely work what is His, as being of Him.

When then He on the sabbath day was compassionating the paralytic, the Jews began trying to persecute Him: but Christ shames them, shewing that Grod the Father hath mercy on the sabbath day. For He did not think He ought to hinder what things were tending to our salvation. And indeed He said at the beginning, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. But when they of their great ill-counsel shewed that they were vexed at these things, He subjoins again The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. For since (saith He) the Father refuseth not to have mercy on the sabbath day, I, seeing that He is altogether full of compassion, am therefore Myself too wholly compassionate, not able to cut out anew in Myself the Essence of My Father, through not appearing and being such as He is by Nature. For I wholly work what is His, as being of Him.

But the claim that the Father comes first in the work is not free from the deepest ignorance. For how could He ever begin by Himself and alone, when He has the Son as the operative Power for all things, eternally with Him, the one who makes known His Will regarding anything and His movement toward action regarding anything? But if they ignorantly claim that He waits for the separate operation of the Father for each individual work in order to imitate it equally, let them show us that the Father worked anything separately and by Himself, or what paralytic He healed first in order to give the deed as a pattern to His Son.⁹

But the saying that the Father is antecedent in the work, is not free from the deepest unlearning. For how should He ever of Himself and alone begin, Who has the Son as the operative Power for all things, Eternally with Him, the Exponent of His Will as to ought and of His motion to operation in respect of ought. But if they uninstructedly assert that He awaits the Separate Operation of the Father for each several work, in order to imitate equally, let them shew us that the Father wrought anything separately and of Himself, or what paralytic He having first healed, hath given the deed as a pattern to His Son.⁹

Those who were carelessly blaspheming against Him because of the sabbath, Christ convicts of being foolishly worked up into pointless anger, providing the clearest proof of this by saying that He is loved by His Father. For if the Father completely loves the Son, it is obvious that He loves Him not as one who grieves Him, but rather as one who gladdens Him in what He does and accomplishes. Therefore, they persecute Him in vain when He does not refuse to show mercy on the sabbath, and by this they are again found to be opposing the decrees of God the Father. For they think they should hate the One whom He loves, but it is entirely obvious, I suppose, that He would never have loved Him if He had acted contrary to the Will of His Father and had been accustomed to do whatever He Himself willed by Himself and alone. But since He rightly loves Him, He clearly approves and agrees with the breaking of the sabbath, and shows that there is nothing in it for which God the Lord of the Law might reasonably be angry.

Those who were heedlessly blaspheming against Him by reason of the sabbath, Christ convicts of being foolishly exasperated to empty anger, making most clear proof of the matter by saying that He is loved by His Father. For if the Father wholly loveth the Son, it is plain that He loves Him not as grieving Him, but rather as gladdening Him in what He does and works. Vainly then do they persecute Him Who refuseth not to shew mercy on the sabbath, and hereby again are they found opposing the decrees of God the Father. For they think they ought to hate Him Whom He loves, but it is altogether (I suppose) manifest, that He would never have loved Him if He had gone contrary to the Will of His Father, and been accustomed to do of Himself and Alone whatsoever Himself willed. But since He justly loves, He approves, it is plain, and agrees to the breaking of the sabbath, and shews that it has nothing in respect of which God the Lord of the Law might reasonably be angry.

He necessarily adds this to what came before, and I will explain why. Fathers among us, sometimes overcome by natural affection, bear with their sons who grieve them, and when they see them attempting things against their judgment, they often allow it. For the yearning love implanted in them toward their children is strong, persuading them to overcome all pettiness of soul toward them. But God the Father does not love the Son in this way, He says. For the Son cannot do anything which the Father also does not work by nature, but as having one ousia with Him, He is called by certain physical laws, so to speak, to identical will and power. The Son, He says, does nothing contrary to what is pleasing or fitting to the Father, nor does He presume upon the Father's love, as if He were a lover of novelty in His works and unrestrained. Rather, whatever things He sees the Father doing, as in understanding, all these He performs, restrained by identity of ousia from deviating in anything that is befitting God. For He has no part in change in anything, or variability, for He remains the same unceasingly, as the Psalmist says. The Father again shows the Son what He Himself does, not as though setting before Him things depicted on a tablet, or teaching Him as though He were ignorant (for He knows all things as God), but depicting Himself wholly in the physis of His Offspring, and showing in Him His own natural properties so that from the properties by which the Father Himself is and is manifested, the Son may know what kind and who by nature the One is who begat Him. Therefore Christ says that no one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is, but the Son. For the accurate knowledge of each is in both, not by learning, but by nature. And God the Father sees the Son in Himself, and the Son again sees the Father in Himself. Therefore He says, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. But "to see" and "to be seen" must here be understood in a divine manner.

Needs does He subjoin this too to the preceding; and wherefore, I will say. Fathers who are among us, sometimes overcome by natural affection, bear with their sons grieving them, and seeing them attempt things against their judgment, they often suffer it. For vehement is the yearning love implanted in them in respect of their children persuading them to overcome all littleness of soul towards them. But not thus (saith He) does God the Father love the Son, for He cannot do anything which He too does not work by Nature, but as having One Essence with Him, He is called by certain Physical laws, so to say, to identical Will and Power. The Son then (saith He) worketh nothing contrary to what is pleasing or fitting to the Father, nor does He vaunt Himself in the love of the Father, as though a lover of novelty in His works and unbridled, but whatsoever things He sees Him doing, as in conception, all these He performeth restrained by Identity of Essence from falling aside in ought that is befitting God. For He hath no part with change in ought, or variableness: for He remaineth the Same unceasingly, as the Psalmist says. The Father again sheweth the Son what He Himself doeth, not as though setting before Him things depicted on a tablet, or teaching Him as though ignorant (for He knoweth all things as God): but depicting Himself wholly in the Nature of His Offspring, and shewing in Him His Own Natural Properties in order that from what Properties Himself is and is manifested, He may know of what kind and Who He is by nature That begat Him. Therefore Christ says, that no man knoweth Who the Son is but the Father, and Who the Father is, but the Son. For the accurate knowledge of each is in Both, not by learning, but by Nature. And God the Father seeth the Son in Himself, the Son again seeth the Father in Himself. Therefore He saith, I am in the Father and, the Father in Me. But "to see" and "to be seen" must here be conceived of after a Divine sort.

Above, the blessed Evangelist says, "The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus, because He was not only breaking the sabbath, but saying also that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God." He therefore addressed the accusation about the sabbath by showing that the Father Himself worked on the sabbath day, and spent many words on this point. And he tries to teach them that He is in Equality with the Father, even when made Man for our sakes (for this was what the argument still needed), and so He says, "And greater works than these will He shew Him that YE may marvel." And what again does He want to show us by this?

Above the blessed Evangelist says, The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus, because He was not only breaking the sabbath, but saying also that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God. He therefore put down the accusation respecting the sabbath, by shewing that the Father Himself worked on the sabbath day, and expending many words thereupon: and endeavours to teach them that He is in Equality with the Father, even when made Man for our sakes (for this was what the argument yet lacked), and therefore does He say And greater works than these will He shew Him that YE may marvel. And what again does He will to shew us hereby?

The paralytic, we are told, has been healed—a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years. The power of the One who healed him is truly marvelous, and the authority He displayed is wholly fitting for God. No one in their right mind would blame such a great miracle-worker for saying that He is God, and since He is the Son, equal in all things to the One who begot Him. But since you—He says—are harboring the most wicked and foolish thoughts and are offended because of this mortal body, you need to learn that My authority and power do not stop here. For you will be witnesses, whether you like it or not, to even greater wonders—namely, the resurrection of the dead. And you will be even more astonished when you see power and glory befitting God in Me, the One you now accuse of blasphemy and shamelessly persecute simply for saying, I am the Son of God.

The paralytic (it says) has been healed, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. And marvellous indeed the Power of Him That healed him, God-befitting exceedingly the Authority. This so great Wonderworker, no one (I suppose) in his senses would blame for saying that He is God, and since He is Son, Equal in all things to Him That begat Him. But since ye (He says) imagining things most wicked and foolish, are offended because of this mortal Body, ye must needs learn that My Authority and Power stop not here: for ye shall be, even though ye will it not, spectators of greater wonders, to wit of the resurrection of the dead, and yet more shall ye be astonished, seeing Power and Glory befitting God, in Me Whom now ye charge with blasphemy and are not ashamed to persecute, for merely saying, I am the Son of God.

But we have already explained at length how God the Father shows His works to the Son.

But how God the Father shews His Works to the Son, we have already said at much length.

See again in these words clear proof of His equality. For He who works equally with respect to reviving the dead, how can He have any inferiority? Or how shall He be of another physis and alien to the Father when He is radiant with the same properties? For the power of quickening, which is in the Father and the Son alike, is a property of the divine ousia. But the Father does not separately and by Himself quicken some, and the Son separately and apart quicken others. For the Son, having in Himself by physis the Father, means that the Father does all things and works all things through the Son. But since the Father has the power of quickening in His own physis, as the Son also has in His, He attributes the power of quickening the dead as though it belongs to each separately.

See again in these words clear proof of His Equality. For He That worketh equally in respect of the reviving of the dead, how can He have inferiority in ought? or how shall He be of another nature and alien to the Father Who is radiant with the Same Properties? For the Power of quickening, which is in the Father alike and the Son, is a Property of the Divine Essence. But the Father doth not again separately and of Himself quicken some, the Son some separately and apart: for the Son having in Himself by Nature the Father, the Father doth all things and worketh all things through the Son. But since the Father hath the Power of quickening in His Own Nature, as also Himself too, He attributes the Power of quickening the dead as though accruing to each separately.

For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son.

22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.

He introduces another God-befitting and marvelous thing, in many ways persuading them that He is God by nature and truly. For to whom else would it be fitting to judge the world, except Him alone who is God over all? The Divine Scriptures also call Him to this, saying in one place, "Arise, O God, judge the earth," and in another, "For God is the Judge; He puts down one and sets up another." But He says that judgment has been given to Him by the Father, not because He lacks authority for this, but economically as Man, teaching that all things are more fittingly referred to the Divine Nature. To this nature He Himself also belongs, not as something external, since He is Word and God, and inherently has authority over all. But insofar as He is made Man—to whom it is said, "What do you have that you did not receive?"—He fittingly acknowledges that He received it.

He introduceth another God-befitting and marvellous thing, in many ways persuading them that He is God by Nature and Verily. For to what other would it befit to judge the world, save Him Alone Who is God over all. Whom too the Divine Scriptures call to this, saying in one place, Arise, O God, judge the earth, in another again, For God is the Judge, He putteth down one and setteth up another. But He says that judgment has been given Him by the Father, not as being without authority hereto, but economically as Man, teaching that all things are more suitably referred to the Divine Nature, whereto Himself too being not external, in that He is Word and God, hath inherently authority over all; but in that He is made Man, to whom it is said, What hast thou that thou didst not receive, He fittingly acknowledges that He received it.

To these things again one of our opponents will say, "Look, the Son clearly declares that He has received judgment from the Father; but He receives (it is obvious) as one not having it. How then will He who gives with authority not be greater and of superior physis than Him who must receive?"

To these things again one of our opponents will say, "Lo, the Son evidently declares that He hath received judgement of the Father; but He receives (it is plain) aa not having. How then will not He That gives with Authority be greater and of Superior Nature to Him Who must needs receive?"

What then do we say to these things? Our prearranged argument has been, I think, skillfully managed, introducing a consideration especially fitting for the time—namely the Incarnation—and most consistent with the economy of the Flesh, when He was called a servant, when He humbled Himself, made in our likeness. But since you seem inclined to proudly dismiss the simpler teachings and to examine them more critically, come then, presenting your objections. Let us first say this: Not always, nor necessarily, sir, does the one who is said to give something impart it to the recipient as though the recipient did not have it, nor is the giver always greater than the receiver. For what will you do when you see the holy Psalmist saying in the Spirit, "Give glory to God"? Shall we conclude that God needs glory, or that we who are commanded to offer Him this are therefore greater than the Creator? But not even you will dare to say this, you who do not shrink from the fear of blasphemies. For the Godhead is full of glory, even though He does not receive it from us. For He who receives as honor what He already has as His own will never be thought inferior to those who offer Him glory as a gift. One may often see that the one who has received something is not inferior to the giver, and that the Father is not therefore of superior physis to His offspring just because He has committed all judgment to Him.

What then do we say to these things? Our prearranged argument has been, I think, not unskilfully managed, introducing a consideration specially befitting the time, to wit of the Incarnation, and most accordant with the economy of the Flesh, when He was called a servant, when He humbled Himself, made in our likeness. But since it seemeth good to thee haughtily to despise the simpler doctrines, and to make more critical examination of them, come then, opposing thy objections, let us first say, Not altogether, nor of necessity, sir, doth he that is said to give anything, impart it to the recipient as though he had it not, nor yet is the giver always greater than the receiver. For what wilt thou do, when thou seest the holy Psalmist saying in the Spirit, Give glory to God? Shall we consider that God is in need of glory, or that we who are commanded to offer Him this, are on this account greater than the Creator? But not even thou wilt dare to say this, who shunnest not the fear of blasphemies. For full of glory is the Godhead, even though It receive it not from us. For He who receives as honour, what He hath of Own, will never bo thought inferior to those who offer Him glory as a gift. One may often see that he who has received anything is not inferior to the giver, and that the Father is not therefore of Superior Nature to His offspring, because He hath committed to Him all judgment.

Next we must consider this too. To judge or to give judgment are operations and acts conceived as properties of essences rather than being truly essences themselves. For when we give judgment we do something, while being in ourselves what we are. But if we grant that judging or giving judgment belongs to the nature of an essence, how can we not be forced to admit, even against our will, that some beings cannot exist at all except as judges, and that their existence completely ceases when the judgment ends? But thinking this way is completely absurd. Judgment, then, is an operation and nothing else. What, then, has the Father entrusted to the Son? By committing all judgment to Him, the Father has not given Him any addition to His own nature, but rather an operation directed toward those who are judged. How then will the Father be greater in this, or of superior nature, by having added anything which was not already in the Son, who says, "All things that the Father has are Mine"?

Next we must consider this too. To judge or to give judgment, are rather operations and acts conceived as properties of essences than themselves truly essences. For we in giving judgment do something, being in ourselves what we are. But if we grant that judging or giving judgment is of the nature of an essence, how must we not needs grant, even against our wills, that some cannot exist at all, except as judges, and that their being wholly ceases together with the termination of the judgment? But so to think, is most absurd. Judgment then is an operation, and nothing else. What then hath the Father committed to the Son? No accession from His Own Nature, in committing all judgment to Him, but rather an operation in respect of them that are judged. How then will He herein be greater, or of Superior Nature, by having added anything which was not in the Son Who saith, All things that the Father hath are Mine?

Here is how we must now understand His giving.

How then He must be conceived of as giving, hear now.

As God the Father, possessing the power to create, creates all things through the Son as through His own power and might, so too, possessing the power to judge, He will accomplish this through the Son as His own righteousness. Just as we might say that fire entrusts burning to the activity that belongs to it by nature—understanding the matter in this way—so by interpreting "has committed" in a reverent manner, we will escape the devil's trap. But if they continue shamelessly insisting that glory is given to Him by the Father through His being revealed as Judge of the earth, let them explain to us how He can still be considered Lord of glory if He was crowned with the honors belonging to this role only in the last times.

As God the Father, having the Power to create, createth all things through the Son, as through His own Power and Might: so having the Power too to judge, He will work this too through the Son, as His Own Righteousness. As though it were said that fire too yielded up burning to the operation that is of itself by nature, the fact taking this direction: so piously interpreting, Hath committed, shall we escape the snare of the devil. But if they persist in shamelessly asserting that glory is added to Him of the Father, through His being manifested Judge of the earth, let them teach us, how He is any longer to be considered Lord of glory, Who in the last times was crowned with the honours hereunto pertaining.

All people should honor the Son in the same way they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

23 That all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father: he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father Which sent Him.

A cause and reason for what has already been described is now clear: the Son ought to be honored in equality and likeness with the Father. If we briefly summarize and recall what came before, you will see clearly the meaning of this passage. He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then He began showing that He was of equal strength and skill, saying, "For whatever things He does, these the Son likewise does." That He is both Life and Life-giving by nature, just as is the One who begot Him, He showed plainly by adding, "For as the Father raises up the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He wills." And that He will also be Judge of all, with the Father fully approving and consenting in all things, He declared by saying, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son." What then is the reason for these things? What led the Only-Begotten to say all this? It was so that all people, He says, should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. For if He has all things that the Father has, as far as concerns God-befitting dignity, how is it not fitting that He to whom nothing is lacking for identity of ousia should be crowned with equal honors with Him? What then do those who pervert all justice say to this as well, as the Prophet Isaiah says?

A cause and reason of the things already enumerated, is now evident, viz., that the Son ought to be honoured in Equality and likeness with the Father. For recapitulating a little, and carried back to a recollection of the preceding, you will view accurately the force of the passage. He said then that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God; then again He began shewing that He was of Equal strength and skill, saying, For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. That He is both Life and Life-giving by Nature, as is He too Who begat Him, He shewed plainly, adding, For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son too quick-eneth whom He will. But that He will be also Judge of all, the Father in all things co-approving and consenting, He declared, saying, For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. What then is the cause of these things? what induced the Only-Begotten to say all this? That all men (He saith) should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. For if He hath all things whatever the Father hath, as far as appertains to God-befitting Dignity, how is it not fitting that He to Whom nothing is lacking to Identity of essence should be crowned with equal honours with Him? What then do they say to this too who pervert all equity, as saith the Prophet Isaiah?

If he says that because of the statement "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father," you suppose that one ought to magnify the Son with equal honours as the Father, you do not know that you are going far astray from the truth. For the word "as" does not always introduce equality of actions regarding the things it is attached to, but often indicates a kind of likeness, just as he says the Saviour counsels, saying, "Be therefore merciful as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful." Shall we then be as merciful as the Father, because of the "as"? And again Christ says to His Father concerning His disciples: "You have loved them as You have loved Me." But we will not grant that the disciples are loved just as the Son, because of the "as." Why then do you multiply words and twist what is said into blasphemy, even though it introduces no requirement on the hearers to honour the Son in equal measure with the Father?

"If (he says) by reason of its being said, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, ye suppose that one ought to magnify the Son with equal honours with the Father, ye know not that ye are stepping far away from the truth. For the word As does not altogether introduce equality of acts, in respect of those things it is affixed to, but often marks out a kind of likeness, just as (he says) the Saviour counsels, saying, Be ye therefore merciful as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful. Shall we then be as merciful as the Father, on account of the as? And again Christ says to His Father of His disciples: Thou hast loved them, AS Thou hast loved Me. But we will not grant that the disciples are loved just as the Son, on account of the as. Why then dost thou multiply words, and distort what is said into blasphemy, though it introduces no obligation on the hearers to honour the Son in equal measure with the Father?"

How should we respond to these things? Those who fight against God bark at us with bitter words, but as Paul says, outside are dogs, outside are evil workers, outside the right faith are those who mutilate the flesh. We are children of the truth and children of the light. Therefore we will glorify the Only-Begotten together with God the Father, not with any difference, but in equality of honor and glory, as God of God, and Light of Light, and Life of Life. While excessive investigation into what should be received by faith is not without danger, we must still examine the force of the word "as," so our opponents won't be overconfident in their own ideas. When "as" is applied to things unlike in their physis, it doesn't introduce absolute equality, but rather likeness and resemblance, as you yourselves acknowledged above. But when it's applied to things that are like one another in all respects, it shows equality in all things and similarity and whatever else has the same force as these. For example, if I say the sun in heaven is bright, and silver from the earth is also bright, the physis of these things is different. Suppose a rich man says to his household servants, "Let the silver shine as the sun." In this case we would rightly say that earthly material doesn't reach the same brightness as the sun, but only a certain likeness and resemblance, even though the word "as" is used. But consider Peter and John from among the holy disciples, who fail in neither physis nor piety toward God to be accurately alike. If "as" is applied, with someone saying, "Let John be honored by all, as Peter is," will "as" here be powerless, so that equal honor should not be paid to both? I don't think anyone would say such a thing, for he would see that nothing prevents it.

What then is our answer to these things? With bitter words do the fighters against God bay at us, but without are dogs, as Paul saith, without are evil workers, without the right faith are the concision. For we are sons of the truth and children of the light. Therefore we will glorify the Only-Begotten together with God the Father, not with any difference, but in equality of honour and glory, as God of God, and Light of Light, and Life of Life. And overmuch enquiry into what is to be received as faith, is not without hazard: nevertheless we must test the force of the As, lest our opponents be overwise in their own conceits. When therefore As is applied to things unlike in their nature, it does not wholly introduce absolute equality, but rather likeness and resemblance, as ye yourselves acknowledged above; but when it is applied to things in all respects like to one another, it shews equality in all things and similitude and whatever else is found to have the same force with these. Just as if I say, Bright is the sun in Heaven, bright too is silver which is of the earth, yet is the nature of the things mentioned diverse. Let any of the rich, of the earth, be supposed to say to his household servants, Let the silver shine as the sun. In this case we very justly say that earthly matter attains not to equal brightness with the sun, but to a certain likeness and resemblance, although the word As be used of it. But let Peter and John (suppose) of the holy disciples be brought forward, who both in respect of nature and of piety towards God, fail not of an accurate likeness one to another, let the As be applied, some one saying of them, as here, Let John be honoured by all, even as Peter, will the As here be powerless, so that equal honour ought not to be paid to both? But I do not suppose that any one will say such a thing: for he will see that there is nothing to prevent it.

Following this line of reasoning, when the "as" is applied to both the Father and the Son, why should we hesitate to crown both with equal honors? For He, having considered beforehand as God what was to come, and having carefully observed the envious opposition arising from your ignorance, introduced the "as" not bare and stripped of its proper support, but having first strengthened it with appropriate proofs. He showed in advance that He is God by physis (for He made God His Father). He again demonstrated beforehand that He is both God the Creator and truly Life, and having first presented Himself as fully rejoicing (so to speak) in the attributes of God the Father, He then fittingly adds: "That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father too." What objection remains then? What is there to prevent Him, in Whom the properties and excellencies of the Father exist essentially, from attaining an equal degree of honor? For we would be honoring the very physis of God the Father, which shines forth perfectly in the Son. Therefore He continues: "He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which sent Him." For the charge of dishonoring the Son, and the force of blasphemy against Him, will rise up to none other more truly than the Father Himself, Who brought forth the Son, as it were, from the fountain of His own physis, even though He is seen throughout all of Holy Scripture as being eternally with Him.

According to this analogy of idea, when the As is applied to the Father and the Son, why should we shrink from crowning Both with equal honours? For He having considered before, as God, things to come, and having carefully viewed the envious opposition of thine unlearning hath brought in the As, not bare and bereft of the aid befitting it, but having strengthened it beforehand with convenient proofs, and shewn afore that He is God by Nature (for He made God His Father): having again fore-shewn that He is both God the Creator and of a truth Life, and having before introduced Himself, altogether glorying (so to say) in the Attributes of God the Father,—-He afterwards seasonably subjoins That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father too. Then what objection still appears, what is there to hinder, that He, in Whom are Essentially the Properties and excellencies of the Father, should attain to an equal degree of honour? for we shall be found honouring the very Nature of God the Father, full well beaming forth in the Son. Wherefore He proceeds, He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent Him. For the charge of dishonouring the Son, and the force of blasphemy against Him, will mount up unto none other more truly than the Father Himself, Who put forth the Son as it were from the Fount of His Own Nature, even though He be seen throughout the whole Holy Scriptures as everlastingly with Him.

Yes, says the opponent, let the charge of dishonoring the Son fall wherever you like, or rather let it reach even to God the Father Himself. For He will be angry, and rightly so, yet not entirely because His very Nature has been insulted in the Son—according to the argument we have just carefully completed—but since He is His Image and Impress, formed most excellently after His Divine and Ineffable ousia, He is rightly angry and will completely transfer the wrong to Himself. For it would indeed be most absurd if someone who insulted the Divine Images should not surely pay the penalty for his sin against the Archetype. Just as someone who has insulted the images of earthly kings is punished as though he had indeed transgressed against the ruler himself. And in the same way we shall find it decreed by God concerning ourselves also, for Whoever sheds man's blood, for his blood shall he be poured forth, because in the Image of God He made man. So do you see very clearly from this, he says, that if the Image is wronged—and not the Divine Nature itself—God the Father still deems it right to be angry? In this way then, let what Christ said be understood and applied: He that honors not the Son, neither does he honor the Father.

"Yea (saith the opponent) let the charge from dishonouring the Son go to whatsoever you please, or rather let it reach even unto God the Father Himself. For He will be angry, and that with reason, yet not wholly so, as though His Very Nature were insulted in the Son, according to our just now carefully finished argument, but since He is His Image and Impress, formed most excellently after His Divine and Ineffable Essence, He is with reason angry, and will wholly transfer the wrong to Himself. For it were indeed most absurd, that he who insulted the Divine Impresses, should not surely pay the penalty of his sin against the Archetype. Just as he who has in-suited the images of earthly kings, is punished as having indeed transgressed against the ruler himself. And in like manner shall we find it decreed by God in respect of ourselves also: for Whoso (saith He) sheddeth man's blood, for his blood shall he be poured forth: because in the Image of God He made man. Seest thou then hereby very clearly (saith he) that if the Image be wronged, and not altogether the Divine Nature, God the Father deems it right to be angry? In this way then let that which is said by Christ be conceived of and adapted, He that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father."

Shall the Only Begotten then be classed with us as outside the ousia of the Father? How then will He still be God by nature, if He slips completely out of the bounds of the Godhead and exists in some nature of His own that is different from the one the Father is in? And it seems we do wrong in bringing the order of the Holy Trinity into one reckoning of Godhead. We ought, we really ought, to worship the Father as God, to grant some glory of their own to the Son and the Spirit, separating them into different natures and defining separately for each the mode of His existence. Yet the Divine Scriptures declare to us One God, placing with the Father the Son and the Spirit, so that through their essential and exact sameness the Holy Trinity is brought into one reckoning of Godhead. The Only-Begotten is not then alien from the nature of the One who begot Him, but neither will He be understood as Son in truth if He did not beam forth from the ousia of the Father (for this and nothing else is the definition and mode of true sonship in all cases). But if there is no Son, God's being Father will be completely taken away as well. How then will Paul be speaking the truth when he says of Him, from whom every family in heaven and earth is named? For if He has not begotten from Himself in a God-befitting manner the Son, how shall the beginning of Fatherhood be in Him, extending by imitation to those who are in heaven and earth? But God is in truth Father. Therefore the Only-Begotten is by nature Son, and is certainly within the bounds of the Divinity. For God will be begotten of God just as man is begotten of man (for example), and the nature of God the Father, which transcends all things, will not err by bearing fruit unfitting to it.

Shall then the Only Begotten be classed with us as external to the Essence of the Father? how then will He yet be God by Nature, if He altogether slip out of the bounds of the Godhead, situate in some nature of his own and of other sort than that wherein the Father is? and we do wrong, it seems, in bringing into one count of Godhead, the order of the Holy Trinity. We ought, we ought at length to worship the Father as God, to impart some glory of Their Own to the Son and the Spirit, severing them as it were into different natures, and defining severally to Each the mode of His Existence. Yet do the Divine Scriptures declare unto us One God, classing with the Father the Son and the Spirit, so that through Their Essential and exact sameness the Holy Trinity is brought unto one count of Godhead. The Only-Begotten is not then alien from the Nature of Him who begat Him, but neither will He be a whit conceived of as Son in truth, if He beamed not forth from the Essence of the Father (for this and no other is the definition and mode of true son ship in all) but if there be no Son, God's being Father will be wholly taken away too. How then will Paul be true in saying of Him, Of Whom every family in Heaven and earth is named? For if He have not begotten of Himself in God-befitting manner the Son, how shall the beginning of Fatherhood be in Him, going through in imitation to those who are in Heaven and earth? But God is in truth Father: the Only-Begotten therefore is by Nature Son, and is of a surety within the bounds of the Divinity. For God will be begotten of God even as man (for example) of man, and the Nature of God the Father, Which transcends all things, will not err by bearing fruit not befitting It.

But since some blasphemously and foolishly say that it is not the physis of God the Father that is insulted in the Son when He does not receive due honor from anyone, but that the Father is reasonably and rightly angry at His own Image being dishonored in Him, we must ask them in what sense they understand the Son to be and be called the Image of the Father. Better yet, let us anticipate their explanation and determine beforehand the nature of the Image according to sound reasoning, for this way the result of our investigation will be clear and more distinct. Therefore, one and the first type of image is that of sameness of nature in properties that are exactly alike, as Abel is of Adam, or Isaac of Abraham. The second type consists in likeness of imprint and accurate impression of form, as the king's depiction in wood or made in any other way, most excellently and skillfully, in relation to him. Another image is understood in respect to habits and manners and conduct and inclination toward either good or bad—for instance, it may be said that the one who does good is like Paul, while the one who does not is like Cain (for being equally good or bad produces likeness to either one, and reasonably confers it). Another form of image is that of dignity and honor and glory and excellence, as when one person, for instance, succeeds another in a command and does all things with the authority that belongs to and befits him. An image in yet another sense relates to any quality or quantity of a thing, and its outline and proportion—for we must speak briefly.

But since some blasphemously and foolishly say, that it is not the Nature of God the Father That is insulted in the Son, when He does not receive due honour from any, but that He is angry reasonably and rightly, at His Own Image being dishonoured in Him; we must ask them in what sense they would have the Son be and be called the Image of the Father. Yea rather let us forestalling their account, determine beforehand the Nature of the Image, according to legitimate reasoning: for so will the result of our enquiries be clear and more distinct. Therefore one and the first mode of image is that of sameness of nature in properties exactly alike, as Abel of Adam, or Isaac of Abraham: the second again is that consisting in likeness of impress, and accurate impression of form, as the King's delineation in wood, or made in any other way, most excellently and skilfully, as respects him. Another image again is taken in respect of habits and manners, and conversation and inclination to either good or bad, as for instance it may be said that the well-doer is like Paul, him that is not so like Cain (for the being equally good or bad, works likeness with either, and with reason confers it) Another form of image is, that of dignity and honour and glory and excellence, as when one for instance succeeds another in a command, and does all things with the authority which belongs to and becomes him. An image in another sense, is in respect of any either quality or quantity of a thing, and its outline and proportion: for we must speak briefly.

Let the most careful investigators of the Divine Image teach us whether they think we should attribute to the Only-Begotten the Essential and Natural Likeness, and thus say that the Only-Begotten Word proceeding from the Father is an Image of Him in the same sense that Abel is of Adam, who retained in himself the whole physis of his parent and bore the full account of human physis? Or will they be troubled by this, compelled to confess the Son truly God of God by physis, and turning aside as is their custom to fight against the truth, move to the second kind of image, which is understood to exist in mere form, impress, and outline? But I suppose they will shrink from saying this. For no one, even if he is a great talker, will suppose that the Godhead can be measured in terms of size, or bounded by outline, or defined by impress, or that the Unembodied will fully experience what belongs to bodies. Do they say then that He is conformed to Him in respect of manners and habits and will, and are they not ashamed to clothe Him in this image? For how is He yet to be understood as God by physis, who has Likeness to Him in will only, but has another Being separately of Himself? For they will surely acknowledge that He subsists. Then what does He have that is more than the creature? For shall we not believe that the angels themselves hasten to perform the Divine Will, who are by physis other than God? But what about when this is understood as belonging to us too? For does not the Only-Begotten teach us foolishly to jump at things above our physis and to aim at impossibilities, saying, Be merciful, as your Father also who is in Heaven is merciful? For this would undoubtedly be to say that we ought to gain the likeness of the Father by identity of will. And Paul too was an imitator of Christ, who is (as they babble) the Image of the Father in will only. But they will shift their ground (I suppose) from these miserable ideas, and as though thinking something greater and better, will surely say this: "The Only-Begotten is the Image of God the Father in respect of identity of will, in respect of God-befitting Dignity and Glory and Power, in respect of Operation in creation and working miracles, in respect of reigning and ruling over all, in respect of judging and being worshipped by angels and men and in short by all creation. By all these He showing us the Father in Himself says that He is not of His prosopon, but is the Impress of His prosopon." Therefore, as we said just now, the Son is none of these by physis, but is altogether separate from all of them according at least to your most foolish reasoning, and is neither Very God, nor Son, nor King, nor Lord, nor Creator, nor Mighty, nor in respect of His own Will is He by physis Good: but in boasts solely and only of what is God-befitting is He seen. And as is the application of colors to paintings on tablets, beautifying them by the variety to the eye, but having nothing true: so as to the Son too, the beauty of the Excellencies of God the Father adorns Him with bare names only, but is as it were applied from outside like certain colors: indeed the Divine physis is outlined in Him and appears in bare type.

Let then the most critical investigators of the Divine Image teach us, whether they think one ought to attribute to the Only-Begotten the Essential and Natural Likeness, and thus say that the Only-Begotten Word proceeding from the Father is an Image of Him in the same sense as Abel is of Adam, who retained in himself the whole nature of his parent, and bore the count of human nature all-complete? or will they be vexed at this, compelled to confess the Son truly God of God by Nature, and turning aside according to their custom to fight against the truth, advance to the second kind of image, which is conceived to exist in mere form, impress and outline? But I suppose they will shrink from saying this. For no one, even if he be a very prater, will suppose that the Godhead can be estimated in respect of size, or circumscribed by outline, or meted by impress, or that the Unembodied will wholly undergo what belongs to bodies. Do they say then that He is conformed to Him in respect of manners and habits and will, and are they not ashamed to dress Him in this image? for how is He yet to be conceived of as God by Nature, Who has Likeness to Him in will only, but has another Being separately of Himself? For they will surely acknowledge that He subsists. Then what is there in Him more than in the creature? For shall we not believe that the angels themselves hasten to perform the Divine Will, who are by nature other than God? But what, when this is conceived of as belonging to us too? for does not the Only-Begotten teach us foolishly to jump at things above our nature, and to aim at impossibilities, saying, Be ye merciful, as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful? For this were undoubtedly to say that we ought to gain the likeness of the Father by identity of will. And Paul too was an imitator of Christ, of the (as they babbling say) Image of the Father in will only. But they will shift their ground (I suppose) from these miserable conceptions, and as though thinking something greater and better, will surely say this, "The Only-Begotten is the Image of God the Father, in respect of identity of will, in respect of God-befitting Dignity and Glory and Power, in respect of Operation in creation and working miracles, in respect of reigning and ruling over all, in respect of judging and being worshipped by angels and men and in short by all creation. By all these He shewing us the Father in Himself, says that He is not of His Person, but is the Impress of His Person." Therefore as we said just now, the Son is none of these by nature, but is altogether separate from all of them according at least to your most foolish reasoning, and is neither Very God, nor Son, nor King, nor Lord, nor Creator, nor Mighty, nor in respect of His own "Will is He by Nature Good: but in boasts solely and only of what is God-befitting is He seen. And as is the application of tints to paintings on tablets, beautifying them by the variety to the eye, but having nothing true: so as to the Son too, the beauty of the Excellencies of God the Father decks Him around with bare names only, but is as it were applied from without like certain tints: yea rather the Divine Nature is outlined in Him, and appears in bare type.

Next, how will you not be shown to be fighting directly against all the holy Scriptures, so that you may justly hear, "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you too"? For when do they not call the Son truly God, or when do they declare Him to be from the ousia of His Father? Which of them has dared to say that He is by physis neither Creator nor King nor Almighty nor worthy to be worshipped? The divine Psalmist says concerning the Only-Begotten Himself, "Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Thomas, the most wise disciple, likewise calls Him both God and Lord. He is called Almighty and Creator by every voice of the saints, and as having—not according to you—the dignity from outside, but as being by physis what He is said to be, and therefore He is worshipped both by the holy angels and by us, even though the divine Scripture says that we ought to worship none other save the Lord God alone.

Next, how will ye not be shewn to be fighting outright with all the holy Scriptures, that ye may with justice hear, Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE are always resisting the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do YE too, for when do they not call the Son Very God, or when do they bear Him forth from the Essence of His Father? which of them has dared to say that He is by Nature neither Creator nor King nor Almighty nor to be worshipped? For the Divine Psalmist says as to the Only-Begotten Himself, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: Thomas again the most wise disciple in like wise calls Him God alike and Lord. He is called Almighty and Creator by every voice of saint, and as having not according to you the Dignity from without, but as being by Nature what He is said to be, and therefore is He worshipped both by the holy Angels and by us, albeit the Divine Scripture says that we ought to worship none other, save the Lord God Alone.

If they believe that the dignity befitting God in Him is something acquired and given, and they think they should worship such a one, let them understand that they are worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, and making for themselves a new and different God, rather than acknowledging Him who truly is God by physis. But if, while saying that the Son is external to the ousia of God the Father, they still acknowledge Him to be Son and Very God and King and Lord and Creator, and to have essentially in Himself the properties and excellencies of the Father, let them see where the reasoning of those who think this way will lead. For nothing at all will be found to be certain about faith in the Divine Nature, since the physis of created things would then also be capable of being whatever it is conceived to be. For it has been proved according to the extremely weak reasoning of our opponents that the Only-Begotten, while not being of the Divine Nature, nevertheless truly has Its excellencies in Himself. Who will not shudder at merely hearing the blasphemy of these doctrines? For everything is now overturned when the Nature that is above all things descends so as to be classified with created things, and creation itself unreasonably rises up to the measure above it, which was not designed for it.

If then they hold that the God-befitting Dignity in Him is acquired and given, and think that they ought to worship such an one, let them know that they are worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and making out to themselves a new and fresh God, rather than acknowledging Him Who is really so by Nature. But if while they say that the Son is external to the Essence of God the Father, they yet acknowledge Him to be Son and Very God and King and Lord and Creator, and to have Essentially in Himself the Properties and Excellencies of the Father, let them see whither there is risk that the end of those who thus think will be. For nothing at all will be found of sure faith in the Divine Nature, since the nature of things originate also is now capable of being whatever It is conceived to be. For it has been proved according to the most feeble reasoning of our opponents, that the Only-Begotten not being of the Divine Nature, hath yet truly in Himself Its Excellencies. Who will not shudder at the mere hearing the blasphemy of the doctrines? For all things are now overturned, when the Nature That is above all things descendeth so as to be classed with things originate, and the creation itself contrary to reason springs up to the measure above it, and not designed for it.

Therefore let us swim away from the absurdity of such doctrines, as from a ship sinking in the sea, and hasten to the Truth as to a secure and calm harbor. Let us acknowledge the Son to be the Image of God the Father, not plastered over, so to speak, with perishable honors, nor merely adorned with God-befitting titles, but Essentially Exact according to the likeness of His Father, and unchangeably being by physis what He who begat Him is understood to be—namely, Very God of God in truth, Almighty, Creator, Glorified, Good, to be worshipped, and whatever else may be added to the things listed as befitting God. For then, showing Him to be Like in all things to God the Father, we shall also show Him to be true when we say that if anyone will not honor the Son, neither does he honor the Father who has sent Him. For this was the origin of our inquiry and the test of the things we have just now investigated.

Therefore let us swimming away from the absurdity of such doctrines, as from a ship sinking in the sea, hasten to the Truth, as to a secure and unruffled haven, and let us ackowledge the Son to be the Image of God the Father, not plaistered over so to say with perishable honours, nor adorned merely with God-befitting titles, but Essentially Exact according to the likeness of His Father, and unalterably being by Nature That which He That begat Him is conceived to be, to wit Very God of God in truth, Almighty, Creator, Glorified, Good, to be worshipped, and whatever may be added to the things enumerated as befitting God. For then shewing Him to be Like in all things to God the Father, we shall also shew Him true, in saying that if any will not honour the Son, neither doth he honour the Father Which hath sent Him: for as to this our enquiry and the test of the things just now investigated had its origin.

Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears My Word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

24 Verily verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth on Him That sent Me, hath everlasting Life, and cometh not into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

Having now sufficiently proved by what he has said before that the miserable Jews sin not only against the Son by daring to criticize the things he says or does among them in his teaching, but also unknowingly transgress against the Father himself, and having, as far as the force of his words allows, wrapped their overconfidence in fear and persuaded them to live more devoutly in hope of things to come, he finally draws them toward obedience. And he skillfully shaped his words to this purpose once again. For since he knew that the Jews were still sick with unbelief and still offended at him, he again directs their faith back to the person of God the Father—not to exclude himself, but because he is honored in the Father as well by reason of identity of ousia. For he declares that those who believe will not only share in eternal life but will also escape the danger of condemnation by being justified, thus presenting fear mixed with hope. For in this way he could make his message more powerful and more convincing to his hearers.

Having now proved sufficiently by the foregoing, that the miserable Jews sin not against the Son only, by daring to find fault with the things which He says or does among them in His teaching, but do also ignorantly transgress against the Father Himself, and having as far as pertains to the force of what has been said, wrapped about their over-confidence with fear, and persuaded them to live more religiously in hope of things to come, He at length snares them to obedience. And not unskilfully again did He frame His speech to this end. For since He knew that the Jews were still diseased, and yet offended concerning Him, He again brings back their faith to the Person of God the Father, not as excluding Himself, but as honoured in the Father too by reason of Identity of Essence. For He affirms that they who believe shall not only be partakers of eternal life, but also shall escape the peril of the condemnation, being justified, that is: holding forth fear mixed with hope. For thus could He make His discourse more efficacious and more demonstrative to the hearers.

Having said that believers shall pass from death to life, He introduces Himself as the one who performs the promise and accomplishes the whole thing. He is partly hinting to the Jews that the power shown in the case of the paralytic is truly marvelous, but that the Son will be revealed as one who does even more glorious works, driving away from human bodies not only sickness and the weaknesses of diseases, but also overthrowing death and the heavily pressing corruption (for this is what was said a little before: "The Father loves the Son and shows Him all things that He Himself does, and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel," for the greater wonder is shown in the raising of the dead). He is also partly preparing the way for what would probably frighten the hearers to no small degree. For He plainly declares that He will raise the dead and will bring the creation to judgment, so that through the expectation of one day being brought before Him and giving account of everything, they might be found less bold in their daring to persecute Him, and might receive the word of teaching and guidance more eagerly.

Having said that believers shall pass from death to life, He introduces Himself as Performer of the promise, and Accomplisher of the whole thing, partly hinting to the Jews, that marvellous in truth is the Power shewn in the case of the paralytic, but that the Son will be revealed as a Worker of things yet more glorious, driving away from the bodies of men not only sickness and the infirmities of diseases, but also overthrowing death and the heavily-pressing corruption (for this was what was said a little before, The Father loveth the Son and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth and greater works than these will He shew Him, that YE may marvel; for the greater wonder is shewn in the raising of the dead), partly also preparing the way for that which would probably in no slight degree affright the hearers. For He plainly declares that He will raise the dead, and will bring the creature to judgment, that through the expectation of one day being brought before Him and giving account of everything, they might be found more backward in their daring to persecute Him, and might receive more zealously the word of teaching and guidance.

The chapter aims at and points toward these things, but we must now explain the words themselves. The common interpretation seems to be that a time will come when the dead will hear the voice of the one who raises them. People suppose this time is already present, either when Lazarus, for example, hears the Savior's voice, or when referring to the dead as those not yet called through faith to eternal life, who will certainly attain it by receiving the Savior's teaching. This way of understanding it does appear plausible, but it is not at all accurate. Therefore, by carefully considering the meaning of the words again, we will assign a more suitable interpretation and explain the passage this way:

To these things then the aim of the chapter looks and tends: but we must now explain the words. The common account then is (as it seems) that the time will come, when the dead shall hear the Voice of Him That raiseth them: and they suppose that it is now too no less present, either as when Lazarus for instance is to hear the Voice of the Saviour, or as saying that the dead are those not yet called through faith unto eternal life, who will surely attain unto it, by having received the doctrine of the Saviour. And this method of considering it does indeed preserve a plausible appearance, but accuracy not at all. Wherefore ruminating again the force of the words, we will affix a more suitable sense, and thus open the reading:

By the words at the beginning, He means the time of the resurrection, in which He teaches through the word of the Judge that those who sleep shall rise again to give account for their life in the world. As I said before, He devises the fear arising from this as a bridle to persuade them to live excellently and wisely. By the closing words He shows that the proper time of believing has now come, and He also says that everlasting life will be the reward of obedience. He is all but declaring: You shall all come to judgment, sirs, that is at the time of the Resurrection, but if it seems bitter to you to be punished and to undergo endless penalties at the hand of the offended Judge, do not let the time of obedience pass by. Instead, lay hold of it while it is still present and hasten to attain everlasting life.

Verily verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Voice of the Son of God; the hour again that is, when they that hear shall live. By the words then in the beginning, He means the time of the resurrection, wherein He teaches through the word of the Judge that they that sleep shall rise again to answer for their life in the world, that as I said before, devising the fear thence arising as a bridle, He might persuade them to live full excellently and wisely: by the closing words He shews that the due time of believing is now come, but also says that everlasting life will be the reward of obedience: all but declaring, Ye shall all come to judgement, sirs, that is at the time of the Resurrection, but if it seem bitter to you to be punished, and to undergo endless penalties at the hand of the offended Judge, suffer not the time of obedience to pass by, but laying hold of it while yet present, haste ye to attain to everlasting life.

For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself, and gave Him authority to execute judgment as well, because He is the Son of Man.

26, 27 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so gave He to the Son too to have life in Himself, and gave Him authority to execute judgment also because He is the Son of Man.

Notice once more the economy in these words, so that you may marvel at how they are expressed and not bring destruction upon yourself by taking offense through ignorance. For the Only-Begotten, being human with respect to the physis of His Body, and appearing as one of us while still on earth in the flesh, repeatedly instructed the Jews in matters of salvation, clothing Himself with the glory of two things befitting God. For He clearly stated that He would both raise the dead and set them at His judgment seat to be judged. But it was highly likely that His hearers would be upset by this, rightly accusing Him because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Therefore, having mixed language fitting to human nature with the authority and splendor befitting God, He softens the force of their anger, speaking more modestly and humbly than was necessary: For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son too to have life in Himself. Do not be amazed (He says) if I, Who am now like you and am seen as a human being, promise to raise the dead and threaten to bring them to judgment: the Father has given Me power to give life, He has given Me authority to judge. But when He had thus healed the easily offended ear of the Jews, He also takes careful measures for the benefit of what follows, and immediately explaining why He says that He has received it, He points out that human nature has nothing of itself, saying, Because He is the Son of Man.

Observe again the economy in these words, that thou mayest marvel at the form of expression and not, by falling into offence thereat from ignorance, bring upon thyself perdition. For the Only-Begotten, being Man in respect of the nature of His Body, and seen as one of us while yet upon the earth with flesh, manifoldly instructing the Jews in matters pertaining to salvation, clothed Himself with the glory of two God-befitting things. For He clearly affirmed, that He would both raise the dead, and set them at His Judgement-seat to be judged. But it was extremely likely that the hearers would be vexed at this, accusing Him with reason, because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Having mingled therefore with God-befitting Authority and Splendour language befitting the human nature, He beguiles the weight of their wrath, saying more modestly and lowlily than was necessary, For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son too to have life in Himself. Marvel not (saith He) if I, Who am now as you, and am seen as a Man, promise to raise the dead, and threaten to bring them to judgement: the Father hath given Me Power to quicken, He hath given Me to judge with authority. But when He had hereby healed the readily-slipping ear of the Jews, He bestows zealous care for the profit too of what follows, and immediately explaining why He says that He hath received it, He alleges that human nature hath nothing of itself, saying, Because He is the Son of Man.

Since we spent considerable time discussing this at the beginning of the book when examining the words "In Him was Life," I think it would be redundant to explain now that the Only Begotten is also Life by nature—not a partaker of life from another—and that He gives life just as the Father does.

For that the Only Begotten is also Life by Nature, and not a partaker of life from another, and so quickeneth as doth the Father, I think it superfluous to say now, since no small discourse was expended hereupon in the beginning of the book, upon the words, In Him was Life.

Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the graves will hear His voice and will come out. Those who have done good will rise to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment.

28, 29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His Voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of doom.

He signifies by these words the time of the resurrection of all, when, as the divine Paul wrote to us, the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a summons, with the voice of the Archangel, with the trumpet of God, to judge the world in righteousness and render to every person according to their works. Therefore, by repeating the same things, He guides the most unlearned understanding of the Jews so they can clearly grasp that He will accomplish greater deeds than those concerning the paralytic, and that He will be revealed as Judge of the world. By usefully contrasting the healing of one sick person with the resurrection of the dead, He shows that the work which undoes death and destroys the corruption of all is greater and more noteworthy. Reasonably and necessarily, then, regarding the lesser miracle, He says, Marvel not at this. Let us not at all suppose that by these words He means to criticize the glory of His own works or to command His hearers that they should not consider worthy of wonder those things at which one may reasonably wonder. Rather, He wants those who were astonished at that healing to know and believe that what they had witnessed was still a small matter worthy of wonder. For by a word and a God-befitting work, He raises not only the sick from minor diseases but also those who have already been submerged by death and overcome by invincible corruption. Therefore, introducing the greater work, He says, The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear His Voice. For He who by a Word brought into being things that were not—how could He not be able to restore to being that which was already created? For in this way each will be the effect of the same work and the glorious production of one Authority. And He profitably adds that they shall come forth from their graves: those held by base deeds and who lived in wickedness will undergo endless punishment, while those illustrious in virtue will receive the reward of their godliness, eternal life. At the same time, as we said above, He presents Himself as the One who distributes what belongs to each through these words of His, and He persuades them either through fear of suffering dreadful punishments to abandon evil and hasten to choose to live more soberly, or, pricked with some kind of desire for eternal life, to make more zealous and eager progress toward good.

He signifies by these words the time of the resurrection of all, when, as the Divine Paul wrote to us, The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a summons, with the voice of the Archangel, with the trump of God, to judge the world in righteousness, and render to every man according to his works. He leads therefore by repetition of the same things the most unlearned understanding of the Jews, to be able clearly to understand, that He will be a Worker of greater deeds than those in which the paralytic was concerned, and that He will be revealed as a Judge of the world: and by profitably contrasting the healing of one sick person with the resurrection of the dead, He shews that greater and more noteworthy is the operation that undoes death and destroys the corruption of all, and reasonably and of necessity says, in respect of the lesser miracle, Marvel not at this. And let us not at all suppose that by these words He means to find fault with the glory of His own works, or to enjoin the hearers that they ought not to hold worthy of wonder, those things whereat one may reasonably wonder, but He wishes those who were astonished at that to know and believe that the subject of wonder as yet was small. For He raiseth by a word and God-befitting Operation not only the sick from little diseases, but those also who have been already submerged by death and overcome by invincible corruption. And hence introducing the greater, He says, The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear His Voice. For He who by a Word brought into being things that were not, how should He not be able to win back into being that which was already created? For thus each will be the effect of the same Operation, and the glorious production of one Authority. And profitably does He subjoin that they shall come forth of their graves, they that were holden of base deeds and that lived in wickedness to undergo endless punishment, the illustrious in virtue to receive the reward of their religiousness, eternal life: at once (as we said above) introducing Himself as the Dispenser of what belongs to each, in these words of His; and persuading them, either from fear of suffering dreadful punishments, to forego evil and to hasten to elect to live more soberly, or pricked with desire after some sort for eternal life, make more zealous and eager haste after good.

I can do nothing by myself: as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.

30 I can of Mine Own Self do nothing: as I hear, I judge, and My Judgment is just, because 1 seek not Mine Own Will, but the Will of the Father Which sent Me.

Give more careful attention again to what is said, and receive the force of its meaning with understanding. For the Jews did not know the deep mystery of the incarnation, nor did they acknowledge the Word of God dwelling in the temple of the Virgin. They were often stirred up by zeal that was misguided and not according to knowledge, as Paul says, to savage behavior and fierce anger. Indeed, they were attempting to stone Him because He, being a Man, was making Himself God, and again because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. But since they were so dull in understanding and utterly unable to endure words befitting God, and both thought and spoke poorly of Him, the Savior acts the child with them by way of economy and made His explanation a mixed one. He neither completely abandoned words befitting God nor altogether rejected human language. Instead, having said something worthy of His divine authority, He immediately restrains the untrained mind of His hearers by bringing in something human as well. And again, having said something human because of the economy, He does not allow what belongs to Him to be seen only in a lowly state, often showing by His superhuman power and words that He is by physis God. You will find this same kind of approach now in the passage presently before us. For what did He say before? "For as the Father raises up the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He will." And next again, "For the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear His voice." And besides this, that they shall also come forth to be judged and to receive their reward according to their works. But He who says He can give life to whom He will, and in the same manner as the Father—how can He not be understood as clothed with power befitting God? He who openly says that He will be Judge of all—how can He not justly terrify those who think that He is merely a man? For it was likely that they, being Hebrews and instructed in the Sacred Writings, should not be entirely ignorant that God will be Judge of the world, since they too often sang, "Arise, O God, judge the earth," and again, "For God is the Judge."

Give more exact heed again to the things said, and receive the force of its thought with intelligence. For the Jews not knowing the deep Mystery of the economy of flesh, nor yet acknowledging the Word of God indwelling in the Temple of the Virgin, were often excited by zeal, mistaken and not according to knowledge, as Paul saith, to savageness of manners and fierce anger: and indeed were attempting to stone Him, for that He, being a Man, was making Himself God, and again because He said that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God. But since they were thus hard of understanding and utterly unable to endure God-befitting words, but both thought and spake meanly of Him, the Saviour by an economy acts the child with them, and made His explanation a mixed one, neither wholly foregoing words befitting God, nor altogether rejecting human language: but having said something worthy of His Divine Authority, He forthwith represses the untutored mind of the hearers, by bringing in something human also; and again having said something human by reason of the economy, He suffers not what belongs to Him to be seen in mean estate only, shewing often by His Superhuman Might and Words that He is by Nature God. Some such contrivance will you find now too in the passage at present before us. For what did He say before? For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son too quickeneth whom He will, next again, For the hour is coming in the which all that are in their graves shall hear His Voice; and besides, that they shall also come forth to be judged and to receive their reward according to their works. But He That saith He can quicken whom He will, and in like manner as the Father: how shall He not be conceived of as clothed with Might befitting God? He Who openly says that He will be Judge of all, how shall He not with justice terrify those who deem that He is yet bare Man? For it was like that they being Hebrews and instructed in the Sacred Writings, should not be entirely ignorant that God should be Judge of the world, since they too sang often, Arise, O God, judge the earth, and again, For God is the Judge.

Since He knew that the ignorant people of the Jews were troubled by these things, He removes their habitual anger by speaking in more human terms: "I can of Mine Own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge." So on the surface level, one could say He mocks the understanding of the Jews. For the way He speaks gives the impression of a kind of weakness and of authority that is not completely free. But this is not the truth, since the Son, being equal in all things to the Father, possesses by physis the same operation and authority with respect to all things. But when He says that He can do nothing of Himself, but judges as He hears, He is once again showing Himself equal in mind and power to God the Father in a different way.

Since then He knew that the ignorant people of the Jews were vexed at these things, He rids them of their accustomed anger by saying in more human language, I can of Mine Own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge. As far then as one can say, taking the words superficially, He derides the understanding of the Jews. For the form of expression gives the idea of a sort of weakness, and of authority not altogether free; but it is not so in truth, since the Son being Equal in all things to the Father, hath by Nature the same Operation and Authority in respect to all things. But He saith that He can do nothing of Himself, but as He heareth, so He judgeth: in another way again shewing Himself Equal in Mind and Power to God the Father.

The Father cannot be thought of as doing anything without the Son, alone and by Himself, since He has the Son as His Might and Power (which is why all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made). Nor will the Son do anything by Himself without the Father being with Him. This is why He says, "Of Myself I do nothing; but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works." We should not think that the Son is strengthened by the Father as if He were weak, or that authority over all things is given to Him. If that were so, He would no longer be God by physis, since He would have received the glory of the Godhead as a gift. But neither would the Father Himself remain in undiminished excellence of good things if He had the Word, the Image of His physis, in such a way that the Word needed Power and Authority from another. For then we would need to find a giver of these things for both the Image and the Archetype in the same way, and our argument would extend into endless controversy and plunge into the deep sea of blasphemy. But since the Son is from the ousia of the Father and takes to Himself by physis all the properties of the One who begot Him, and essentially shares one Godhead with Him because of the identity of physis, He is in the Father and has the Father in Himself. Therefore He frequently, without blame and truthfully, attributes to the Father the power of His own works—not excluding Himself from the power to do them, but attributing all things to the operation of the one Godhead. For the Godhead is one in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

For neither will the Father be conceived of as doing anything without the Son, Alone and by Himself, seeing He hath Him as His Might and Power (therefore all things were made by Him, and without Him was not made any one thing) nor will the Son again do ought of Himself, the Father not co-with Him. Therefore He saith also, Of Myself I do nothing; but the Father That dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. And we shall not suppose that the Son is strengthened by the Father, as though weak, and again that authority over all things is given Him: for then would He be no longer God by Nature, as having the glory of the Godhead bestowed; but neither would the Father Himself still exist in unimpaired excellency of good things, if He had the Word, the Impress of His Nature, such as to require Power and Authority from another. For a giver of the things spoken of will be sought for analogously for the Image and Archetype, and thus in short our argument will go forth into boundless controversy, and will run out into the deep sea of blasphemy. But since the Son being of the Essence of the Father takes to Himself by Nature all the Properties of Him who begat Him, and Essentially attains to one Godhead with Him, by reason of Identity of Nature, He is in the Father, and hath again the Father in Himself: wherefore He frequently, Unblamed and Truly, attributes to the Father the Power of His Own Works, not excluding Himself from the power of doing them but attributing all things to the Operation of the One Godhead: for One is the Godhead in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

And that the Son is not inferior to the Father in either Power or Operation in any respect, but is like in all things and of equal might, has been demonstrated by us elsewhere, on the words, "The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do: for whatever things He does, these the Son does likewise." But since I think it is just and fitting to display the most devoted zeal in divine doctrines, come, let us wind back anew the whole argument of the chapter, following the custom of sailors on the sea with a cable. For in this way one may see that the Son does not accuse His own nature by saying that He can do nothing of Himself, but rather exposes the foolishness of the Jews and plainly shows that they trample on the law of Moses. For in that "As I hear, I judge" is immediately added to the words "I can do nothing of Myself," it frees the Son from all reproach of not being able to act by His own power. Rather, it clearly shows that He is in all things filial and in agreement with Him who begot Him. For if He were borrowing His power from the Father as though He were weak, as if not having sufficient power of Himself, how should He not rather say, "I can do nothing of My own self; I receive the power of My Father"? But now, since He does not say this, but rather adds to being able to do nothing of Himself that He judges as He hears, it is evident that He says He cannot, not because of weakness of operation in any respect, but because of the impossibility of transgressing in anything the will of the Father. For since one Godhead is conceived of in the Father and the Son, the will too, I suppose, will surely be the same. And neither in the Father, nor in the Son or the Holy Spirit will the divine nature be conceived of as at variance with itself. But whatever seems good to the Father, for example, this is the will of the whole Godhead.

And that the Son is not inferior to the Father either in Power or Operation unto ought, but is Like in all things and of Equal Might, has been demonstrated by us elsewhere, on the words, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth the Son too likewise. But since I think it just and becoming, to display the most devoted zeal in Divine doctrines; come let us after the custom of sailors on the sea wind back anew (as a cable) the whole argument of the chapter. For in this way one may see, that the Son does not accuse His Own Nature by saying that He can do nothing of Himself, but rather exposes the folly of the Jews, and plainly shews that they trample on the law of Moses. For in that to the words, I can do nothing of Myself, is immediately subjoined, As I hear, I judge, it frees the Son from all reproach of not being able to act of His Own Power: rather it shews clearly that He is in all things Filial and Consentient with Him Who begat Him. For if as though impotent He were borrowing His Power of the Father, as not having sufficient of Himself: how ought He not rather to say, I can of Mine Own Self do nothing, I receive the power of my Father? But now as He does not say this, but rather adds to the being able to do nothing of Himself, that He so judges as He hears, it is evident that not in respect of weakness of operation as to ought, does He put that He cannot, but by reason of impossibility of transgressing in anything the Will of the Father. For since One Godhead is conceived of in the Father and the Son, the Will too (I suppose) will be surely the Same; and neither in the Father, nor yet in the Son or the Holy Ghost will the Divine Nature be conceived of as at variance with Itself; but whatsoever seemeth good to the Father (for example), this is the Will of the Whole Godhead.

The Son therefore presents Himself as approving and agreeing with the Father in whatever seems good to Him, explaining that He cannot do anything that is not entirely according to the Father's will, for this is what "of Myself" means. Just as if He were to say that He cannot commit sin, He would not rightly appear to anyone to be accused of weakness, but rather would be demonstrating a wonderful and God-befitting property of His own nature (for He indicates that He is immovable and unchangeable). So when He acknowledges that He can do nothing of Himself, we should rather be filled with awe at seeing unchangeableness as the result of His unchangeable nature, than inappropriately regard His inability as a sign of weakness.

Needs therefore does the Son introduce Himself as co-approving and consenting to the Father in whatever seemeth good to Him, explaining that He cannot do anything which is not altogether according to the Mind of the Father, for this is the meaning of Of Myself. Just as if He should say that He cannot commit sin, He would not rightly seem to any to incur the charge of weakness, but rather to set forth a wondrous and God-befitting Property of His Own Nature (for He gives to understand that He is Immoveable and Unchangeable): so when He acknowledges that He can do nothing of Himself, we shall rather be awestruck as seeing Unchangeableness the fruit of the Unchangeable Nature, than unseasonably account the not being able to be a mark of weakness.

Let these things be said by us according to our own ability, and let the eager student search for something better. But we will not hesitate to interpret this saying in another way as well, lowering our manner of speaking a little from the realm of the Godhead and the Excellence of the Only-Begotten. Since the Son truly was and was called Man, we will transfer the meaning of the passage to the economy with Flesh, and show that what follows is related and connected to what came before. Therefore He clearly testified that all who are in the graves will hear His Voice, and that they will come forth to be judged. Having once begun discussing His judging of the world, He not only promises to be a righteous Judge at that time when He says the Resurrection of the dead will take place, but also declares that even now He judges rightly and justly regarding matters in this life. Listen to what the question was and what the discussion concerned. For our sake He was born of a woman, for as Paul says, He does not take hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham, and therefore it was necessary for Him to be made like His brothers in all things. But since He was made Man and in the form of a servant, He the Lawgiver as God and Lord is also made under the Law. He speaks then sometimes as one under the Law, sometimes again as above the Law, and has undisputed authority for both. But He is now speaking to the Jews as a Law-keeper and Man, as one not able to transgress the commands ordered from above, nor daring to do anything from His Own Mind that does not agree with the Divine Law. Therefore He says, I can of Mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge. By testifying about Himself that He can do nothing of Himself that is not wholly in accordance with the Law, and that He judges and gives sentence in matters according to what He hears, that is by declaration of the Law, He exposes the unbelief of the Jews and lays bare their stubborn habit. For the words I can of Mine own self do nothing also hint strongly at this, as a contrast to: YOU recklessly transgress the commandments given to you, you were bold to do all things by yourselves, fearlessly, and in every matter you are eager to give judgments not in agreement with the Divine decrees. For you teach as doctrines the commandments of men, and make your own will a law.

Let these things be said by us conformably to our own ability, and let the lover of learning search out for better: but we will not shrink from interpreting the saying in another way too, lowering our manner of speech a little from the bounds of the Godhead and the Excellence of the Only-Begotten: and since the Son truly was and was called Man, translating the force of the passage to the economy with Flesh, and shewing that what follows is akin and connected with what preceded. Therefore He clearly testified that all that are in the graves shall hear His Voice, and that they shall come forth to be judged. When He has once begun on the subject of His judging the world, He not only promises to be a righteous Judge at that time, in which He says the Resurrection of the dead will take place, but also declares that even now He judges rightly and justly of matters in this life. What was the question and of what the discourse, hear. For our sakes was He born of a woman: for as Paul saith, He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham, wherefore it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren. But since He was made Man and in servant's form, He the Law-giver as God and Lord is made under the Law also. He speaks then sometimes as under the Law, sometimes again as above the Law, and hath undisputed authority for both. But He is discoursing now with the Jews as Law-keeper and Man, as not able to transgress the commands ordered from above, nor venturing to do ought of His Own Mind, which does not agree with the Divine Law. Wherefore He says, I can of Mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge. By testifying to Himself that He can do nothing of Himself, which is not wholly in accordance with the Law, and that He judges and gives sentence in matters, according as He hears, to wit by declaration of the Law, He exposes the unbelief of the Jews, and lays bare their headstrong habit. For this too the words I can of Mine own self do nothing, well hint at, as contrasting with, YE recklessly transgress the commandments given you, ye were bold to do all things of yourselves, fearlessly, and in every matter are ye zealous to give judgments not consonant to the Divine decrees. For ye teach for doctrines the commandments of men, and make your own will a law.

What then is the purpose of this way of speaking, and how He presents Himself as judging justly while they do not, will be explained next. He had healed the paralytic on the Sabbath day, showing compassion to a man who had been sick for a long time, demonstrating right and good judgment toward him. For it was right to have pity on the sick man even on the Sabbath day, and by no means to withhold His compassion out of reverence for the Sabbath day, practicing a completely empty form of piety. Just as the Father also works even on the Sabbath day regarding His providential care for His creatures, and certainly does so through the Son, so does the Son Himself also. For He did not think that a man who needed compassion on the Sabbath day should be denied it because of the Sabbath, since He knew that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath. For man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. Therefore the Savior's judgment in this matter is righteous and good, not restricting His loving-kindness toward those who are suffering because of the Sabbath, but what He as God knows how to do (for the Divine Nature is the fountain of goodness), this He did even on the Sabbath day. But the judgment of the Jews regarding Him—that they were angry on account of the Sabbath and therefore wanted to kill Him who had done them no wrong—how is this not completely contrary to the Divine Laws (for it is written, "You shall not slay the innocent and righteous") and the product of their cruelty rather than of the holy Scriptures?

What then is the aim of this way of speaking, or how He introduces Himself as judging justly, and they not, shall be told next. He had healed the paralytic on the Sabbath day, He compassionated a man who had spent long time in sickness, shewing forth right and good judgment upon him. For it was right to pity the sick man even on the sabbath day, and by no means to shut up His compassion from reverence for the sabbath day, practising a most vain piety. As the Father too works even on the sabbath day in regard of His economy towards His creatures, and that surely through the Son, so doth Himself also. For neither did He think that a man who needed compassion on the sabbath day ought to be deprived of it, by reason of the Sabbath, since He knew that the Son of Man was Lord of the sabbath. For not man was made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man. Therefore righteous herein and good is the judgment of the Saviour, not restraining by reason of the sabbath His Loving-Kindness to the prostrate, but that which as God He knows how to perform (for the Divine Nature is the Fountain of Goodness), this He did even on the sabbath day: but the judgment of the Jews upon Him in that they were vexed on account of the sabbath, and therefore desired to kill Him Who had done them no wrong, how is not this exceedingly dissonant to the Divine Laws (for it is written, The innocent and righteous slay thou not) and the invention rather of their cruelty, and not of the holy Scriptures?

Understand then that Jesus says with a kind of emphasis to those who were angry at His good deeds and found fault with His holy judgments, following only their own imaginations and, so to speak, defining as law what seemed right to them even though it contradicted the Law: "I can of My own self do nothing"—that is, I do all things according to the Law given through Moses, I refuse to do anything on My own authority; as I hear, I judge. For what does the Law require? "You shall not show partiality in judgment, for the judgment is God's." Why then, He says, are you angry at Me because I made a man completely well on the sabbath day, yet you do not condemn Moses who decreed that children should be circumcised even on the sabbath? "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day so that the Law of Moses should not be broken," then without good reason you are upset at seeing a man completely healed on the sabbath day. I therefore judged justly, but you certainly did not, for you do everything according to your own authority. But I can do nothing of My own self; as I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just because I seek not My own will, as you do, but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Understand then that Jesus says with a kind of emphasis to those who were angry at His deeds of good and found fault with His holy judgments, following only their own imaginations, and so to speak defining as law that which seemed to them to be right even though it be contrary to the Law:—- I can of Mine Own Self do nothing, i. e., I do all things according to the Law set forth by Moses, I endure not to do anything of Myself, as I hear, I judge. For what willeth the Law? Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, for the judgment is God's. why then (saith He) are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day, and condemn not Moses who decreed that children should be circumcised even on the sabbath. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, thus without due cause are ye vexed at seeing a man every whit healed on the sabbath day? I therefore judged justly, but ye by no means so, for ye do all things of yourselves. But I can of Mine Own Self do nothing; as I hear, I judge, and My Judgment is just, because I seek not Mine Own Will, as ye do, but the Will of the Father Which sent Me.

What kind of sending this is, and the manner of being sent, we have already discussed at length, so we will avoid speaking more about it. But we should note for our benefit that He says the Law is the Will of God the Father.

What manner of sending this is, and the mode of the being sent, we having before spoken of at length, will refrain from speaking any more thereof. But we must observe for profit's sake that He says that the Law is the Will of God the Father.

If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true: there is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.

31, 32 If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true: there is another that beareth witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of Me is true.

The very wise Solomon, collecting the things in which a person may quite reasonably take pride and show his way of life to be admirable, and presenting them to those who are eager to learn, says, "The righteous man is his own accuser at the opening of the trial," and again, "Let your neighbor praise you and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips." For it is truly burdensome and utterly intolerable to listeners when some people dislike being praised by the voices of others, but instead freely proclaim their own most noble and excellent deeds. But such speech is reasonably distrusted, for we tend to be moved by certain natural and unavoidable impulses of self-love to readily credit ourselves with nothing that is bad, but always to attribute to ourselves—and not altogether truthfully—those things by which someone might be thought well-behaved and good.

The most wise Solomon, gathering together the things in which a man may very reasonably glory, and shew his manner of life to be enviable, and placing them before those who are apt to learn, says, The righteous man is his own accuser in the opening of the trial, and again, Let thy neighbour praise thee and not thine own mouth, a stranger and not thine own lips. For a thing truly burdensome and most intolerable to the hearers, is it that some like not to be praised by the voice of others, but attest unrestrainedly their own most noble and excellent deeds. But with reason is such language distrusted; for we are wont to be invited by certain (so to speak) natural and necessary drawings of self-love, readily to ascribe to ourselves nought that is ill, but ever to put about us and not altogether truthfully, the things whereby any may be thought well-behaved and good.

When our Lord Jesus Christ declared that He judges righteous judgments, saying openly that He could do nothing of Himself, but that He makes the will of the Father His rule in all His actions, and in saying this introduced Himself as witness to Himself, although it was true, yet He necessarily considered the sophistry of the Pharisees and what they would say in their folly (for they did not know that He is God by nature). He anticipates them by putting it forward and says: You, following the practice of common people and not advancing beyond suppositions fitting for Jews, will surely say, "You bear witness of yourself; your witness is not true." But you shall hear this in reply (He says): I still endure your blasphemies; I am by no means exceedingly angry with you for belching forth your words from the ignorance most dear to you; I grant you for argument's sake that even this has been well said by you. So be it—you reject My voice, but there is Another who bears witness of Me. He here indicates God the Father who is in heaven, who has now in various ways attested the truth of the essence of His own Son. And He says that He knows that His witness is true, showing that His own judgment too is in fact most trustworthy and true. For lest by admitting as it were that He said things untrue of Himself, He should give room for malice and a loophole against Himself to those who are accustomed to think otherwise, He, having yielded of necessity to what is proper and customary—that one ought not altogether to believe as true him who praises and approves himself—returns again as God to His proper position and says that He knows that the witness of the Father is true, practically teaching this: I, being very God, know Myself (He says), and the Father will say nothing out of favoritism concerning Me, for I am such by nature as He, being true, will declare Me. In the former part, then, there was an assent, so to speak, of condescension, and the words were hypothetical rather than true. In His saying that He knows that the witness of the Father is true is the demonstration of God-befitting credibility.^131415131415

When then our Lord Jesus Christ adjudged to Himself that He judgeth righteous judgments, saying openly that He could do nothing of Himself, but that He makes the Will of the Father His Rule in all His Actions, and in saying this, introduced Himself as witness to Himself, although it was true, yet of necessity considering the sophistry of the Pharisees, and what they would say in their folly (for they knew not that He is God by Nature): He anticipates them in putting it forward, and says, Ye following the practice of the common people, and not advancing beyond surmise befitting Jews, will surely say, THOU bearest record of Thyself, Thy record is not true; but ye shall hear this in reply (saith He), I endure yet with your blasphemies, I am by no means exceeding angry with you belching forth your words from the ignorance most dear to you, I grant you for argument's sake, that even this hath been well said by you: Be it so, ye reject My Voice, there is Another That beareth witness of Me. He here indicates God the Father Which is in heaven Who hath now in divers manners attested the Verity of the Essence of His Own Son; and He says that He knows that His witness is True shewing that His Own Judgement too is in fact most trustworthy and true. For lest by admitting as it were that He said things untrue of Himself, He should give room for malice, and a loophole against Himself to them who are accustomed to think otherwise, He having ceded of necessity to what is becoming and customary, that one ought not altogether to credit as true him who praises and approves himself, returns again as God to His due position and says that He knows that the witness of the Father is true, all bat teaching this; I being Very God know Myself (says Ho), and the Father will say nothing of favour concerning Me. For I am Such by Nature, as He, being True, will declare Me. In the former part then there was an assent so to say of condescension, and the words hypothetic rather than true; in His saying that He knows that the witness of the Father is true, is the demonstration of God-befitting credibility.^131415131415

But it must be observed that in respect of His Own Person, the Father is Other than the Son, and is not, as some uninstructed heretics have imagined, introduced as the Son-Father.

But it must be observed that in respect of His Own Person the Father is Other than the Son, and is not, as some uninstructed heretics have imagined, introduced as the Son-Father.

As we have just affirmed that it is disgraceful and shares in the greatest foolishness for anyone to be seen as an admirer of his own excellencies, even if he should escape untruth because of exceptional virtue, so it is an absurdity related (so to speak) and akin to this that anyone not called upon to bear witness to anything should voluntarily appear before the judges or those who wish to investigate. For such a person would seem (and rightly so) not really to be concerned with telling the truth, but rather to be overly eager to give his testimony, to make known not what the nature of the fact is, but rather his own version of it. Most skillfully then, indeed as God, our Lord Jesus Christ, overturning beforehand the accusation of the Pharisees concerning this, says, "You have sent to John." Not of his own accord (He says) does the Baptist come to give his testimony to Me; he is free from any accusation of this. He gave unprompted testimony. You sent to ask John, and he has borne witness to the truth. For when he was asked by those who were sent to him whether he was the Christ, he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ, but am sent before Him." He has then borne witness to the Truth, for Christ is the Truth.

As we have just affirmed that it is disgraceful, and not without share of the uttermost folly, that any one should be seen as an admirer of his own excellencies, even though he should by reason of exceeding virtue escape untruth: so it is an absurdity cognate (so to say) and akin to this, that any not called upon to bear witness to any thing, should of their own accord appear before the judges or those who wish to enquire. For such an one would seem (and that justly) not altogether to be anxious to tell the truth, but rather to be over-eager to give his testimony, to make known not what the nature of the fact is, but rather his own account of it. Most skilfully then, yea rather as God, doth our Lord Jesus Christ, overturning beforehand the charge of the Pharisees in regard to this, say, YE have sent unto John: not of his own accord (says He) does the Baptist come to give his testimony to Me, he is clear from any charge of this: he gave free testimony; YE sent to ask John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth. For when he was asked by them who were sent to him, whether he were the Christ, he confessed and denied not, but confessed I am not the Christ, but am sent before Him. He hath then borne witness to the Truth, for Christ is the Truth.

He does not reject John's word as useless, nor does he declare the testimony of truth to be without effect (for he would have justly seemed to have acted absurdly against himself by unreasonably dismissing from belief the one he sent to cry out, "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God"). But in struggling against the boundless disobedience of the Jews, he moves on to what is better and carries more weight, saying that testimony to himself from a human voice is not accepted out of necessity, but rather he is giving them more glorious proof from the authority fitting for one who is by physis God, and from the excellence of divine miracles. For a person will sometimes reject a human voice as untrue, even though that person may perhaps be counted among the saints. Some who did not hesitate to do this used to oppose the words of the prophets, crying out, "Speak to us other things and declare to us another deceit." And besides these, certain people from Jerusalem or from the land of Judah who had escaped into Egypt—namely Azariah the son of Hoshaiah and Johanan the son of Kareah and all the proud men, as it is written—openly disbelieving the prophecies of Jeremiah, said, "You speak falsely, the Lord did not send you to say to us, 'Do not go into Egypt.'" But what contradiction will demonstration through miracles allow? And what kind of stubbornness will being witnessed to by the excellencies of God the Father still grant to the faultfinders? And truly Nicodemus (he was one of their rulers and ranked among those in authority) gave incontrovertible testimony from his miracles, saying, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these miracles that you do unless God is with him."

He doth not reject the word of John as useless, nor declare the witness of the truth to be of none effect (for He would with justice have seemed to have wrought absurdity against Himself, by unreasonably dismissing from credence him whom He sent to cry. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God) but as striving with the unbounded disobedience of the Jews He proceeds to what is better and of more weight, saying that not of necessity is testimony to Himself from voice of man admitted, but rather giving them more glorious proof from the Authority befitting Him Who is by Nature God, and from the Excellence of the Divine Miracles. For a person will sometimes reject the voice of man, as not true, even though he be haply enrolled among the saints. Which some not scrupling to do, used to oppose the words of the Prophets, crying out. Speak unto us other things and declare unto us another deceit: and yet besides these, certain of them of Jerusalem, or of the land of Judah, who had escaped into Egypt: to wit, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah and all the proud men, as it is written, openly disbelieving the prophecies of Jeremiah, said, Thou speakest falsely, the Lord sent thee not to say to us, Go not into Egypt. But demonstration through miracles, what gainsaying will it admit of; and the being borne witness to by the Excellencies of God the Father, what mode of stubbornness will it yet grant to the faultfinders? And verily Nicodemus (he was one of their rulers, and ranked among those in authority) gave incontrovertible testimony from His miracles, saying, Rabbi, we know that Thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that THOU doest, except God be with Him.

Since the malice of the Jews was so great that they disbelieved even the holy Baptist himself, who bore witness in words, Jesus says again with a kind of irony: The blessed Baptist has borne witness to the truth, even though you questioned him, but since you have left nothing untried and have recklessly rushed into every kind of abuse, you have likely rejected his voice. And since this too seems right to you, so be it: I am perhaps persuaded, I agree with you, I will set aside John's voice for your sake as well, and I will join you in objecting to his testimony—I have the Father from above bearing testimony. But teaching again that this way of speaking implies agreement for the sake of argument, He helpfully added, "But these things I say that you might be saved"—that is, I have spoken to you in this way, not because it is actually true, but for the sake of argument, so that by every means you may be saved.

Since then to disbelieve even the holy Baptist himself who brought testimony as far as words go, was not too much for the malice of the Jews, He says again, in a sort of irony, The blessed Baptist hath borne witness to the truth, even though questioned by you, but since nothing has been left untried by you, and ye have foolhardily accustomed yourselves to launch forth into all manner of reviling, ye have, it is likely, rejected his voice. And since this too seems to you to be right, be it so: I am haply persuaded, I agree with you, I will put aside for your sakes the voice of John too, and with you except against his testimony: I have the Father from above bearing testimony. But teaching again that the expression implies assent for argument's sake, He profitably subjoined, But these things I say that YE might be saved, that is, I used this manner of speech to you, not that the truth is so, but for argument's sake, that by every means YE may be saved.

And here our second book shall end.

And here our second book shall end.

The minds of the holy Evangelists are truly accurate and taught by God. From the brilliance of their ability to see clearly—as if from some high mountain ridge and watchtower—they observe on every side what benefits their hearers and eagerly pursue whatever may profit those who thirst for the truth of divine doctrines and sincerely seek the meaning hidden in the Divine Scriptures. The Spirit does not reveal Himself to those who search with excessive curiosity and take pleasure in the complicated tricks of human reasoning rather than rejoicing in the truth, since He does not enter into a malicious soul, nor does He allow His precious pearls to be trampled under the feet of swine. But He delights to have fellowship with simpler minds, because they possess a more innocent disposition and avoid needless complexities, which especially lead to encountering sudden fear and, by turning too far to the right, straying from the straight and royal road. For whoever walks simply walks securely, as Solomon says.

Exact of a truth, and God-taught is the mind of the holy Evangelists, from the splendour of their power to behold, as from some lofty mountain-spur and watch-peak, on all sides observing what is of profit to the hearers, and tracking with intent zeal whatever may seem to be of profit to those who thirst after the truth of the Divine dogmas and with good purpose search after the mind that is hidden in the Divine Scriptures. For not in those who search too curiously, and take pleasure in the many-tangled wiles of reasonings, rather than rejoice in the truth, does the Spirit make His revelation, since neither does He enter into a malicious soul, nor otherwise does He suffer His precious 'pearls to be rolled at the feet of swine. But with exceeding pleasure does He have fellowship with simpler minds, as having a more guileless motion, and shunning superfluous subtleties, whereto specially pertains the meeting with sudden fear, and from too great turning aside unto the right hand to err from the straight and royal road. For he that walketh simply walketh surely, as saith Solomon.

The holy Evangelists write with marvelous precision—for as the Savior says, it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of the Father in them. One can reasonably affirm that the Book of John has been composed in an extraordinary way, considering both the excellence of his thoughts, the sharpness of his intellect, and the continuous, closely-packed accumulation of ideas. The Evangelists are companions in their exposition of the Divine dogmas, and they race like charioteers from the starting line toward one goal. But each employs a different style of speech, and they seem to me like people who are instructed to gather in one city but who do not choose to approach it by the same well-traveled road. Thus one can see the other Evangelists giving a very precise account of our Savior's genealogy in the Flesh, tracing the descent step by step from Abraham down to Joseph, or carrying the lineage back from Joseph to Adam. But we find that blessed John does not trouble himself with being overly concerned about these matters. Instead, with a most intense and fiery movement of intellect, he attempts to grasp those very things that are above the human mind, and he dares to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God conceals speech, that the God-befitting dignity is greater than our understanding and expression, and that the properties of the Divine Nature (physis) are difficult to express and extremely hard to unfold.

But while the holy Evangelists have a marvellous exactness in writing (for it is not they that speak, as the Saviour saith, but the Spirit of the Father which is in them): reasonably may one grant that the Book of John has been composed beyond all marvel, looking both to the supereminence of his thoughts, the keenness of his intellect, and the constant and close-succeeding cumulation of conceptions. For course-fellows are they one with, another in the exposition of the Divine dogmas, and loosing as it were from the starting line they course charioteers to one goal. But a diverse fashion of speech is wrought out by them, and they appear to me to resemble persons, who are ordered to come together unto one city, but care not to approach it by one and the same beaten road. Thus one may see the other Evangelists with great exactness giving the account of our Saviour's genealogy in the Flesh, and bringing down step by step those from Abraham unto Joseph, or again carrying up those from Joseph to Adam. But we find the blessed John not caring to be over-studious about these, but with a most fervent and fire-full motion of intellect endeavouring to lay hold of those very things that are above human mind, and daring to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God hideth speech, and greater than our idea and utterance is the God-befitting dignity, and hard to utter and most difficult of unfolding are the properties of the Divine Nature.

But since it was necessary in a sense to measure heaven with the span of a hand, and to allow the limited capacities of human nature to approach what is utterly unattainable and difficult to explain, and since without the voice of the saints who had been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word to restrain their false speculations, the way might be opened for false teachers to attack the simpler believers, John comes straight to the very essence of the Divine doctrines, crying out, "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."

But since it was necessary in some sort to mete out heaven with the span, and to suffer the scant measures of human nature to approach to what is by all unattainable and hard to be explained, that the approach might not be opened out for those who teach otherwise to come against the more simple, in that no voice of the saints who have been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word held in check their ill-surmisings, keen comes he to the very essence of the Divine dogmas, crying aloud, 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.

I believe that those who study the Holy Scriptures should accept all writings that are honest, good, and harmless. By gathering together the diverse thoughts of many people and bringing them into a single scope and understanding, they will reach a good measure of knowledge. Like the bee, that wise worker, they will build the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

But I think that those who are engaged on the Holy Scriptures ought to admit all writings that are honest and good and free from harm. For thus collecting together the varied thoughts of many and bringing them together into one scope and understanding, they will mount up to a good measure of knowledge, and imitating the bee, wise workwoman, will compact the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

Some researchers say that after our Savior's crucifixion and ascension into heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers fell upon the Savior's flocks like wild beasts and greatly terrified them. They spoke from their own heart, as it is written, and not from the mouth of the Lord—indeed, not merely from their own heart, but from the teachings of their own father, by which I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus accursed except in Beelzebub, how is what we say about them not clearly true? What did these men spew out against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously claimed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in whom we both move and exist, was first brought into being when he was born as a man from the Holy Virgin. They said that when he took on our common human form, showed himself on earth as it is written, and lived among men, that was when he began to exist. Against those who think this way and dare to slander the ineffable and eternal generation of the Son, the word of the prophet comes down heavily, saying: But draw near here, you sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore. Against whom do you mock yourselves? Against whom do you open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue? You do not bring forth good things from a good heart, but spit out the venom of the blood-stained dragon, about whom the Psalmist says to the one God who is over all: You broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Some then of those of most research, say that after our Saviour's Cross and Ascension into Heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers falling like wild beasts on the Saviour's flocks terrified them not a little, speaking out of their own heart, as it is written, and not out of the mouth of the Lord; yea rather, not merely out of their own heart, but out of the teachings of their own father, I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus Anathema, save in Beelzebub, how is not what we say of them clearly true? What things then are they which these men belched forth against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously affirmed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in Whom we both move and are, was then first called into being, when He was born Man of the Holy Virgin, and taking this our common fashion, shewed Himself upon earth, as it is written, and conversed with men. On those then who are thus disposed, and who dare to slander the ineffable and eternal Generation of the Son, the word of the Prophet comes heavily, saying thus: But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore, against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth and draw out the tongue? not bringing forth good things out of a good heart, but spueing forth the venom of the blood-defiled dragon, of whom saith the Psalmist unto the one God That is over all: Thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

But since there was considerable disturbance among the believers about these matters, and the harm of this scandal was consuming the souls of the simpler believers like a plague (for some were drawn away from true teaching by their chatter and imagined that the Word was only called into the beginning of existence when He became Man), the wiser believers assembled and came together to the Saviour's disciple—I mean this John—and explained the disease that was afflicting the brethren. They laid out for him the chatter of these false teachers and begged him both to give them strong assistance through the Spirit's illumination and to extend a saving hand to those who were already trapped in the devil's snares.

But since there was no slight disturbance in regard to these things amongst them that had believed, and the ill of the scandal thereof was consuming like a plague the souls of the simpler (for some drawn away from the true doctrines by their prattle imagined that the Word was then barely called to the beginning of Being, when He became Man), those of the believers who were wiser being assembled and met together, came to the Disciple of the Saviour (I mean this John) and declared the disease that was pressing upon the brethren, and unfolded to him the prattle of them that teach otherwise, and besought that he would both strenuously assist themselves with the illumination through the Spirit, and stretch forth a saving hand to those who were already within the devil's meshes.

The disciple, grieving over those who were lost and corrupted in their thinking, and at the same time considering it completely wrong to take no care for those who would come later, set himself to writing the book. He left the more human aspects—the genealogy of the legal and natural birth according to the flesh—to the other Evangelists to describe in greater detail. He himself, with intense passion and courage of soul, attacks the foolish talk of those who were introducing such ideas, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

The disciple grieving then over them that were lost and corrupted in mind, and at the same time thinking it most unnatural to take no forethought for those that should succeed and come after, betakes himself to making the book: and the more human side, the genealogy of the legal and natural Birth according to the flesh, he left to the other Evangelists to tell at fuller length; himself with extreme ardour and courage of soul springs upon the prattle of those who are introducing such things, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who present to us the Son as someone new and recent, so that He may no longer be believed to be even God at all? For, as the Divine Scripture says, there shall no new God be in you. How then is He not new, if He was begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am? For it is plain and acknowledged by everyone that Christ was born of the Holy Virgin many ages after the blessed Abraham. How at all will the words was in the beginning hold true and mean anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the end of the ages? See, I ask, by the following arguments as well, how great an absurdity this cutting short of the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, produces.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who introduce to us the Son, as one new and of late, that so He may no longer be believed to be even God at all. For, says the Divine Scripture, there shall no new God be in thee. How then is He not new, if He were begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am? For plain is it and confessed by all, that many ages after the blessed Abraham was Christ born of the Holy Virgin. How at all will the words was in the beginning remain and come to anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the close of the ages? See I pray by the following arguments too how great absurdity, this cutting short the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, yields.

But let's examine this same word from the Evangelist again for a more careful test:

But this same word of the Evangelist shall be proposed again for a finer test:

Nothing is older than the beginning if it retains for itself the definition of the beginning, since there cannot be a beginning of a beginning. Otherwise, it will completely cease to be a true beginning if something else is conceived of before it and arises before it. If anything can precede what is truly a beginning, our reasoning about it will extend to infinity, with another beginning constantly appearing before it and making the one we are examining secondary.

Than the beginning is there nothing older, if it have, retained to itself, the definition of the beginning (for a beginning of beginning there cannot be); or it will wholly depart from being in truth a beginning, if something else be imagined before it and arise before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly beginning, our language respecting it will go off to infinity, another beginning ever cropping up before, and making second the one under investigation.

According to exact and true reasoning, there will be no beginning of a beginning. Instead, any attempt to explain it will retreat endlessly into something vast and incomprehensible. Since this backward movement has no stopping point and stretches back to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found not to have been made in time, but rather to have existed invisibly with the Father—for He was in the beginning. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, I ask you, can leap beyond the force of that "was"? When will that "was" come to rest at some final point, since it always runs ahead of our pursuing logic and springs forward before any thought that tries to catch up with it?

There will then be no beginning of beginning, according to exact and true reasoning, but the account of it will recede unto the long-extended and incomprehensive. And since its ever-backward flight has no terminus, and reaches up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time, but rather invisibly existing with the Father: for in the beginning was He. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, tell me, can over-leap the force of the was? When will the was stay as at its terminus, seeing that it ever runs before the pursuing reasoning, and springs forward before the conception that follows it?

Astonishment-stricken at this, the Prophet Isaiah says, "Who shall declare His generation? for His life is lifted from the earth." For truly the account of the generation of the Only-Begotten is lifted from the earth—that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so that in short it is inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how can He be originate, since our understanding is not powerless to clearly define things that are originate, both as to their time and manner?

Astonishment-stricken whereat the Prophet Isaiah says, Who shall declare His generation? for His Life is lifted from the earth. For verily lifted from the earth is the tale of the generation of the Only-Begotten, that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so as to be in short inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how will He be originate, seeing that our understanding is not powerless to clearly define both as to time and manner things originate?

It is impossible to understand "beginning" in any temporal sense when speaking of the Only-Begotten, since He exists before all time and has His Being before the ages, and furthermore, the Divine Nature rejects the limitation of a boundary. For It will always be the same, as the Psalms declare, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning, then, measured by time and space, will the Son proceed, when He does not rush toward any end point, since He is God by physis, and therefore proclaims, I am the Life? For no beginning can ever be conceived by itself that does not point to its own end, since beginning is so called in relation to end, and end in relation to beginning. But the beginning we are discussing here is one relating to time and space. Therefore, since the Son is older than the ages themselves, He will be free from any generation in time; and He always was in the Father as in a Source, according to what He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father, then, being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was never a time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, it is necessary to confess also that the Son, Who is all these things to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, unless He is clearly formed after that Beauty, of Whom He also is the Likeness?

It is not possible to take beginning, understood in any way of time, of the Only-Begotten, seeing that He is before all time and hath His Being before the ages, and, yet more, the Divine Nature, shuns the limit of a terminus. For It will be ever the same, according to what is sung in the Psalms, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning then measured in respect of time and dimension will the Son proceed, Who endureth not to hasten to any terminus, in that He is God by Nature, and therefore crieth, I am the Life? For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is so called in reference to end, end again in reference to beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. Hence, since the Son is elder than the ages themselves, He will be free of any generation in time; and He ever was in the Father as in a Source, according to that which He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was no time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, needs is it to confess too that the Son Who is all these to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, except He be plainly formed after that Beauty, Whose Likeness He also is?

It is no problem to think of the Son being in the Father as in a Source, because the word "source" here simply means "where something comes from." But the Son is in the Father and of the Father—not made externally or in time, but existing in the ousia of the Father and flashing forth from Him, like radiance from the sun or innate heat from fire. In such examples, we can see one thing generated from another, yet the two always co-exist and are inseparable, so that neither can exist by itself apart from the other while still preserving the true condition of its own physis. How can there be sun without radiance, or radiance without the sun present to produce it? How can there be fire without heat? Where does heat come from except from fire, or from something else that shares the essential quality of fire? Just as in these examples the fact that one thing exists within another does not eliminate their co-existence, but shows that generated things always keep pace with what generates them and share one physis with them (so to speak), the same is true with the Son. Even if He is understood and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He does not appear to us as foreign and strange and a second Being distinct from Him, but as existing in Him and co-existing eternally, shining forth from Him according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

Nor is it any objection to conceive of the Son being in the Father as in a Source: for the word source here only means the "whence." But the Son is in the Father, and of the Father, not as made externally, nor in time, but being in the Essence of the Father and flashing forth from Him, as from the sun its radiance, or as from fire its innate heat. For in such examples, one may see one thing generated of another, but yet ever co-existing and inseparable, so that one cannot exist of itself apart from the other, and yet preserve the true condition of its own nature. For how can there be sun which has not radiance, or how radiance without sun being within to irradiate it? how fire, if it have not heat? whence heat, save from fire, or from some other thing not removed from the essential quality of fire? As then in these, the in-existence of the things that are of them does not take away their co-existence, but indicates the things generated ever keeping pace with their generators and possessed of one nature so to speak with them, so too is it with the Son. For even if He be conceived and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He will not come before us as alien and strange and a Being second to Him, but as in Him and co-existing ever, and shining forth from Him, according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

That God the Father is called by the saints the Beginning of the Son only in the sense of "whence" can be heard in the Psalmist, who through the Holy Spirit foretells the second coming of our Savior and says to the Son: "With You the Beginning in the Day of Your Power in the beauty of Your Saints." The day of the Son's Power is the day when He will judge the world and give to everyone according to their works. He will certainly come then, Himself in the Father and having the Father in Himself—the unbeginning Beginning, so to speak, of His physis with regard only to the "whence," because of His being from the Father.

But that God the Father is spoken of by the saints too as the Beginning of the Son in the sense only of "whence," hear the Psalmist through the Holy Ghost foretelling the second Appearance of our Saviour and saying as to the Son: With Thee the Beginning in the Day of Thy Power in the beauty of Thy Saints. For the day of the Son's Power is that whereon He shall judge the world and render to every one according to his works. Yerily shall He then come, Himself in the Father, and having in Himself the Father, the so to say unbeginning Beginning of His Nature in regard only to the "whence," by reason of His Being of the Father.

Our discussion about the beginning mentioned here branches out into many different ideas, eagerly seeking on every side to grasp things that are profitable, and like a hunting dog, tracking down the true understanding of the divine teachings and precision in the mysteries. For the Savior says, search the Holy Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are the ones which testify of Me. The blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to call the Father Ἀρχὴ, that is the Power over all, so that the Divine Nature which is over all may be shown, having under Its feet everything that is created, and being lifted above those things which are called into being by It.¹¹

Unto many and various ideas does our discourse respecting the here signified beginning diversify itself, on all sides zealous to capture things that tend to profit, and after the manner of a hound, tracking the true apprehension of the Divine dogmas, and exactitude in the mysteries. For search, saith the Saviour, the Holy Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me. The Blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Ἀρχὴ, that is the Power over all, that the Divine Nature Which is over all may be shewn, having under Its feet every thing which is originate, and borne above those things which are by It called into being.¹¹

In this Beginning then that is above all and over all was the Word, not placed with all things beneath Its feet, but set apart from all things, existing in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, possessing the Nature of Him Who begat Him as though it were the most ancient place of all. Therefore He, the Begotten who is Free from the Free Father, will possess Sovereignty over all things together with Him. What then the nature of the argument will be in this matter, it is fitting to examine.

In this Ἀρχὴ then that is above all and over all was the Word, not, with all things, under Its feet, but apart from all things, in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him as it were a place the most ancient of all. Wherefore He Begotten Free of Free Father, will with Him possess the Sovereignty over all. What then now too will be the nature of the argument in this, it is meet to see.

Certain people have dangerously asserted, as we said above, that the Word of God first came into being when He took the temple from the Holy Virgin and became human for us. What then would follow if the Son's physis were like this—originating, made, and of the same nature as all other things, to which birth from non-existence and the name and reality of servitude rightly and truly apply? For what created thing can escape without consequence servitude under the God who is Lord of all? What does not bow under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself indicates to us when he says, "For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness"? For the throne of the Sovereignty—that is, the one over all—is ready and fully prepared for righteousness. And hear what throne we are speaking of, as God says through one of the Saints, "Heaven is My Throne." Therefore heaven is ready for righteousness, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Hazardful have certain, as we said above, asserted that the Word of God was then first called into being, when taking the Temple that is of the Holy Virgin He became Man for us. What then will be the consequence, if the Son's Nature be thus, or originate and made and of like nature with all things else, to which birth out of not being, and the name and fact of servitude, are rightfully and truly predicated? For what of things that are made can with impunity escape servitude under the God That is Lord of all? what does not stoop under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself too signifies to us when he says, For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness? For ready and exceeding prepared unto righteousness is the Throne of the Sovereignty, that I mean which is over all. And what throne that is of which we are now speaking, hear God saying by one of the Saints, The Heaven is My Throne. Ready therefore unto righteousness is the Heaven, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Since one must then inevitably admit that the Son is subject to God the Father along with the rest of creation, having the position of a servant and falling under the authority of the Archē (first principle) together with everything else—if He is, according to them, late in coming into existence and one of those things made in time—the blessed Evangelist necessarily springs into action forcefully against those who teach such things, and removes the Son from all servitude. He shows that the Son is of the Essence that is free and sovereign over all, and declares that He exists in Him by nature, saying, "In the beginning was the Word."

Since then one must needs confess that the Son is with the rest of the creatures subject to God the Father, as having the position of a servant, and together with the rest falling under the authority of the Ἀρχὴ, if He be according to them late in Birth and one of those who have been made in time:—-of necessity does the Blessed Evangelist spring with energy on those who teach otherwise, and withdraw the Son from all bondage. And he shews that He is of the Essence that is Free and Sovereign over all, and declares that He is in Him by Nature saying, In the beginning was the Word.

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fittingly adds the word "was," so that He may be understood as not only glorious, but also existing before the ages. For the word "was" is used here to carry the mind of the thinker toward some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that "was," spoken without limit, at what point will it stop, since its nature is always to push forward ahead of the pursuing mind, and whatever stopping point anyone might suppose it has reached, it makes that the starting point of its further progress? The Word "was" then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is, in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by physis from It. But if this is true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the "was" completely exists, how will the "was not" enter in, or what place will it have at all in relation to the Son?

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fitly annexes the was, that He may be thought of as not only of renown, but also before the ages. For the word was is here put, carrying on the idea of the thinker to some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that was, spoken indefinitely, at what point will it rest, its nature being ever to push forward before the pursuing mind, and whatever point of rest any might suppose that it has, that it makes the starting point of its further course? The Word was then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by Nature from It. But if this be true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the was wholly is, how will the "was not" come in, or what place will it have at all as regards the Son?

Having sufficiently shown that the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions is already outdated and has strayed from the truth, and having, by saying "In the beginning was the Word," closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped away all their nonsense in these words, he moves on to another related and most perverse heresy. And just as some gardener who is both most excellent and enduring takes great delight in the hard work of the mattock, and girding his loins and wearing the working clothes that suit him, gives all diligence to present his garden free from the ugliness of thorns, and does not stop throwing one upon another, and continually going around, removes the troublesome root by applying the hard tooth of the mattock—so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and examining with the keenest insight and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the wickedness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them, so to speak, at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, providing for those who read his books a defense in the right faith.

Having sufficiently shewn that already out of date and astray from the truth is the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions, and having, by saying In the beginning was the Word, closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped off all their nonsense in these words, he goes to another akin and most perverse heresy. And like as some gardener at once most excellent and enduring, delights much in the toils of the mattock, and girding his loins, and in the working-dress befitting him, gives all diligence to present the appearance of his park free from the unseemliness of thorns, and ceases not throwing one upon another, and, ever going round about, removes the troublesome root, applying the stern tooth of the mattock; so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and considering with keenest glance and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the naughtiness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them so to speak at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, to those who read his books ministering defence in the right faith.

Look again, I ask you, at the vigilance of this one who bears the Spirit within him. He taught previously that the Word was in Archē (that is, in God the Father, as we said). But since his understanding was enlightened and he was not ignorant (as we may suppose) that certain people would arise who in their great ignorance would say that the Father and Son are one and the same, distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name but not allowing them to exist in their distinct hypostaseis (personal subsistences), so that the Father should be understood as truly Father and not Son, while the Son should be by himself Son and not Father, as the word of truth teaches—therefore he arms himself against this heresy too, as if already confronting him and being debated at that time or about to be. For its destruction, alongside "In the beginning was the Word" he immediately places "And the Word was with God." He adds "was" everywhere out of necessity because of his generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, he shows that the Son is one, having existence by himself, while God the Father, with whom the Word was, is another. For how can something that is numerically one be conceived of as being with itself or beside itself?

For see now again I pray, the vigilance of this bearer within him of the Spirit. He taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in Ἀρχὴ, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But since, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant, as we may suppose, that certain would arise, of their great ignorance saying that the Father and Son are one and the same, and distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name, but not suffering Them to exist in Their several Persons, so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by Himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is:—-needs against this heresy too as already confronting him, and mooted at that time, or about so to be, does he arm himself, and for its destruction, by the side of In the beginning was the Word he puts forthwith, And the Word was with God: every where adding of necessity the was on account of His Generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, shewing that the Son is One, having existence by Himself, God the Father again, with Whom was the Word, Another. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?

However, we will demonstrate through the arguments below that the heretics' reasoning on these matters will also be found to lack proper understanding, by making a precise examination of the questions concerning it.

But that the reasoning of the heretics about these things also will be found without learning, we will teach by the considerations below, making an exact test of the questions regarding it.

Proof through demonstration and Scripture testimonies that the Father exists in His own hypostasis, and the Son likewise, with the Holy Spirit being counted together with them as God, even though nothing is being investigated about Him at the present moment.

Proof by demonstration and Scripture testimonies, that the Father is in His Own Person, and the Son likewise, the Holy Ghost being counted with Them as God, even though nothing is for the present enquired into regarding Him.

The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which means they have an unchangeable likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and each shines forth in the other, just as the Savior himself says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and again, "I in the Father and the Father in me." But even though he is in the Father and has the Father in him, being himself fully, as has already been said, perfectly exact to the form of the one who begot him, and depicting again in himself without any deficiency the Father from whom he comes—he will not therefore be deprived of his separate existence, nor will the Father lose his own special being. Neither will the surpassing likeness and resemblance cause any confusion of persons, so that the Father who begot and the Son who is begotten from him should be considered as numerically one. Rather, sameness of nature (physis) will be confessed of both, yet the individual existence of each will surely follow, so that the Father should be understood as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For in this way, with the Holy Spirit being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have its proper fullness.

Consubstantial is the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son, wherefore They arrive at an unchangeable Likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and Each flashes forth in the Other, even as the Saviour Himself says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and again, I in the Father and the Father in Me. But even though He be in the Father, and have again the Father in Him, Himself full well, as has been already said, perfectly exact unto the Form of Him Who begat Him, and depicting again in Himself without any shortcome, the Father whence He is:—-not therefore will He be deprived of His separate existence, nor will the Father lose His own special Being; but neither will the surpassing Likeness and Resemblance work any confusion of Persons, so that the Father Who begat and the Son Who is Begotten of Him should be considered as one in number. But sameness of Nature will be confessed of Both, yet the Individual Existence of Each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Ghost being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have Its Proper Fullness.

Another point: If the Son Himself is also the Father, what is the point of having distinct names? For if He did not beget anyone at all, why is He called Father? And how can He be called Son if He was not begotten of the Father? The names themselves necessarily require us to understand them in a certain way. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Son was begotten, and this is the truth, He therefore has His own distinct existence. The Father likewise has His own distinct existence, since what is begotten is clearly something different from what begets.

Another. If the Son Himself is Father too, what place has the distinction of names? For if He begat not at all, why is He called Father? How Son, if He were not begotten of the Father? For the Names ask as of necessity such an idea regarding them. But since the Divine Scriptures preach that the Son was Begotten, and the truth is so, He has therefore an existence by Himself. The Father too is again by Himself, if indeed that which is begotten is plainly one thing from another as regards that which begets.

Another argument. The blessed Paul, writing his letter to the Philippians, says of the Son, "Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God." Who then is He who did not consider His being equal with God something to be grasped? For must we not say that one is He who exists in the Form of God, and another is He whose Form it is? But this is clear and acknowledged by all. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one and the same in number, but have distinct existence and are beheld in one another, according to sameness of ousia, even though they are One from One—that is, the Son from the Father.

Another. The blessed Paul writing his letter to the Philippians says of the Son, Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God. Who then is He Who would not that His being Equal with God should be thought robbery? For must one not needs say, that One is He Who is in the Form of God, Another again He Whose Form it was? But this is clear and confessed by all. Therefore not one and the same in number are Father and Son, but of distinct Being and beheld in One Another, according to sameness of Essence, even if They be One of One, to wit the Son of the Father.

Another argument. The Savior said, "I and My Father are One," knowing that He has a separate existence and the Father does too. But if this were not truly the case, why did He not preserve what belongs to oneness and say, "I and My Father am One"? Since He explains His meaning by using the plural number, He clearly overthrows the assumption of those who think otherwise. For "are" cannot be sensibly understood as referring to one person.

Another. I and My Father are One, said the Saviour, as knowing, that is, that Himself has a separate existence and the Father too. But if the truth of the fact be not so, why did He not, keeping what belongs to oneness, say, I and My Father am One? But since He explains what He means by the plural number, clearly He overthrows the surmise of those who think otherwise. For we are will not be with sense taken of one.

Here's another argument. At the creation of humanity, God's voice is presented as saying, "Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness." If, then, the fullness (if I may call it that) of the Holy Trinity is reduced to a single numerical entity, and they impiously deny the Father and the Son Their distinct existence, who is speaking and to whom when it says, "Let us make man in Our Image"? For He should say—if it were as they foolishly claim—"Let me make man in my image, after my likeness." But the writer of the book does not say this. Instead, by assigning the creation to a plural form and adding "Our image," he almost proclaims with a clear and powerful voice that the enumeration of the Holy Trinity is more than One.

Another. At the fashioning of man the voice of God is introduced saying, Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness. If then the amplitude, if I may so call it, of the Holy Trinity is contracted into a One in number, and they impiously take away from the Father and the Son Their separate Existence: who is he who says, and to whom, Let us make man in Our Image? For He ought forsooth to say, if it be as they in their silly nonsense say, Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. But now the writer of the Book, not saying this indeed, but allotting the creation to the plural number and adding Our image, well-nigh with clear and mighty voice proclaims the enumeration of the Holy Trinity to be above One.

Another argument. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as having distinct Being? For that which is illuminated is truly illuminated by another—namely, by that which illuminates it—and not by itself from itself.

Another. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as of distinct Being? For that which is the embrightened, is so in very deed from other, that namely which brightens it, and not itself from itself.

Another argument. The Son, showing Himself to be of the Essence of God the Father, says again, "I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father." How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason compels us to conceive of that which proceeds from anything as other than that from which it proceeded? Therefore the contrary argument is not true.

Another. The Son shewing Himself of the Essence of God the Father says again, I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father. How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason persuades us to conceive of that which proceeds from ought as other than that from whence it proceeded? Not true therefore is the contrary argument.

Here is the paragraph rewritten in clear, modern English:

Another point. We are justified by believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit. This is why the Savior Himself commands His own disciples, saying "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If the difference of the Names contributes nothing to our understanding, and when someone says "the Father" they mean the Son, and in naming the Son they refer to the Father, what need would there have been to command that believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the Divine Nature extends into the number three, it is entirely clear to everyone, I think, that each of those so numbered exists in His own hypostasis (individual Person), yet because there is no change in the Nature, it reaches One Godhead and receives the same worship.

Another. Believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost we are justified. Wherefore the Saviour Himself too enjoins His own Disciples saying Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. If then the difference of the Names is to contribute nothing to our conception, but when one says the Father, he means the Son, and in naming the Son makes mention of the Father, what need was there of bidding that the believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the tale of the Divine Nature runs forth into the number three, it is I suppose wholly manifest to all that Each of those so numbered exists in His Own Person, but by reason of there being no change in the Nature, It arrives at One Godhead and has the same worship.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God. Explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, it says, "The Lord rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from the Lord," since this is the portion of the cup most fitting for those who commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father who works all things through the Son, since the Son is also His Might and His Arm, who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is the Father not Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God, and explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them, and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, The Lord, it says, rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from, the Lord, since this too is the portion of the cup most befitting those who are wont to commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father Who worketh all things through the Son, since He is too His Might and His Arm, Who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is not the Father Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son,, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Moved by prophetic spirit and foreknowing things to come through it, the blessed Psalmist understood that the human race could be saved in no other way except by the Appearing of the Son of God alone, who is able to easily reorder all things to whatever He wills. Therefore he prayed that the Son might be sent to us, as the only one able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and he said to God the Father, "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth." As for what the Light is and what the Truth is, hear the Son Himself saying, "I am the Light and I am the Truth." But if the Light and the Truth of the Father—that is, the Son—is sent to us, how is He not Other than the Father in His own Being, even if He is One with Him in terms of Sameness of ousia? For if anyone imagines that this is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the same, why doesn't the one who has the Spirit within him make his prayer differently and cry, "Come to us, O Light and Truth"? But since he says "O send out," he clearly knew that One is the Sender and Another is the Sent—though the mode of the Sending should be understood as befits God.

Another. Moved by prophetic spirit, and through it foreknowing things to come, the blessed Psalmist had perceived that the human race could no otherwise be saved, except by the alone Appearing of the Son of God, Who is able easily to trans-order all things to whatsoever He will. Wherefore he besought that the Son might be sent to us, as alone able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and said, as though to God the Father, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. What then the Light is, and what the Truth, hear the Son Himself saying, I am the Light and I am the Truth. But if the Light and the Truth of the Father, that is the Son, be sent to us, how is He not Other than He, as far as His own Being, even if He be One with Him as regards Sameness of Essence? For if any imagine that it is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the Same, why does not he who bears within him the Spirit make the fashion of his prayer different and cry, Come to us, O Light and Truth? But since he says O send out, plainly he knew that One is the Sender, Another the Sent: be the mode of the Sending conceived of as befits God.

The Divine Scriptures say that all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, were made through the Son. We who worship the truth hold to this belief and maintain right thinking within the dogmas of piety. Let us therefore examine closely the expression "through the Son" and see what meaning it gives us. Clearly, it leads us to understand that the Doer and Worker is One, while He through whom all things are worked is Another. The expression "through the Son" necessarily presents us with two distinct Persons. Otherwise, they should explain how the phrase "through the Son" can properly and truly refer to a single individual—one in number and counting—if no one else is understood to exist alongside Him and work together with Him. But I think our opponent will be completely unable to do this. Since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father has worked all things through the Son, and we believe this (and I suppose they do too), it is necessary to understand that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and likewise the Son. This in no way undermines the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of ousia.

Another. The Divine Scriptures say, that through the Son were made all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, and thus believing, we the worshippers of the truth go on our way in rightness of conception, and within the dogmas of piety. Let us then scrutinize the expression through the Son, and examine what sense it gives us. It is clear that it would have us conceive of the Doer and Worker as One, Him through Whom all things are wrought as Another. For the expression through the Son gives, as of necessity, a sort of exhibition of two Persons. Else let them say how the word through the Son in His being said to do anything, will rightly and truly admit the one in number and in the reckoning thereto pertaining, if none other be conceived of with Him and concurring with Him. But I suppose that our opponent will be wholly at a loss. But since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father hath wrought all things through the Son, and we believe it and I suppose that they too: how is it not of necessity to conceive that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and in like manner the Son, nor does this any way overthrow the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of Essence.

The one who carried the Spirit within him was not unaware that some would arise in the last times who would accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord who bought them by supposing that the Word who appeared from God the Father is not by physis God, but would introduce alongside Him some spurious and falsely-named god, having the name of Sonship and Deity but not truly possessing them. Those who give the Jewish impiety of Arius a place in their own minds do this, and for this reason they put forth from a dead heart no life-giving word of devout thought, but rather that which looks and tends toward death. Their tongue truly is like an arrow shot out; the words of their mouth are deceitful.

He who bare within him the Spirit was not ignorant that there should arise some in the last times who should accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord that bought them, by supposing that the Word Who appeared from God the Father is not by Nature God, but should bring in besides Him some so to speak spurious and false-called god, having about him the name of Sonship and Deity, but not so in truth. Such do they, who give the Jewish impiety of Arius an abode in their own mind; wherefore they put forth out of a dead heart, no life-giving word of pious thought, but that which looketh and tendeth unto death. Their tongue verily is as an arrow shot out; deceitful the words of their mouth.

As if someone were already challenging the words of truth and practically saying to the holy Evangelist: "The Word was with God, sir—very well, we fully agree with what you've written about this. Let the Father exist separately, and the Son likewise. But what should we understand the Word to be by physis? Simply being with God doesn't reveal His ousia at all. Since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, we'll assign this to the Father alone, with whom the Word was." How does truth's herald respond? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God—so that through being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and believed to be the Son, distinct and existing by Himself; and through being God, He might be understood as consubstantial and from Him by physis, being both God and coming forth from God. For it would be inconceivable, since everyone confesses the Godhead to be one, that the Holy Trinity should not in every way share the same ousia and thus arrive at one relation of Godhead. Therefore He was also God. He did not become God eventually, but He was—since eternal being must especially and certainly accompany being God, because whatever came into existence in time or was brought from non-existence into existence will not be God by physis.

As though then some one were already resisting the words of truth, and were almost saying to the Holy Evangelist; The Word was with God, Sir, be it so, we agree fully to what you have written as to this. Be the Father and Exist He separately, and the Son likewise. What now ought one to suppose that the Word is by Nature? for His Being with God, does not at all reveal His Essence. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim One God, we will allot this to the Father only, with Whom the Word was. What then replies Truth's herald? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God, that through His being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by Himself; through being God, He might be conceived of as Consubstantial and of Him by Nature, as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be One, that the Holy Trinity should not in every wise arrive at Sameness of Essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He was then also God. He did not become so at last, but He was, if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God: for that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by Nature God.

Since God the Word has eternity through the word "was" and consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great a punishment and vengeance must we think those people will incur who believe that He is in any way inferior to or unlike the One who begot Him, and who do not hesitate to reach such a height of impiety that they even dare to say such things to others, understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm?

Seeing then that God the Word has Eternity through the word was, Consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great punishment and vengeance must we needs think that they shall be found to incur, who think that He is in ought whatever inferior, or unlike Him who begat Him, and shudder not to go forward to that height of impiety, as even to dare to utter such things to others also, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm?

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

But we will know from the following considerations that the Son, who is truly from Him, is in no way inferior to the Father.

But that the Son Who is of Him of a truth is in no wise inferior to the Father, we shall know again from the accompanying considerations.

Another point. The Divine Scriptures call the Son by many and varied names. They say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what Paul says: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." He is also called both His Light and His Truth, as one of the Saints sings in the Psalms: "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth." He is called Righteousness as well, as in "Quicken me in Thy Righteousness"—for the Father gives life in Christ to those who believe in Him. He is also called the Counsel of the Father, as it says, "Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel," and again, "The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever." Since the Son is all these things to God the Father, let those who flatter the error of Arius and are filled with that man's foolishness tell us how He is lesser than the Father. For if they are right, then we must say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly mighty, not wholly light, not wholly truth, not wholly righteous—indeed, not even perfect in counsel—if the Son, who is all these things to Him, is shown to be not perfect because He is inferior. But to think or say this is impious. The Father is perfect because He has all things perfectly in Himself. Clearly, then, the Son is also perfect—the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But how can He who brings perfection to His own Father be conceived of as inferior?

Another. By many and varied names do the Divine Scriptures call the Son. For they say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what is said by Paul, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. He is called again both His Light and His Truth, as is sung in the Psalms by one of the Saints, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. He is called also Righteousness, as, Quicken me in Thy Righteousness: for the Father quickens in Christ those who believe on Him. He is called also the Counsel of the Father, as it is said, Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel, and again, The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever. Since then the Son is all these to God the Father, let them tell us who fawn on the error of Arius and are filled with that man's folly, how He is lesser than He. For if they be right, it is time to say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly Mighty, not wholly Light, not wholly Truth, not wholly Righteous, yea, not even Perfect in Counsel, if the Son Who is all these to Him, by reason of being inferior is shewn to be not Perfect. But to think or say thus is impious. Perfect is the Father, because He has all things perfectly in Himself: Perfect then clearly the Son too, the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But He Who fulfilleth Perfection in His own Father, how can He be conceived of as inferior?

Another. If the Son is inferior to God the Father yet is worshipped both by us and by the holy angels, we will be caught in the act of serving two gods, since what lacks perfection can never attain to sameness of ousia with the Perfect. The difference separating things that are unlike in their physis is vast, dividing them into complete otherness. But the faith is not in a plurality of gods. Rather, God is One: the Father, with the Son and Holy Spirit attaining unity with Him. The charge against the Son therefore comes to nothing. For how could what is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father and be united in nature through unity of ousia?

Another. If the Son having inferiority to God the Father, is worshipped both by us and by the Holy Angels, we shall be taken in the act of serving two gods, since that which lacks perfection will never attain to sameness of essence with the Perfect; but vast is the difference sundering unto alienship things unlike as regards their nature. But the faith is not in plurality of gods, but One is God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost attaining unto unity with Him. The charge against the Son then comes to nothing. For how yet will that which is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father, and be united as to Nature in unity of Essence?

If the Son is fullness (for we have all received from His fullness), how can inferiority have any place in Him? Things that are contrary to one another cannot coexist in the same subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son is fulness (for of His fulness have all we received) how will what is inferior have a place? for things that are contrary to one another are irreconcileable in one subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser fills all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument is being used in more physical terms, by way of example, while superiority and inferiority in what is unembodied is conceived of differently.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser filleth all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument shall be used in more corporeal form, in the way of example, while the superiority and inferiority in the unembodied is otherwise conceived of.

Another argument. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son who is His Heir does not attain perfection because of being lesser, then there is no greatness in that which is above all things, namely God. But it is absurd either to think or say this: therefore the Son is Perfect, as being above every name, and God.

Another. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son Who is His Heir attains not to be Perfect by reason of the lesser, there is no greatness in that which is above all things, that is God. But it is absurd either to think or to say this: Perfect therefore is the Son, as being above every name, and God.

Another argument. If the Divine Nature has no quantity, and "lesser" implies a matter of degree, how can the Son, who is God by physis, be thought of as inferior? For He will not be outside the realm of quantity if they claim He is inferior to the Father.

Another. If the Divine Nature is without quantity, and the lesser is cognizant of degree, how can the Son Who is by Nature God be conceived of as inferior? For He will not be beyond the province of quantity, if they say that He has inferiority to the Father.

Another argument. The blessed John says of the Son that He does not give the Spirit by measure—that is, to those who are worthy. Since there is no measure in the Son, He is immeasurable and surpasses all comprehension in quantity, being God. How then can the one who is not measured be less?²²

Another. The blessed John says of the Son that He giveth not the Spirit by measure, to those that is who are worthy. Since then there is not measure in the Son, He is immeasurable, and surpasses all comprehension in quantity as being God. How then is the not-measured less?²²

Another argument. If the Son is lesser and the Father greater, then clearly they will contribute differently to our sanctification, each in proportion to their respective measures. The Father would sanctify to a greater degree, the Son to a lesser degree and separately. Therefore the Spirit would be twofold—less in the Son, greater in the Father. And those who are sanctified by the Father would be sanctified perfectly, while those sanctified by the Son would not be sanctified perfectly. But this line of reasoning leads to great absurdity. For the Holy Spirit is one, and the sanctification freely given by the Father through the Son according to nature (physis) is one and perfect. Therefore He who has the same operation as the perfect Father is not lesser. He possesses the Spirit of Him who begot Him as a good belonging to His own nature (physis), living and existing in Him, just as the Father has it.

Another. If the Son is lesser, the Father greater, differently, it is plain, and in proportion to the measures that Either hath, will they contribute to our sanctification. And the Father will sanctify in a greater degree, the Son in a less and separately. The Spirit therefore will be twofold, and less in the Son, greater in the Father. And they who are sanctified by the Father will be sanctified perfectly, they who by the Son, not perfectly. But great is the absurdity of reasoning herein. For One is the Holy Ghost, one and perfect the Sanctification, freely given by the Father through the Son Naturally. Not lesser then is He Who has the same operation with the Perfect Father, and Who has the Spirit of Him Who begat Him, a good of His own Nature, Living and inexisting, even as the Father hath.

Another argument. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul says, how is He lesser than the Father? For the mode of the dispensation with the Flesh and the humiliation connected with it—which has the Second Coming from Heaven as its end point—will not, I suppose, strip the Son of the dignity that belongs to Him by physis. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then can He in any way share in the glory of the perfect Father if He is inferior to Him?

Another. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul saith, how is He lesser that He? For the mode of the dispensation with Flesh and the humiliation thereupon mentioned, which has the Second Appearance from Heaven as its termination, will not, I suppose, bare the Son of the dignity by Nature belonging to Him. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then is he at all in the glory of the Perfect Father who is inferior to Him?

Another. God the Father is found somewhere saying through one of the prophets, "I will not give My glory unto another." We must therefore ask those who impiously dishonor the Son—or rather, through Him the Father too, for he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either—whether the Son, while being less than God the Father as they suppose, is consubstantial with Him or not. If they say that He is consubstantial, why do they wrongly assign Him the lesser status? For things that are of the same ousia and physis will never have the greater within themselves as regards their mode of being, for this is precisely what is being considered.

Another. God the Father is somewhere found to say by one of the prophets, I will not give My glory unto another. We must ask therefore those who impiously dishonour the Son, nay rather through Him the Father too (for he that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father), whether the Son being, as they suppose, less than God the Father is Consubstantial with Him, or no? If then they shall say that He is Consubstantial, why do they for nought put on Him the less? For things that are of the same essence and nature, will never have the greater in themselves, as regards the mode of their being: for this altogether is it that is under consideration.

But they will probably not agree, nor will they grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, since according to them He is less. He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then does He have His glory? For blessed Daniel says there was given Him glory and a kingdom. Either God the Father will be lying when He says, I will not give My glory unto another, or if He is truthful and did give His glory to the Son, then the Son is not other than He, being the Fruit of His ousia and His true Offspring. And He who is so situated toward the Father in regard to ousia, how will He be less than He?

But they will not perhaps agree, nor will grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, He being according to them less: He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then has He His glory? For there was given Him, says blessed Daniel, glory and a kingdom. For either God the Father will lie in saying, I will not give My glory unto another: or if He is true, and did give His glory to the Son, then is He not other than He, the Fruit of His Essence and His True Offspring. And He Who is so situated towards the Father in regard of Essence, how will He be less than He?

Others are simple and unconnected. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son is likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than the Father? For I don't suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will rise up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son is likewise Lord, how is He less than the Father? For He will not be perfectly free if He is less in lordship and does not have the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father is Light, and the Son is likewise Light, how is He less than the Father? For He will not be perfectly Light, but will be partially comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will be lying when he says, "The darkness did not comprehend it." And if the Father is Life, and the Son is likewise Life, how is He less than the Father? For life will not exist in us in perfect measure, even if Christ dwells in the inner man. But those who believe are still to some degree dead, if it is true that the Son, having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must push away as far as possible the absurdity of this, we say that the Son is Perfect, being made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His ousia.

Others, simple and without connection. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than He? for I do not suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will mount up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son likewise Lord; how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly free, if He be less in lordship, and have not the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father be Light, and the Son likewise Light, how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly Light, but will be in part comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will lie in saying, The darkness comprehended it not. And if the Father is Life, and the Son likewise Life, how is He less than He? For in us life will not exist in perfect measure, even if Christ dwell in the inner man: but they who believe are still to some degree dead, if so be that the Son having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must needs put as far away as possible the absurdity of this, we say that Perfect is the Son, being. made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His Essence.

Another point. If the Son is less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial, He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien. In that case He is not Son, and not even God at all. For how will He be called Son if He is not of the Father, or how will He any longer be God if He is not of God by physis? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still, it seems, in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Spirit. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him by reason of being of Him by physis, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If the Son be less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial; He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien: hence He is not Son, yea not even God at all. For how will he be called Son who is not of the Father, or how will he be any longer God who is not of God by Nature? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still it seems in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Ghost. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him, by reason of being of Him by Nature, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If God the Word who shone forth from God the Father is truly Son, our opponents must necessarily confess, even against their will, that He is of the ousia of the Father, for this is what true sonship means. Then how is such a One inferior to the Father, if He is the fruit of His ousia, which in no way admits anything lesser within itself? For all things exist in perfect measure in God. But if He is not of the ousia of the Father, then He is not Son, but something counterfeit and falsely named. Indeed, the Father Himself would not rightly and truly be called Father. For if there is no Son by physis, on account of whom He is Father, how is He understood as Father? But this is absurd, for God is truly Father, as all the Divine Scriptures declare. Therefore, He who is from Him by physis is surely Son. If so, He is not lesser, for He is consubstantial as Son.

Another. If God the Word Who beamed forth from God the Father is in truth Son, of necessity must our opponents even against their will confess that He is of the Essence of the Father; for this is what sonship in truth means. Then how is Such inferior to the Father, if He be Fruit of His Essence, Which is nowise receptive of the lesser within Itself? For all things are in perfect degree in God. But if He be not of the Essence of the Father, neither is He Son, but some counterfeit and falsely-called: yea neither will the Father Himself be rightly and truly called Father. For if there be no Son by Nature, on account of Whom He is Father, how is He conceived of as Father? But this is absurd, for God is Very Father; for so do all the Divine Scriptures cry aloud. He Who is of Him by Nature is therefore surely Son: if so, not lesser; for He is Consubstantial as Son.

Another argument. God doesn't rightly have the name of family or fatherhood from us, but rather we clearly received it from Him. Paul's word is trustworthy when he declares, "Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named." Since God is most ancient of all things, we are fathers by imitation, being called to His pattern because we are made after His image. Then tell me this: how are we who are made after His likeness fathers of our own children by nature, if this is not the case in the Archetype after which we too have been formed? How can anyone grant that the name of family or fatherhood passed even to the rest from God, if He is not truly a Father? For if that were so, the nature of the thing would be completely overturned, and we would give Him the name Father in imitation of us rather than He giving it to us. The argument will compel the heretic to admit this even against his will. Therefore the witness of truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is completely absurd: for it is true to say, "Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by nature the Father of the Word. He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, without having anything less than whatever He Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him do not have those begotten of us in this way, but as altogether equal in terms of nature.

Another. The name of family or fathership not God has of right from us, but we rather clearly received it from Him. And trusty is the word of Paul crying on this wise, Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named. But since God is that which is most ancient of all, by imitation are we fathers, who are called to His Pattern by reason of our being made after His Image. Then how, tell me, are we who are made after His Likeness, by nature fathers of our own children, if this be not the case in the Archetype, after Which we too have been formed? How will any one grant that the name of family or fathership passed even unto the rest from God, if He be not in very deed a Father? For, if it were so, the nature of the thing would be wholly overturned and we should rather give to Him to be called Father in imitation of us, than He give it to us. For this the argument will compel the heretic even against his will to admit. The witness therefore of the truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is most absurd: for true is he who is bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by Nature the Father of the Word, He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, through His having the lesser than whatever Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him, do not so have those that are begotten of us, but altogether equal, as regards the nature.

Another argument: Let the heretic, who is full of clever arguments, stop twisting the truth. Even if he confesses that the Word of God is Son, let him not honor Him with empty words while saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all unless He is so by Nature? So let them either strip off their hypocritical mask and blaspheme openly, admitting that He is neither God nor Son, or—if convicted by all of Holy Scripture and struck by the words of the saints as if by stones from a sling—let them be ashamed before the truth and say that He is Son and God. Then let them not think He is lesser than the One Who begot Him. For how can the Word, being God, be lesser when compared to God the Father? Even a human being is both called and is son of man, yet he will not be inferior to his father insofar as he is man. For a man will not be greater or less than a man with respect to being man, nor an angel than an angel with respect to being angel, nor anything else that exists that shares the same nature with another and has been allotted a portion of the same essence. Therefore, if He is truly Son, one must necessarily say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself by Nature. And if the Father is God by Nature, then clearly the Word Who is begotten of that Nature is also God by Nature. How then can God be less than God with respect to being God?

Another. Let not the heretic manifold in arguments deal subtilly with the truth, nor confessing that the Word of God is Son, honour Him in mere words, saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all, except He be so by Nature? Let them then either, stripping off the mask of hypocrisy, blaspheme openly, confessing that He is neither God nor Son: or if convicted by the whole Divine Scripture and wounded by the words of the Saints as by sling-stones they feel shame in presence of the truth, and say that He is Son and God, let them not think that He is lesser than He Who begat Him. For how will the Word, being God, admit of the lesser, compared to God the Father? although man too is both called and is son of man, yet will he not be inferior to his father so far as he is man. For man will not be greater or less than man, in respect of his being man, nor yet angel than angel, in regard of his being angel, nor ought else of things that are that is con-natural to any-thing whatsoever, and has a share of the same essence allotted to it. Therefore if He is truly Son, one must needs say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself of Nature. And if the Father be God by Nature, God by Nature plainly is also the Word Who is begotten of That Nature. How then will God be less than God in regard to being God?

Another. Where did you get the audacity to say that the Son is in a lesser condition than the One who begot Him? How will He accept being lesser? As far as timing goes, no one, I suppose, even if extremely foolish, would imagine this. For the Son exists before the ages, and He Himself is the Maker of the ages. It makes sense to understand that the One whose generation is older than all time will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than Him in the dimension of physical size, for the Divine Nature is understood to exist without size, dimension, or body. So how should we understand "lesser" when applied to the One who is begotten? Perhaps someone will say: in glory, in power, in wisdom. Then let them tell us how great and large the Father is in these respects (if we must speak this way), so that the Son can be understood as less when measured against Him. Or if the Father is inconceivable and immeasurable in goodness, and far exceeds the measure of our understanding, how do the Arians, recklessly daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, thereby undermining the dignity that belongs to Him by physis? For the lesser is proven by comparison with the greater. But if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

Another. Whence, sirs, did ye get the daring to say that the Son is in lesser condition than He Who begat Him? How will He admit the lesser? As regards the date of being, no one I suppose, even though exceeding silly, would surmise. For before the ages is the Son, and Himself is the Maker of the ages: and it will be with reason conceived that He Who has His Generation elder than all time, will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than He in the dimension that belongs to size: for the Divine Nature is conceived of and is without size, dimension and body. How then is the lesser to be taken of Him Who is begotten? In glory, perhaps one will say, in power, in wisdom. Let them say then, how great and large the Father is herein (if one must speak thus), in order that the Son may be conceived of as less, when measured with Him? Or if the Father is in good inconceiveable and immeasurable, and that far outstrips the measure of our understanding, whence do the Arians, readily daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, to the overthrow of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature? For the lesser is proved by the juxtaposition of the greater; but if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

One can indeed truthfully respond to the abomination of the unholy heretics: "Our enemies are without understanding." How are they not full of complete ignorance, "understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm," as Paul says? Here is why we think it necessary to accuse them: If they say that the Son is truly begotten as God from God the Father, and if they actually believe this, how is He lesser than the Father? This leads to great absurdity in reasoning, containing blasphemy on every side—blasphemy so terrible that one would refuse even to hear it. For if the Son, being God by Nature (physis), can in any way admit being lesser in Himself, we must eventually conclude that there is something greater than God. The Essence (ousia) of the Father, then, could not be conceived of as being in Perfection in every respect, even though He is God by Nature (physis). Instead, He Himself would progress in some way toward something greater, being convicted through the Son—His Image—that He too is of an essence (ousia) that admits being lesser. And He would be subject to this potentially, even if He has not yet experienced it, since things that are capable of something will entirely admit the things they are capable of, and when the time calls them to experience it, they will not refuse it. But the blasphemy apparent in this is great. For the Father will not advance in any way toward something greater, nor will He admit being lesser, because He is God by Nature (physis). Therefore, neither will the Son admit being lesser in Himself, since He too is God by Nature (physis), lest the phrase or two invented by the ignorance of the heretics should be imagined to be an accusation against the Essence (ousia) that is above all.²

Another. One may indeed with truth reply to the abomination of the unholy heretics, Our enemies are without understanding. For how are they not full of all unlearning, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, as Paul saith? The reason why we think it needful to accuse them is this. If they say that the Son is of a truth begotten God of God the Father, and so believe, how is He lesser than the Father? For great absurdity of ideas will hence be generated, on every side containing blasphemy, and such that one would refuse only to hear them. For if the Son being God by Nature can any whit admit in Himself the lesser, we must needs at length conceive that there is something greater than God. The Essence then of the Father is not conceived of as being in Perfection of every thing, even though He be by Nature God, but He will Himself progress in some direction towards the greater, convicted in the Son His Image that He Himself too is of the essence that admits the lesser. And He will suffer this virtually, even if He have not yet suffered it; since things that are capable of ought, will altogether admit the things whereof they are capable, and when the time calls them to suffer it, they will not refuse it. But great is the blasphemy that is apparent herein. For neither will the Father advance in any direction towards the greater, nor yet will He admit of the lesser, by reason that He is by Nature God. Therefore neither will the Son admit in Himself the lesser, in that He too is God by Nature, lest the syllable or two which was devised by the unlearning of the heretics, should be imagined to be an accusal of the Essence that is above all.²

Another. If the Word of God the Father, being by physis His Son, is lesser than He—either in regard to God-befitting dignity, or as not by physis unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority—the accusation will be not so much against Him as against the ousia from which He is believed to come, if it altogether generates what is lesser or worse than itself, even though the created and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the divine physis of the Father is above all passion, it will clearly be beyond this charge, and being the archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not as lesser, but as equal and consubstantial, lest the God who is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another. If the Word of God the Father being by Nature His Son is lesser than He, either in regard of God-befitting Dignity, or as not by Nature Unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority, the accusal will be not so much of Him as of the Essence Whereof He is believed to be, if It altogether generate the lesser, or the worse, than Itself, although the originate and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing, brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the Divine Nature of the Father is above all passion, It will manifestly be beyond this charge, and being the Archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not lesser, but Equal and Consubstantial, lest the God That is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another argument using reductio ad absurdum. Christ, showing that He is equal with God the Father, says to His own disciples, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." How then will He who is by nature such, and truly is what He Himself declares, be lesser, according to the foolish opinion of some? For if being lesser He shows the Father in Himself without any change taking place, then the lesser will extend to the Father, since the Father appears in His unchanging image, the Son. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not lesser, since the Father who is perfect is imaged in Him. Another argument. And how will the Son accept being lesser than the Father, when He says without error, "All things that the Father has are Mine," and again, speaking to God the Father, "All Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine"? For if the Son is indeed lesser, according to the foolish opinion of some, then since He speaks truthfully in saying to the Father, "Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine," the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son. The order of things becomes meaningless if what belongs to each is seen in the other, and whatever is the Father's is also the Son's, and again whatever appears as the unique property of the Son is also the Father's. Then nothing would prevent us from saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is utterly absurd even to imagine. Therefore He who shares the prerogatives of ousia in common with the Father is equal and not lesser.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum. Christ shewing that He is Equal with God the Father says to His own Disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Then how will He that is by Nature Such, and so IS as Himself with truth declares, have the lesser, according to the uncounsel of some? For if being lesser He shews in Himself the Father, without any intervening change, the lesser will reach to the Father, as appearing in His Unchanged Image, the Son. But this is absurd: therefore not lesser is the Son, in whom the Father being Perfect is imaged. Another. And how will the Son admit the lesser, than wherein is the Father, seeing that He says without blame, All things that the Father hath are Mine: and again, as to God the Father, All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine? For if indeed the Son is, according to the uncounsel of some, lesser; since He speaks truth in saying to the Father, Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine, the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son, the order of things being indifferent, if what belongs to either are seen in the other, and whatsoever is the Father's, this is the Son's also, and again whatever appears as the special property of the Son, this is the Father's too. Nothing then will hinder our saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is most absurd only to conceive of: Equal therefore and not lesser is He Who hath the Prerogatives of Essence in common with the Father.

Another argument of the same kind. If everything the Father has belongs entirely to the Son, and the Father has Perfection, then the Son will be Perfect too, since He has the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore He is not lesser, contrary to the heretics' impious claim.

Another of the same. If all that the Father hath, are wholly the Son's, and the Father hath Perfection, Perfect will be the Son too, Who hath the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore is He not lesser, according to the impiety of the heretics.

Let me tell you who are bringing down unquenchable fire on their own heads and who reject the correctness of the Divine teachings by inventing deceptive arguments with many variations to mislead and confuse the simpler believers. Tell us whether the Father is superior to the Son, possessing something greater in comparison to Him—if the Son is less, as they foolishly claim—or not? I completely assume they will say He is superior. Or let them explain what advantage the Father has in possessing the greater if He is not superior. For if there is no advantage at all, then the entire charge against the Son immediately falls apart. But if there is some great difference, then He is superior, since He has the greater. Let them answer and tell us, if they are truly wise, why the Father, when begetting the Son, did not beget Him equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son equal to Himself in all things, what prevented Him from doing it? For if something necessarily prevented Him, they will have to admit even against their will that there is something greater than the Father. But if nothing at all prevented Him, and He had the power and knew it was better to beget the Son equal but begot Him lesser, this is clearly envy toward Him and malice. For He chose not to give equality to the Son. Therefore, either the Father is powerless in His begetting, or there is malice, according to the conclusion drawn from these arguments, if the Son has the lesser as they claim. But this is absurd, for the Divine and unblemished physis is above all passion. Therefore the Son is not less, so that He does not lose equality, since the Father is in no way powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor is He hindered by malice from choosing what is better.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum, with combination of arguments. Let them tell us who are pouring down the flame unquenchable on their own head, and who reject the uprightness that is in the Divine Dogmas, devising wiles of many-coloured arguments unto the deceiving and overthrow of the simpler, whether the Father is superior to the Son, having the greater in comparison with Him, if He be less, as they in their silly talk say, or not? But I entirely suppose that they will say, He is superior: or let them say what advantage the Father hath in possessing the greater, if He be not superior. For if nothing at all, the whole charge against the Son immediately comes to nought: but if there is any great difference, He is then superior, as having the greater. Let them answer then and tell us, if they are indeed wise, why the Father begetting the Son, begat Him not Equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son in all things Equal to Himself, who hindered His doing it? For if there is ought that hindered as of necessity, they will admit even against their will, that there is somewhat greater than the Father. But if there were nothing at all to hinder, but having the power and knowing that it is better to beget the Son equal He begot Him lesser, this is plainly envy towards Him and an evil eye: for He chose not to give equality to the Son. Either then the Father is impotent in regard to His Begetting, or it will be evil eye, according to the result collected out of the arguments, if the Son have the lesser according to their account. But this is absurd; for the Divine and Untaint Nature is above all passion. Therefore not less is the Son, that He lose not the equality, the Father being in no wise powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor yet hindered by evil eye from choosing the better.

Another argument. The Savior Himself says somewhere that He is in the Father and the Father is likewise in Him. But it is clear to everyone that we should not imagine that the Father is contained in the Son like one body inside another or one vessel inside another, or that the Son is somehow placed inside the Father in the same way. Rather, One appears in the Other, and He in Him, in the Unchanged Sameness of ousia, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to physis. It is as if a person looking at his own form in a reflection were to say truthfully to someone, marveling at the perfect likeness of his figure, "I am in this image and this image is in me."

Another. The Saviour Himself somewhere says that He is in the Father and the Father likewise in Him. But it is plain to every one, that we are not to suppose that like as one body is in another, or one vessel in another, so the Father is contained in the Son, or the Son again in some way placed in the Father: but One appears in the Other, and He in Him in the Unchanged Sameness of Essence, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to Nature. As though a person beholding his own form in an image were to say truly to any, and marvelling at the finished likeness of his figure to cry out, I am in this picture and this picture in me.

Or think of it another way: it's like the sweetness of honey on the tongue saying of itself, "I am in the honey and the honey in me." Or like the heat that naturally comes from fire, if it could speak, saying, "I am in the fire and the fire in me." Each of these examples can be distinguished mentally, but they share one physis. One proceeds from the other in an indivisible and continuous way, so that it seems to be separate from what it's in. Yet even though our thinking about these things takes this form, one still appears in the other and both are the same in ousia. If, then, because of the unchangeableness of their ousia and the complete exactness of the express image, the Father is in the Son, how could the greater find room and appear in the Son who is, according to them, lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, the Son is altogether perfect, able to contain the Perfect and the express image of the mighty Father.

Or in another way:—-As if the sweetness of the honey when laid on the tongue should say of itself, I am in the honey and the honey in me; or as though again the heat that proceeds naturally from fire, emitting a voice were to say, I am in the fire and the fire in me. For each of the things mentioned is I suppose divisible in idea, but one in nature, and the one proceeding by a sort of indivisible and continuous forthcome from the other, so as to seem to be even severed from that wherein it is. Yet though the force of ideas regarding these things takes this form, still one appears in the other and both are the same as regards essence. If then by reason of the unchangeableness of Their Essence, and the entire exactness in express Image, the Father is in the Son, how will the greater find place and appear in the Son Who is according to them lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, altogether Perfect is the Son, Who is able to contain the Perfect and is the express Image of the Mighty Father.

This was in the beginning with God.

2 This was in the beginning with God.

The Evangelist here made a kind of summary of what had already been said before. But by adding the word "This," he seems to be almost shouting aloud. He who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He who is God of God—it is He and no other about whom our sacred book is written. But he seems again not without purpose to add to what has been said the words, "This was in the beginning with God." For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit to know things to come, was not unaware—as it seems to me and as we may truly say—that certain people would appear, workers of destruction, the devil's traps, death's snares leading down to the rooms and depths of hell those who through ignorance give heed to the things they vomit forth from an evil heart. For they will rise up and fight against their own head, saying that one thing is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that something else entirely, though very similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through whom God works all things; so that He may be thought of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The blessed Evangelist, as if he had already heard them blaspheming and was rightly stirred against the absurd foolishness of their writings, had already defined and shown through many words, as was fitting, that the Word is One, and Only and True, of God and in God and with God. With piercing clarity he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His ousia, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shewn that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

Since I believe we must zealously expose such impiety and further reveal their blasphemy for the greater protection of those who are simpler in understanding (for whoever learns about it will pay attention and leap away from it, as if from a serpent lurking in the middle of the path), I must necessarily present their opinion in the form of an antithesis. For it will receive its refutations in proper order, according to the methods that God, who gives wisdom to all, will provide.

But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant.

The Only-Begotten Son of God, he says, is not truly His Word by proper right, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is always in Him. Meanwhile, the Son who is said to have been begotten from Him receives His conceived word, knows all things by having learned them, and is called word and is word according to the likeness of the former.

"The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word."

Then, to confirm his blasphemy—or so he imagines—he weaves together arguments based on twisted ideas, so that, as Scripture says, the wretched man may be caught in the cords of his own sins.

Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins.

If the Son Himself is the Natural and Conceived Word in God the Father and is Consubstantial with the One who begat Him, what prevents the Father from also being and being called Word, since He is Consubstantial with the Word?

"If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?"

And again: "If the Son is the Word of God the Father and there is no other Word than He, by means of what word," he says, "is the Father found saying to Him: You are My Son, this day have I begotten You? For it is very clear that the Father did not address Him without a word, since everything that is uttered is completely uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Savior Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges at one time that He keeps the Father's word, at another again that the Jews heard not His word but the Father's, how will it not," he says, "be confessed beyond a doubt that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind? For participating in that word and being full of it, the one who utters and expounds the Father's ousia—that is, the Son—is called word."

And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?"

This foolish man sows such evils for himself and, while opposing all the Divine Scriptures at once, is not ashamed. This shows that what is written about him is true: "When the wicked man comes into the depth of evils, he despises." For truly, this fighter against God has dug himself exceedingly deep into wickedness through his folly, rejecting the uprightness that comes from truth and limping along with the rottenness of his own arguments. That the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is truly and rightly His Word, we will learn from what follows.

Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, shewing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined.

The foolish heretic is slow to learn. For how can wisdom enter a malicious soul at all? Or tell me, what can be more malicious than such people who, as it is written, turn their ears away from the truth and run more easily to the fables of their own thoughts, so that they justly hear, since they speak things not from the Divine Scriptures, Woe to those who prophesy from their own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord? For who, speaking from the mouth of the Lord, calls Jesus Anathema? Some people indeed do this in unrestrained arrogance against the doctrines of true religion, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all justice. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one thing, and that he who is called Son and Word is another thing. They bring forward in support of what they consider their own opinion, but more truly their unrestrained impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ saying in His conversations with the Jews, I know the Father and keep His word, and also what was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star I begot You. Then they say, belching out the venom of their own father, If the speaker is different from the one he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word with which the Father conversed will be different from the Son. And again: If, he says, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will the one who keeps not be different from that which is kept? It is perhaps not difficult to reply to this, for the Lord will give utterance to those who evangelize with much power. But those who are sick with such ignorance ought to remember Him who says, Woe to those who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and it is fitting for us to cry out to our Guide who is in the heavens, Turn my eyes away from beholding vanity. For the vain utterances of their ignorance are truly vanity and rubbish and nothing else. For the Son did not say that He kept the Father's word as though He had another word of the Father within Himself, nor did He declare that He had come to us bringing it with Him like a teacher. Rather, as the One who alone exists in the Father by nature (physis), and who likewise has the Father in Himself with no one else intervening, He says, I in the Father and the Father in Me—not the innate word, nor any other word, but the Father in Me. How then should one understand what He said to the Jews, someone may reasonably ask us. To this we truthfully say what comes to our mind. The Savior was teaching the most unbelieving people of the Jews and, gradually drawing His hearers away from the worship of the law, often called out to them, I am the Truth, practically saying, Throw off the yoke of the law, sirs, and receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart and type recede far away—the Truth has shone forth. But He did not seem to everyone to be acting rightly by overturning Moses' commands, or rather by leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried out, If this man were from God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin the One who knew no sin.

Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not.

The heretic is slow to learn these Jewish-style errors. When replying to them, Christ removes all boasting from His words and teaches them humbly and obscurely that the Son, who does not know sin, would not do anything other than what seemed good to God the Father. He avoids saying more plainly "I do not know sin" to prevent them from trying to stone Him again. For they would immediately become angry and attack Him, saying, "Not sinning belongs to God alone. You are a man—do not say things that befit God alone." They actually did this another time, saying they had good reason to stone Him because, being a man, He was making Himself God. The Savior spoke obscurely because He was both man and under the law with those under the law, saying He kept the Father's word—essentially saying, "I will never transgress the Father's will." Sin is born from departing from the divine law, but He does not know sin because He is God by physis. Therefore His teaching does not offend the Father. No one should criticize Him who is by physis the Lawgiver but is a law-keeper because of His likeness to us. He says He knows the Father, not simply as we do, but more directly because He is God—He declares He understands the Father's physis from what He Himself is. Since He knows that the One who begot Him cannot endure change, He clearly knows that He Himself is unchangeable, being from an unchangeable Father. How can that which cannot change be said to sin, rather than standing firm in its own natural endowments?

To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments?

The accusation of the Jews is pointless, as they imagine that the Son thinks anything contrary to the counsel of the Father. For He keeps the Father's word, as He says, and by physis does not know how to sin, since He knows the Father cannot endure this—the Father with whom He is consubstantial as true Son. But since they counter this by citing what has been added to their objection, "From the womb before the Day-star I begot you," let us also explain the word of piety concerning this. For just because the Father says such things to the Son, we should not therefore think that there is an innate word in Him and conceive of the Son as something other than it. But first of all, let us consider that a prophet skilled in uttering mysteries in the Spirit takes on for us the prosopon of the Son and presents Him hearing from the Father, "You are my Son," and what follows. And the form of speech, since it is constructed in human fashion, will not, I think, compel us at all to conceive of two words. Rather, by referring the unavoidable arrangement here to our own habits of speech, we should blame—if we think rightly—the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words nor modes of thought that accurately serve the mysteries that are above us or that are adequate to express divine things faultlessly. To the divine nature, in turn, we should attribute superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befits it and as it wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we wrongly misuse such words and do not admit that the form of speech corresponds to our usage of it, they will rightly hear this: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting in the way we do; let Him not deny the womb and the birth pangs. For He says to the Son, "From the womb I begot you." But perhaps—or rather, certainly—they will say that the Father's true begetting of the Son is signified through the likeness to us. Therefore let the other point also be piously understood, even if it is uttered in human manner, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is resolved.

Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought we ought to strike down the difficulties devised by their stubbornness (like some swarm of enemies) with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come, let us now bring them forward in the manner appropriate to each, set up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thought let us arm the ever-victorious truth against them. The objection, as it comes from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments that refute it, stimulating the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate examination, and like the rush of some mountain torrent, constantly sweeping away the good readiness of readers who desire always to learn the answer.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer.

If there does not exist in God the Father an essential and conceived word other than the Only-Begotten Son who is from Him, who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who believe we think rightly must necessarily confess that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing to prevent the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word.

"If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word."

No argument, my excellent friend, will ever force us to think that we should believe and call the Father the Word, or even to believe that He could be the Word, simply because He is consubstantial with the Word. For things that share the same ousia will in no way admit a mutual exchange and receive a kind of mixture, as if flowing from one into the other, so that the distinct entities could be reduced from many into one, or from two into one. For even though our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born from him, the father will not thereby become the son, nor will the son in turn ascend to become the father. Rather, being one with him as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: the one who is born of a father will be understood as a son, and likewise the one who begets will clearly be a father. But if you imagine that you are constructing a clever argument from this, and that consubstantiality will necessarily force one consubstantial being to be one with another consubstantial being, allowing no distinction to remain so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, then what persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand satisfaction from the son for the father? For the soul that sins, he says, shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him who judges righteously does not bring the father down, though he is consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor does it elevate the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knows each one individually, with neither one changing into the other nor the other stepping into this one, it is clearly evident, I think, that no argument will force God the Father, because He is consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He remains wholly in Himself as Father, even though He who is begotten from Him is understood to be and is the Word and therefore the Son, so that divine realities may not appear to be in a worse state than our own.

No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are.

The Son has no difference from His Father but is His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, and is found saying to His disciples, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." But if this is so, and He is Consubstantial with the Father, and things that are consubstantial can be utterly confused with one another, then it seems nothing would prevent the Son from being conceived of as Father, since He is Consubstantial with the Father and capable of passing over into this, with nothing hindering it, if consubstantiality is sufficient for this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as if now being so, to the real Father, "From the womb before the Day-star I begot You"; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this has finally taken place, everything is now thrown into confusion, and That which always exists in this way—I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity—will be reduced to Unity, if that which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Consubstantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of hypostasis (individual subsistence). But this is absurd. Therefore the Father will not be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain unchanged, being what He is, even though He has Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be worthless.

The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought.

Another argument. If every word is the word of someone, poured forth from the tongue or brought forth from the heart; and if the Father is Word because He is Consubstantial with the Word, then He will be His own word, or rather no one's word, or will have no existence at all (for how can there be a word when the one whose word it is does not exist?). But this is absurd, for the Divine and Untainted Nature will never be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father ever become the Word, even though He is Consubstantial with the Word. Rather, He will remain Father, whose Word the Son is.

Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is.

Another. If the Divine Nature is believed to be non-recipient of all turn and change as regards ousia, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this is absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father always, having immutability and unchangeability as God.

Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, showing that He is Very God of Very God the Father, says, "All things that the Father has are Mine." But though the Son is heir of all the properties that are in the Father by physis, as being from Him by physis, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father). But the Son will remain lacking nothing that is inherent in the Father, though He is not thought of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's ousia. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the prosopon of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by physis, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as unchanging by physis He remains what He is, so that in addition to being God the Father, He may also be without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word who appeared from Him, the Son.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, shewing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son.

Through the holy Prophets, God the Lawgiver found fault with certain people, saying, "They have put no difference between the holy and profane." The difference or opposition in character between them is indeed great for those willing to discern it. But if it were acceptable to mix together the physis of things that are consubstantial with one another, and if things existing in separate and individual prosopa could drift toward whatever they wish among things that are congenerate or connatural—what would separate the profane from the holy? If the distinction of separate being or of who one is were never seen, but one existed in another because of sameness of ousia, then knowledge regarding each being would become indifferent. Everything would be jumbled together, and the traitor Judas would be Peter or Paul because he is consubstantial with Peter and Paul. Likewise, Peter or Paul would be Judas because they are consubstantial with him. But thinking this way is utterly unreasonable, and being of the same ousia does not remove the difference between things that are congenerate or connatural. Our weakness should not contend with the Divine Essence so as to compel God the Father to be called and to be the Word simply because He is consubstantial with the Word. He remains forever Father, never able to lose the distinction of what He is in this regard, nor yielding to sameness of ousia so that He would possess nothing distinctively. He does not wrong the Son by this; rather, He shows the Son as His own, possessing from Him by physis the unchanging and unchangeable character of the one who begat Him—both by properly and uniquely possessing Sonship and by not being changed into the Father, just as the Father does not change into the Son.

Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;—-what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will shew Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son.

The heretics say: You unreasonably criticize as thinking incorrectly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is different from the Son, even though you hear Him clearly say in the Gospel, "I know Him and keep His word." But if, as He Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, then He must be completely different from it, I suppose, and necessarily so. For there must be a distinction of being different between the one who keeps and that which is kept.

"Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept."

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but instead there exists in God something else that they call conceived, then let those who put forward this contrary opinion tell us whether the word that is the conception of their own ignorance is hypostatic or not. For if they say that it exists by itself as conceived in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons. But if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer comes between and separates the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next to Him, as Son with Father?

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father?

Another argument using the same line of reasoning. The opponents claim that there exists in God the Father a word, the conceived one, by means of which—according to their most unlovely imagination—the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But we must see how great the foolishness of their teaching on this matter is.

Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see.

We must consider the argument about this matter in the following way. The name "father" necessarily has no intermediary in relation to the son. For what would be the intermediary between father and son, or again between son and father? But if, according to their ignorance, an intervening will and a conceived word separate the Son from the Father—which they claim interprets that will—then the Father will no longer be understood as truly Father, nor will the Son be truly Son, if we think that the will of God and the word that interprets it exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these do not have hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without anything in between and is directly next to Him. Where then would the conceived word withdraw to, or what place would the will have, if it is understood as something other than the Son?

"We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son?

Another argument by reduction to absurdity. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics refuses to accept it. But I think we must acknowledge that things which are consubstantial should also be alike in all respects regarding their natural properties. If then, according to the foolish thinking of some, there exists in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, since He is the Father's Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written. The Holy Spirit will equally have one, according to the same principle. The Trinity then becomes doubled, and the Divine Nature is shown to be compound. But this is absurd. In simple essences, there is nothing whatsoever except themselves. Nothing then will prevent the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, with nothing intervening. Another argument finally. When Divine Scripture uses nouns with the article prefixed, it means one specific thing which alone is properly and truly what it is said to be. But when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general statement about everything that is so called. For example (our discussion will reach clear demonstration this way), many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article, it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so. Without the article, it might mean one of those called such by grace. Again, there are many men. But when the Savior says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one selected from ten thousand. Since names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? If every word of God is meant here as being in the beginning, let them show it, and we are the ones speaking nonsense. But if the Evangelist, by prefixing the article, signifies One who properly is so, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why do they struggle in vain, bringing in another besides, only so they may exclude the Son from the ousia of the Father? We ought, considering the absurdity in this, to reject the foolish thinking of those who believe otherwise.

Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shewn to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them shew it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is called Word because, as they claim, He receives the conceived word of the Father and is formed according to it, why doesn't He say to His disciples, "I and the word of the Father are one," or "He who has seen Me has seen the word of the Father"? But since He surpasses all things and likens Himself alone to the Father alone, with nothing intermediate coming between them in this likeness, the Son must be understood as likening Himself to the One who begot Him, and to no one and nothing else.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him.

The opponents say they find the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, not by following their own thoughts on this matter, but by considering the Divine Scripture. They ask: What should we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, "Glorify Your Son," and the Father answering and saying, "I have both glorified, and will glorify again"? Should we not fully acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is the one through whom the Father answers the Son not other than the Son himself?

"We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?"

These unholy heretics deserve both utter amazement and mourning. One should say over them what is spoken in the Prophets: Do not weep for the dead or mourn him, but weep bitterly for the one who thinks and says such things about the Only Begotten. What could be more wretched than these people, if they imagined that this was actually and truly the Father's voice, which not only the Savior heard but also the crowd of Jews standing around and the company of holy disciples? They should instead have conceived of God-befitting excellencies and not attempted to subject things above us to the laws that govern our affairs. A bodily voice strikes bodily hearing—a sound emitted through the lips into the air or produced by some other instrument. But the Will of the Father, expressed in ineffable voice gently and as it were within the mind, is known by the Son alone, who is in Him by physis as His Wisdom. To suppose that God uses a voice consisting of sound is completely unbelievable, if we would preserve for the physis that is above all things its superiority to creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and further shows that he needs no interpretation from another to learn the Father's will, saying, "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes." He should rather have said, my good friends, if you are right in holding such opinions about him, "You have heard the Father's voice along with me." But now, turning his statement completely around to the exact opposite, he declares that he had no need of the voice but asserts that it came rather for their sakes—not that it was uttered by the Father, but that it came and for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through him, then this also came through him altogether. Indeed, he himself was the voice, not interpreting the Father's disposition to himself (for he knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the bystanders, so that they might believe.

Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shews that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe.

Another objection. If they say that the Son needs some innate word so that He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul's statement that Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father if, lacking in wisdom, He receives perfection from another by learning what He does not know? Or how can one avoid saying that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? And if the Son is the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as different from Him? We would then be saying that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But this is a great impiety, and the statement is full of blasphemy. Therefore, the Son does not know what belongs to His own Father by receiving instruction from another, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, He searches all things, even the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

Another point. The Divine Scriptures present the Son to us as the Likeness and exact Image of the Father, and the Savior Himself says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." But if, despite this likeness to Him, the Son does not know of Himself what is in the Father but needs explanations from another source in order to learn it, then we must conclude that the Father Himself is in the same situation, since He exists in the Likeness of the Son. In that case, He too would need someone to explain to Him what lies hidden in His Offspring. So in addition to the absurdities that follow from this position, the Divine Nature would also become capable of receiving ignorance. But since it is impious to think this way, we must turn to more fitting thoughts, for this is clearly what is profitable and helpful.

Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searches all things, even the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? In the same way, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God that is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit, which accurately discerns all things, is the Spirit not only of the Father but of the Son as well, how can the Son—having within Himself by nature the Spirit who knows all things—be ignorant of anything that is in the Father? It plainly appears, then, that it is pointless to imagine that the Son learns the will of the Father from another; and the supposed need for a word to mediate—according to their misguided teaching—will completely vanish. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another argument, using a method of logical reduction to absurdity. Those who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, claiming that He did not know the Will of the Father but used another teacher in order to learn—namely, the term they have invented, which they call the "conceived word"—let them tell us, if they think their opinion on this matter should prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (assuming for the moment it has a separate existence of its own) or not equal, but perhaps inferior or even superior. If they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself as well, for there will certainly be in Him something worse than He is, and different from Him—the conceived word. But if they do not say it is worse, but instead assign to it superiority over the Son, the charge against the Son will operate twice over against the Father. For first, He will be found to have begotten what is in a worse condition than Himself. Then moreover, He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has an inferior position. But I suppose the opponents will recoil from the blasphemy that results from either alternative and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards ousia. The question then is settled. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows teaching one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? Since the argument of these people is weak on all sides, it would be pointless to imagine that the Son has any intermediary, rather than to believe that He is in God the Father, God the Word Who was in the beginning.

Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning.

Another solution. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hidden the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how can we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we seek perfectness in knowledge anymore, if He who has it all is made wise by another? How is He Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son has, as Paul says, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, He will not know the things by which He is wisdom from anyone else, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.

3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

The blessed Evangelist, having refuted the complex objections of the unholy heretics and having completed his subtle and most precise teaching about the Only-Begotten, moves on to another snare of the devil. This snare is woven from the ancient deception and puts forward to us the sting of polytheistic error, which has wounded and destroyed many. It widens the path of destruction and throws open the broad and spacious gate of death, piling up human souls in droves into hell and setting out rich food, as it were, before the devil, bringing choice meat before him. Since the children of the Greeks devoted themselves to worldly wisdom and filled their minds abundantly with the spirit of the ruler of this world, they were swept away into polytheistic error. They corrupted the beauty of the truth and, like those who walk in mist and darkness, descended into the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols and saying to a piece of wood, "You are my father," and to a stone, "You have brought me forth." Others, similarly transgressing, devised a more refined error and thought they should worship the creature rather than the Creator, lavishing the glory that belongs to the Divine Nature alone on the elements made by it. Because of this, the Divine necessarily introduces to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing came into being. He does this to close off for the future the entrance for their deceptions, to show to those who do not know Him the Creator of all things, and by the very words in which he says the creation was made, to teach clearly that He who called it into being is other than it, and by His ineffable power brought things that exist from non-being into birth. For only in this way was it possible to see the Maker proportionally through the beauty of the creatures, and to recognize Him who is in truth God, through whom all things have already been made and by whom made things are preserved. I believe, then, that he arranged the Gospel word well in this way against the false worship of the Greeks, and for this reason we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

The blessed Evangelist, having overthrown the intricate objections of the unholy heretics, and having completed his subtil and most exact utterance respecting the Only-Begotten, comes to another snare of the devil compounded of the ancient deceit, and putting forth to us the sting of the polytheic error, which has wounded and cast down many, and widening the way of perdition, and throwing open the broad and spacious gate of death, heaped up souls of men in herds unto hell and set rich food as it were before the devil and brought before him choice meat. For since the children of the Greeks applying themselves to the wisdom of the world, and having plenteously in their mind the spirit of the ruler of this world, were carried away unto polytheic error, and perverted the beauty of the truth and, like to those who walk in mist and darkness, went down to the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols, and saying to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: others again transgressing akin to them, devising nevertheless a more polished error, deemed that they ought to worship the creature more than the Creator, and lavished the glory that befitted the Divine Nature Alone on the elements that were made by It, of necessity does the Divine introduce to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing passed into being, that he might close for the future the entrance for their deceits, and might shew to them that know Him not the Creator of all things, and by the very words wherein he says that the creation was made, might clearly teach that other than it is He Who called it into being, and by His Ineffable Power brought things that are from not being unto birth. For thus at length was it possible by the beauty of the creatures proportionally to see the Maker, and to recognize Him Who is in truth God, through Whom all things have been already made, and made are preserved. Against the false-worship then of the Greeks do I deem that he thus well arrayed the Gospel word, and for this cause do we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

Since it is appropriate to examine the twisted arguments of the heretics, I think we should also pay attention to their methods and say a bit more about them.

But since it is meet to consider the crooked inventions of the heretics, I think that we ought looking to their ways too to say again a little.

This God-befitting dignity he also places around the Son, showing from every angle that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring. This is so that He may be understood as truly God of God, not (as we are) having the title as something adventitious and coming to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than all of them. For in this phrase "all things," there is nothing which is not included among all things. The blessed Paul is also found to have understood "all things" this way, for when in one of his Epistles he was speaking about our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, he excellently adds, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore, since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all things, but will conclude that He is external to all things, and separating Him from the nature and kind of things that are created, we will finally confess that He is none other than God of God by Nature. For what will come between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard to essence, for much comes between, but only in regard to the position of anything that exists, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, or rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man for instance his innate wisdom and power are hidden, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, so that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

This God-befitting dignity too does he put about the Son, on all sides shewing that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring: that He may be conceived of as truly God of God, not (as we) having the appellation adventitious and accruing to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than they all. For in this, All things, there is nothing which is not seen among all things. As the blessed Paul too is found to have understood the all things: for when in one of his Epistles he was discoursing of our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, excellently does he subjoin, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all, but will conclude that He is external to all, and severing Him from the nature and kin of things originate, will at length confess that He is none else save God of God by Nature. For what will intervene between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard of essence, for much intervenes, but only in regard to the position of anything that is, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, yea rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made "by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man is for instance his innate wisdom and power, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, this statement will not, I think, damage what we say about Him. Just because it is said that created things came to be through Him does not mean the Son is introduced as a subordinate worker or a servant of someone else's will, so that He should no longer be thought of as Creator by physis. Nor will He be someone given the power of creation by another, but rather being Himself alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He accomplishes all things, with the Father and the Holy Spirit working together with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And we think of the Father as present with the Son, not as though He were powerless to do any of the things that exist, but as being wholly in Him, because of the unchangeableness of ousia, and His complete kinship and the absence of any separation in His natural procession from Him. It is as though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself is present for the production of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of this example is weak and the nature that is above all surpasses even this, receiving from it only faint impressions of ideas. For how shall we understand, "My Father works until now and I work"? The Son does not say that God the Father works anything concerning created things separately and by Himself, and that He Himself likewise works apart from the Father, with the ousia from which He comes somehow resting: for then there would be two Creators and not One, if each worked apart and separately. Moreover the Father would be capable of not having the Son always in Him, and the Son likewise would be seen not to have the Father always in Him, if it were possible that each should work apart and separately with regard to created things, as we said before, and the Son would not be truthful when He says, "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." For it is not, I suppose, merely according to likeness of ousia that we see the Son in the Father as exact Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son shines forth by generation from the ousia of the Father, and is and exists in it and from it in distinct being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in consubstantial Offspring, naturally united, yet separately, according simply to the difference of being, and being thought of as what He is. For the Father remains what He is, even though He is naturally united in the Son, just as we say that the sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be thought of as not other than He is, even if He is naturally united in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, with the Father being thought of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and thought of as Son, the Holy Spirit having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity amounts to one and the same Godhead.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, the saying will not I deem at all minister damage to the words concerning Him. For not because it is said that the things that are were made through Him, will the Son be introduced as an underworker, or a minister of others' wills, so that He should be no longer conceived of as being by Nature Creator, nor will He be one given the power of Creation by some other, but rather being Himself Alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He works all things, the Father and the Holy Ghost co-working and co-with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And we conceive of the Father as co-with the Son, not as though He were powerless to work ought of things that are, but as being wholly in Him, by reason of unchangeableness of Essence, and His entire kin and the absence of any medium towards His Natural Procession from Him. As though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself was co-present for the operation of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of the example is slight and the Nature That is above all will overpass this too, receiving of it little-impresses of ideas. Since how shall we understand, My Father worketh hitherto and I work? For not separately and by Himself does the Son say that God the Father works ought regarding things that are, and that Himself again likewise works apart from the Father, the Essence Whence He is after some sort resting: for so the Creator would be two and not One, if Either work apart and separately. Moreover the Father will be recipient of the power of not having the Son ever in Him, and the Son likewise will be seen to not have the Father ever in Him, if it were possible that Either should work apart and separately with regard to things that are, as we said before, and the Son will not be true, when He says, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For it is not, I suppose, merely after likeness of Essence, that we see the Son in the Father as Express Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son beams forth by Generation from the Essence of the Father, and is and subsists in It and of It in distinct Being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in Consubstantial Offspring, Connaturally, yet severally, according to simply the difference of being, and being conceived of as that which He is. For the Father remains that which He is, even though He be Connaturally in the Son, as we say that the Sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be conceived of, as not other than He is, even if He be Connaturally in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, the Father being conceived of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and conceived of as Son, the Holy Ghost having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity mounts to One and the Same Godhead.

If Each of the Persons mentioned withdraws into complete individuality and, while wholly removed from sharing the same physis and ousia with the Others, is called God, then how can God be conceived of as One at all? Therefore, we should conceive of Father, Son, and Spirit according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to what Each is. But while we keep for each one separately the being and being called what He is, and believe this way, we should still refer them by physis to one Godhead and refuse to hold a complete separation, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Power of the Father. He is Word and Wisdom because these exist immediately and without any intervention from the mind and in the mind, and because both mutually interpenetrate one another, so to speak. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in turn is seen in the mind, and there is nothing that intervenes or separates one from the other. He is called Power again because He is a quality that exists without any interval in those who have it, and cannot possibly be separated from them in the manner of an accident without destroying the subject. He is called Express Image again because He is even connate and cannot be separated from the ousia of which He is the express image.

For how will God be at all conceived of as One, if Each of the Persons mentioned withdraw into a complete individuality, and, while wholly removed from Connature and Essential participation with the Other, be called God? Therefore let us conceive of Father, Son and Spirit, according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to That Which Each IS: but while we reserve severally to each the being and being called what He IS, and thus believe, referring them still of Nature to One Godhead, and refusing to hold a complete severance, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Might of the Father. For He is Word and Wisdom, by reason of these being, immediately and without any intervention, of the mind and in the mind, and because of the reciprocal interpassing into one another so to say of both. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in its turn in the mind, and there is nought that intervenes, or severs the one from the other. He is called Power again, as being a quality inherent without any interval in those who have it, and that can nowise be severed from them in the manner of an accident, apart from the destruction of the subject: Express Image again, as being even connate, and unable to be severed from the essence of which it is the express image.

Since each is naturally and of necessity in the other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His natural and essential and hypostatic power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the source of the creating Word, naturally inexistent in His own offspring, just as fire is in the heat that proceeds from it.

Hence since Either is naturally and of necessity in Other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His Natural and Essential and Hypostatic Power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the Source, of the Creating Word, Naturally In-existent in His Own Offspring, even as the fire too in the heat that proceeds from it.

It is clear, then, that the accusation brought by our opponents against the Only-Begotten has been repeated in vain. They present him to us as a creator who had to learn, or even as merely a minister, because the blessed Evangelist says, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made." I am astonished by these unholy heretics: whatever seems in any way to diminish the dignity of the Only-Begotten and to show him as second to the one who begot him—according to their own view—this they pursue with great zeal, and from every direction they apply the remedies of their own stubbornness. But whatever is spoken in a sound and right way, and elevates the Son to the glory of the Father, these things they most certainly bury in deep silence, having one aim alone: to revile in vain the one who is glorified by all creation. For when they hear that "all things were made through him," they eagerly impose upon him the label of servitude, imagining that the Son is a slave rather than free, and a worshiper rather than Lord. But when they learn that "without him was not anything made," they do not rise up to think anything great and marvelous about him. For since it is not possible for God the Father to create otherwise than by his own Offspring, which is his Wisdom and Power, the Evangelist says that nothing at all was made without him. For this reason the Only-Begotten is the glory of God the Father (for the Father is glorified as Creator through the Son), since he works all things and brings into being the things that do not exist.

It is clear then, that vainly has been iterated the accusation of the opponents against the Only-Begotten, who introduce Him to us as creator by having learnt, yea rather as minister too; because of the Blessed Evangelist saying, All things were made through Him and without Him, was not anything made. Much do I marvel at the unholy heretics: for whatever seems any way to undo the Dignity of the Only-Begotten and to shew Him second to Him Who begat Him, according to their own view, this they hunt with much zeal, and from all sides bring to it the drugs of their own stubbornness; whatever again are healthfully and rightly said and bring the Son up to the Glory of the Father, these things they bury most surely in deep silence, as having one sole aim, to in vain revile Him Who is glorified of all the creation. For when they hear that All things were made through Him, they hotly bring on Him the name of service, dreaming that the Son is bond instead of free, and worshipper rather than Lord. But when they learn that without Him was not anything made, they do not mount up to think ought great and marvellous of Him. For since it is not in God the Father to create otherwise than by His own Offspring, Which is His Wisdom and Power, the Evangelist says that nought at all was made without Him. For therefore is the Only-Begotten the Glory of God the Father (for He is glorified as Creator through the Son); for He worketh all things and bringeth into being things that are not.

And one will properly understand the words "without Him, was not anything made" if he considers what was said at the creation of man. For God says, "Let us make man in Our image after Our likeness." Here especially one can see that in the Son there is truly nothing lowly, as if He were a minister according to their way of speaking. For God the Father does not command the Word, "Make man," but as One who is Co-existent with Him by physis and His inseparably, so to speak, In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also a Partaker of His Counsel concerning man, not because the Father needed to inform the Son of any concept, but as Mind inseparably and timelessly manifested in the imaged and in-existing Word.

And well will one conceive of the words, without Him, was not anything made, if he consider with himself what was said at the creation of man. For Let us make man, says he, in Our image after Our likeness. For here specially one can behold in the Son of a truth nought that is lowly, as in a minister according to their phrase. For God the Father does not command the Word, Make man, but as Co-with Him by Nature and His inseparably so to say In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also Partaker of His Counsel respecting man, not anticipating the knowledge that is in the Son in regard to any conception, but as Mind inseparably and apart from time manifested in the in-imaged and in-existing Word.

Let our contemplations of God remain beyond what any example can fully show. Yet we say that the Father works together with the Son, not thinking of them as two separate beings—lest we end up conceiving two gods—nor as though both together were simply one—so that neither the Son be collapsed into the Father, nor the Father into the Son. Rather, think of it as if one recognized that the brightness coming from light co-exists with the light from which it shone forth. In such examples, the generator seems to be distinguished in thought from what is generated and what proceeds from it indivisibly; yet both are one and the same by nature, and one is in no way separate from the other. But God will be above even this example, since He is Super-substantial and has nothing fully like Him among created things that could serve as an image of the Holy Trinity without any difference, in doctrinal exactness. But if they think that the word "through Whom," when said of the Son, can lower His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, making Him a minister rather than Creator, let these foolish people consider and come forward and answer: what are we to think about the Father Himself, and who are we to suppose Him to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words "through Whom" in the Divine Scripture? For it says, "God is faithful, through Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son," and "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God"; and again Paul writes to some, "Therefore you are no longer a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." All these passages refer to the Person of God the Father, and no one, I suppose, will rush to such extreme madness—unless perhaps he agrees with those mentioned above—as to say that the name and reality of service can reasonably be attributed to the very glory of the Father, just because the words "through Whom" are applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent about its words, in no way harming the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less precise sense both the words themselves and those by which it thinks they are well explained. But it is right to say of such things that "the glory of the Lord veils speech." For truly all power of words falls far short of the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Therefore one must not take offense at the inadequacy of what is said, but must rather acknowledge the supremacy and power in language, and the keenness of every mind, as belonging to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for in this way we shall be truly pious, and not in small measure.³³

Let God-befitting contemplations again be above the reach of the example. Yet we say that He co-works with the Son, not conceiving as of two severally, lest there be conceived to be two gods, nor yet as though both together were one, in order that neither the Son be compressed into Father, nor again the Father into Son, but rather in such sort as if one allowed to be co-existent in the brightness from light the light whence it flashed forth: for in such examples the generator seems to be separated in idea from the generated and that which springs forth from it indivisibly; yet are both one and the same by nature, and the one in no wise separate from the other. But above this too will God again be, inasmuch as He is both Super-substantial and has nothing wholly like Him in things originate, that it should be taken as a image of the Holy Trinity, without any difference, in exactness of doctrine. But if they deem that the word, through Whom, said of the Son, can bring down His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, so as to be minister rather than Creator, let those insane consider and come forward and make answer, what we are to conceive of the Father Himself also, and Whom we are to suppose Him too to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words through Whom in the Divine Scripture: for God, says he, is faithful, through Whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son, and Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God: and again Paul writeth to some, Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. All these then have reference to the Person of God the Father, and no one I suppose will rush to that extreme of madness (except perchance he hold with the above mentioned), as to say that the name and fact of service, is reasonably predicated of the very glory of the Father, because the word through Whom is applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent in regard to its words, in no wise wronging the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less proper sense both the words themselves and those whereby it deems that they are well explained. But it is well to say of those, that The glory of the Lord veileth speech. For little in truth is all might of words unto the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Wherefore one must not be offended at the meanness of the things uttered, but must rather yield supremacy, and might in tongue, and keenness of every mind, to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for thus shall we be and not in small degree pious.³³

The blessed Evangelist delivers to us his teaching about God the Word, and he seems to me to wisely address everything that belongs to Him by nature (physis). He does this so that he may both expose the shameful errors of the heretics and strengthen those who desire to excel in right faith with arguments that support it. He does not rely on worldly wisdom that fails to persuade, but instead demonstrates through the Spirit, marveling at the beauty of the truth.

Yet doth the Blessed Evangelist make to us his discourse concerning God the Word, and he seemeth to me profitably to go through all that pertains to Him by Nature, that he may both put to shame the outrages of the heretics, and may fortify those who would fain excel in right faith, with reasonings thereunto tending, not providing from words of worldly wisdom unpersuasion, but in demonstration of the Spirit marvelling at the beauty of the truth.

What he teaches us through these words is this: He has just shown us that the Son is by nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not even one thing was called into being. But since He not only brings creation into being but also holds it together once it is made through Himself, in some way mingling Himself with those who do not have eternity of being by their own nature, and becoming life to those that exist, so that having come into being they may remain, and so that each may be preserved according to its own natural limit—he necessarily says, "That which was made, in it was life." He is saying that not only were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made had the Life in it, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and hypostasis of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For being Himself the Life by nature, He bestows being and life and motion in many ways on things that exist, not by any partition or change passing into each one of the things that are by nature distinct. Rather, their nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while the Life of all is One, passing into each in the way that suits it and according to its ability to partake of it. But since that which is brought from non-being into being must also decay, and that which has a beginning surely hastens toward its end (for being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending belongs to the Divine and All-superior Nature alone), the Creator wisely provides for the weakness that is in things made, and skillfully contrives an eternity for them. For the perpetual succession of like to like, and the natural progression of things connatural or related to one another, always looking toward ongoing continuance, make creation ever-visible and ever-enduring with God its Maker. And this contrivance is that every one of the things that exist sows seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the ineffable sentence of its Creator. In all things, then, was the Life—for this is our subject. But one may reasonably say to the heretic who wars against the truth, excellent sir, what will you say to this as well, when you hear him who bears the Spirit within him say that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word who is in the beginning? Will you dare to say even now that the Son is not of the ousia of God the Father, so that He may be regarded as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against your ignorance, and justly so? For if the Word was in things that were made as Life by nature, mingling Himself by participation with things that exist, He is then other than those things in which He is believed to be. But since He is by nature other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless and do not cease imagining that the Son who is in things made as Life is originate, then first of all He will be conceived as being something in Himself, and then besides, He will Himself be a partaker of Himself, and if He is in things made, Life will be conceived as being Himself one of them too. But the fighter against God surely sees for himself how great the absurdity of thinking this way is. Therefore, if the Word who quickens them is in originate things by participation, He will not be Himself among the participators, but other than they. And if so, He is not originate, but is in them as Life by nature.⁵⁵

What he would then teach through the words before us, is this. He shewed us just now that the Son is by Nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not so much as one thing was called into being. But since on the creation He bestows not only to be called into being, but also holds it together when made through Himself, immingling in some way Himself with those who have not by their own nature eternity of being, and becoming life to those that are, that having become they may abide, and that each may be preserved according to its own limit of nature;—-needs does he say, That which was made, in it was life. Not only, says he, were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made, in it was the Life, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and Subsistence of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For Himself being the by-Nature Life, bestows manifoldly on things that are, being and life and motion, not in any way of partition and change passing into each one of things that are by nature distinct: but their nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while One is the Life of all passing into each, in such sort as befits it, and it is able to partake thereof. But since that which is brought from not being into being must needs also decay, and that which has beginning surely hasteth unto its end (for to the Divine and All-superior Nature Alone beseemeth the being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending): the Creator wisely deviseth for the weakness that is in things made, and contriveth for them by His skill an eternity. For the perpetual succession unto each of its like, and the natural progression of things connatural or kin unto one another looking ever towards onward course, make the creation ever-visible and ever-co-enduring with God its Maker. And this (contrivance) is that every one of things that are, soweth seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the unspeakable sentence of its Creator. In all then was the Life; for this is our subject. But, excellent sir, may one with reason say to the heretic warring against the truth, what will you say to this too, when you hear him who bears within him the Spirit say, that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word That is in the beginning? Will you dare to say now too, that the Son is not of the Essence of God the Father, that He may be deemed of as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against thine unlearning, O thou, and that with justice? For if in things that were made was the Word, as Life by Nature, immingling Himself by participation with things that are, He is then Other than those wherein He is believed to be. But He being by Nature Other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless, and cease not to imagine that originate is the Son Who is in things made, as Life:—-first of all He will be conceived of as being somewhat in Himself, then besides. He will Himself be partaker of Himself, and Life, if being in things made, He be conceived to be Himself too one of them. But the fighter against God sees surely himself too, how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who quickens them is by participation in things originate, He will not be Himself too among the participators, but other than they. And if so, not originate, but in them as by Nature Life.⁵⁵

This we will also see through the considerations that follow.

This again we shall see by the subjoined considerations.

If the Son is not from the Essence of God the Father, but according to them He has subordinated Him from outside, then He is originate and made. How then does He give life to all things if He is among created things? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? Or how does the most wise Paul speak of something remarkable about Him who is by physis God, who gives life to all things? For if the Son, being originate, gives life to all things, then creation gives life to itself, in no way needing God its Maker for this purpose. There is then nothing more in God than in creation, for it accomplishes no less than what God can do. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not originate, but God, and consequently by physis Life also.

If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is originate and made. How then does He quicken all things, Who is among things made? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? or how does the most wise Paul say, as something admirable of Him That is by Nature God, Who quickeneth all things? For if the Son being originate, quickeneth all things, the creation quickeneth itself, in no wise needing thereto God its Maker. There is then nothing in God more than in the creation; For it inworketh not less than God can do. But this is absurd. Not originate then is the Son, but God and therefore by Nature Life also.

Another argument. The Psalmist marvels exceedingly, and with good reason, at the Divine Nature, and specifically attributes to it a most beautiful dignity, saying, "For with You is the Fountain of life." But if the Father has placed the Son below Himself and does not have Him from His own Nature, and yet the Son, even being in this position, gives life to created things and is by physis Life as the one who gives life, why does the Psalmist strive in vain by saying that the fountain of life is with God alone? For the nature of created things would also be capable of receiving this, if the Son gives life even though He is not of the Divine Essence according to the foolish teaching of some. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is Life by physis, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. The Psalmist marvelleth exceedingly and that with reason at the Divine Nature, and in particular attributeth to It a most fair dignity saying, For with Thee is the Fountain of life. But if the Father have set the Son below Him, and have Him not of His own Nature, and He even being so, quickens things originate and is by Nature Life as quickening, why vainly strives the Psalmist saying that the fountain of life is with God Alone? For the nature of things originate also is recipient of this, if the Son, albeit not of the Divine Essence according to the uncounsel of some, quickens. But this is absurd. Therefore Life by Nature is the Son, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. If the Son, being by Nature Life, is originate and created—as not having His Being from the ousia of God the Father, according to their fantasy—then the physis of things originate will be capable of being and being called life, and all things will potentially be life, even if they do not yet exercise this reality. For whatever has the natural power of being something will surely be that thing, I think, even if it is not so yet, since it has the power inherent in its physis. When then being life is common to the creature and the special and sole prerogative of no one, why does the Son vainly boast about Himself, "I am the Life"? For He should, I suppose, have rather said, "I am life along with you." This would, I suppose, have been truer if, being indeed originate, He is also Life. But since He assigns to Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He ranks Himself not with things originate, but with the Divine ousia of the Father, to which being Life also belongs.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life be originate and created, as not having His Being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their fantasy, the nature of things originate will be recipient of being and being called life, and all things will be life in potential, even if they have not yet the exercise of the thing itself. For that which has the natural power of being ought, will surely be so I ween, even if it be not so as yet; for it has the power inherent in its nature. When then the being life is common to the creature, the special and alone prerogative of none, why vainly does the Son vaunt of Himself, I am the Life? for He should, I suppose, have rather said, I am along with you the life. This would I suppose have been truer, if being indeed originate He is Life too. But since He puts about Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of the Father, whereto the being Life also pertains.

Another. Whatever receives a share of life is not life in its own right, for life is clearly present in it as something other than itself. If then the Son exists by participation in created things as Life, He will be other than the things that receive a share of Him and lack life. Therefore He is not created, nor does He seek to be given life by another. He is therefore God as the one who gives life; but if so, He will be admittedly of the ousia of the Father, if we worship One God and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. That which is participate of life is not in its own right life, for it is clearly in it as other than itself. If then the Son is by participation in things originate as Life, He will be other than the things that are participate of Him and lack life. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking to be quickened by another. He is therefore God as quickening; but if so, He will be confessedly of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. When we carefully examine the nature of things that exist, we see God and creation, and nothing else besides these. For whatever falls short of being God by nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapes the category of creation will surely be within the boundaries of Deity. Since we have firmly established this, let those who push the Son away from the essence of God the Father tell us how He can give life as Life, seeing that the Divine nature has this as its own property and yields it to no one else. But if, being originate, He can also be Life, then the grace of this excellence will surely reach all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need would they have, then, of participation in the Son, or what more would they gain from it? For they too would possess being by nature life. But this is not true; rather, they partake by necessity, as needing life, of the Son. The Only-Begotten alone, then, is by nature Life, and therefore He will not be counted among things originate, but will rise up to the nature of Him who begot Him: for the Father too is by nature Life.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we see God and the creation and nought else besides. For whatever falleth short of being God by Nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapeth the catalogue of creation, will surely be within the limits of Deity. Since then we have well established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from the Essence of God the Father, how He can quicken as Life, seeing that the Divine Nature has this as its own property, and yields it to none else. But if being originate He can be Life also, the grace of the excellence will surely overtake all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need will they have therefore of participation of the Son, or what more will they gain hence? for they too possess the being by nature life. But this is not true, but they partake of necessity as needing life, of the Son. Alone then is the Only-Begotten by Nature Life, and therefore will He not be reckoned among things originate, but will mount up unto the Nature of Him Who begat Him: for Life by Nature is the Father too.

Since the Son is by nature (physis) Life, He is either different from creation in nature, or shares the same nature with it. If He shares the same nature and substance, how could He truthfully say, "I am the Bread of Life which comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world"? For creation would then possess being life from itself, but life does not participate in life in order to show itself as life. But if He is not of the same nature as creation, He will also escape being part of the created order, taking His own proper good away from creation along with Himself. For creation will not be life by nature, but rather lacking in it and participating in life.

Another. The Son being by Nature Life, is either Other than the creation, I mean by nature, or con-natural with it. If then He be connatural and consubstantial, how will He not lie in saying, I am the Bread of Life Which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world? for the creation hath from its own the being life, but life is imparticipate of life, that it may shew itself life. But if He is not connatural, He will also escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good also. For the creation will not be by nature Life, but rather lacking and participate of life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, because He is not of the ousia of God the Father (according to their speech), why does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish and shall grow old like a garment, but attribute to Him His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, "But You are the Same and Your years shall have no end"? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw us up too to be ever the same and to an unfailing number of years. But truly He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail. He is therefore not created as we are; but since He is of the Life by Nature, He will also give life as Life to the things that lack life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, by reason of not being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their speech, wherefore does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish, and shall wax old like a garment: but to Him did he attribute His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw up us too to be ever the same and to unfailing number of years. But verily He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail: He is therefore not originate as we; but since He is of the Life by Nature He will also quicken as Life the things that lack life.

Another argument. If nothing participates in itself, but creation participates in the Son as Life, then He is not creation, nor is creation Life, which the Son is.

Another. If nought is participate of itself, but the creation partakes of the Son as Life; He is not the creation, nor yet is the creation Life, which the Son is.

Another argument. If giving life is one thing and receiving life is another—as action differs from what is acted upon—and the Son gives life while creation receives life, then the Son and creation are not the same, since the one who works within is not the same as that which is worked upon.

Another. If to quicken is one thing, to be quickened another, as action and passion, and the Son quickens, the creation is quickened: therefore not the same is Son and creation, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

And the Life was the light of men.

And the Life was the light of men.

In these words too the blessed Evangelist shows us that the Son is by nature God and essentially the heir of the good things of the One who begot Him. Having already taught that, being by nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him—holding them together, giving them life, and granting them by His ineffable power to pass from non-being into being, and preserving them once made—the Evangelist now advances to another line of thought. He is determined to lead us carefully from every angle to grasp the truth, as is fitting. Therefore the Word was in created things as Life. But since among earthly rational creatures the one who receives both mind and knowledge and participates in the wisdom that comes from God is man, the Spirit-bearer necessarily shows us clearly that the Word is the bestower of the wisdom that is in man, so that God the Father may be understood as being all things in all through the Son: life in those that lack life, and again light and life in those that lack both life and light. And therefore he says, "And the Life was the light of men"—that is, God the Word who gives life to all things, the Life in all that exists, both enlightens the rational creature and lavishes understanding upon those who are capable of receiving understanding. In this way what is said to the creature is kept and has full force: "For what do you have that you did not receive?" For created and originated nature has no wealth from itself, but whatever it is seen to possess is surely from God, who bestows both being and the manner in which one ought to be. And the word "was" is rightly used of the life, so that it might signify in every way the eternal being of the Word, and might cut off the empty talk of those who lack understanding and present to us the Son as being from the things that are not—which plainly wars against all of divine Scripture.

In these words too does the blessed Evangelist shew us that the Son is by Nature God and Essentially Heir of the good things of Him Who begat Him. For having taught before that being by Nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him, holding them together and quickening them and granting them of His unutterable Power to pass from not being into being, and preserving them when made, he advances to another train of ideas, from all sides minded to lead us by the hand unto the apprehension of the truth, as was right. Therefore in things made was the Word, as Life. But since the rational living creature among them on earth recipient both of mind and knowledge and participant of the wisdom that is from God, is man, needs does the Spirit-bearer shew us clearly the Word as Bestower of the wisdom that is in man, that God the Father may be conceived of being all things in all through the Son;—-life in them that lack life, light again and life in them that lack life and light. And therefore he says, And the Life was the light of men, that is, God the Word Who quickeneth all things, the Life in all that are, both enlighteneth the rational creature, and lavisheth understanding upon those who are recipient of understanding: that so that may be kept and have full force that is said to the creature, for what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For nought of wealth from itself hath the originate and created nature, but whatever it is seen to possess, this is surely of God, Who bestoweth both being, and how one ought to be. And well was the was put of the life, that it might signify in every way the eternal Being of the Word, and might cut off the triflings of those void of understanding, who introduce to us the Son, of the things that are not, which manifestly warreth against the whole of Divine Scripture.

Regarding the Eternity of the Word with the Father—since we have already covered this sufficiently both in the present book and in the one called the Thesaurus, we think we may remain silent about it. But we will eagerly examine, to the best of our ability, what the meaning of the words before us presents, and we will be diligent to benefit both ourselves and those who will read this later, with God again opening both doors and giving us words to speak.

In regard then of the Eternity of the Word with the Father;—-having already sufficiently gone through it both in the present Book, and in that called the Thesaurus, we deem that we may be silent. But what the mind of the words before us introduces, this with all readiness examining to the extent of our power, we will be diligent to profit both ourselves and those who shall hereafter read it, God again opening to us both doors and a mouth to our words.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us when he learns that the Life—that is, the ever-living God the Word—is the Light of men? What arguments will he throw at us when we come forward and say: If the Son is not by nature God and the Fruit of the Essence that begot Him, if He has not beamed forth to us as Very Light from Very Light, but is Himself also from outside and is subordinated according to your false teaching, then He is connatural with created things and will in no way escape being originate. How then, you who are filled full of all foolishness, does He illuminate while they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, and that which is illuminated another? This is plain and clear to everyone. For if we grant that they are the same in terms of kind of essence and mode of existence, what is there more in that which has the power to illuminate, and what again is there less in that which lacks light? For whatever comes will come to both of them, and separately to each, and that which needs light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illuminated. But the confusion of ideas evident in this is great, and logical necessity separates each of the named things and places in its own proper nature the supplier apart from the supplied. Therefore the Son is not connatural with created things, but He will remain in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us, when he learns that the Life, that is, the ever-living God the Word, is the Light of men? What arguments will he sling at us, when we come forward and say, If the Son be not by Nature God, and Fruit of the Essence That begat Him, if He have not beamed forth to us Very Light from Very Light, but Himself too being from without is subordinated according to your unlearning: He is connatural with things made, and will in no wise escape being originate. How then, O ye filled full of all folly, doth He illuminate, they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, that which is illuminated another? but this is plain and clear to every one. For if we grant that they are the same, as regards kind of essence and the mode of existence, what is there more in that which has power of illumining, what again less in that which lacketh light? For whatsoever cometh, will come to both of them, and apart to each, and that which is in need of light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illumined. But great is the confusion of ideas manifest herein, and necessity of reason severs each of the things named and puts in its own proper nature the supplier herein apart from the supplied. Not therefore connatural with things made is the Son, but He will abide in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

It would not be difficult to take the method of reasoning we used in the previous section—where we showed that the Son is Life by nature (physis), and demonstrated that He is distinct from the things in which He exists—and apply it clearly to this chapter as well. However, rather than leaving this work to others or appearing to be overcome by laziness, I will try, as much as I am able, to apply the form of argument used in the previous reasoning. For just as in those arguments, where He is Life by nature (physis), He is shown to be distinct from those in whom He exists, so here too—being called and truly being the Light of men—He will be found to be distinct from things that lack light and participate in it, as we will see more clearly in what follows.

And it were nothing hard, by transferring the method of reasoning in the foregoing, which we made concerning the Son being by Nature Life, and demonstrated that He is Other than the things wherein He is, to give clear proof in this chapter too.—-But in order not to leave the labour of this to others, nor to appear overmastered by sloth, I myself will endeavour, so far as I can, to transfer the form of argument used in the foregoing reasonings. For as in those, He being Life by Nature, is shewn to be Other than those wherein He is, so here too, said to be and in verity being the Light of men, He will be found to be Other than things that lack light and partake thereof; as we shall see more clearly in the following.

If the Word was present in the things spoken of as Light by physis, mingling Himself through participation in things that exist, then He is Other than the things in which He is believed to be present. But if He who is by physis Other than the creation that participates in Him and is illumined by Him, how can He not necessarily be the God who is over all?

If the Word was in the things spoken of, as Light by Nature, immingling Himself by means of participation in things that are, He is then Other than the things wherein He is believed to be. But He That is by Nature Other than what the creation participant of Him and by Him illumined is, how will He not needs be the God Who is over all?

Another argument. If the one who fights against God says that the Son, being by nature (physis) Light, exists in created things as created, illuminating things that lack light—first of all, He will be understood as existing in Himself, and then also He will Himself be a participant of Himself and of Light, if being in created things, He is understood to be one and the same with them. But anyone who has applied his heart to wisdom, as it is written, surely sees how great the absurdity is of thinking this way. Therefore, if the Word who illuminates them is present through participation in created things, He will not Himself be among the participants and the illuminated, but will be Other than they are. And if this is so, then He is not created, but is rather Light by nature (physis) and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the fighter against God says that the Son being by Nature Light is in things originate as originate, illumining things that lack light:—-first of all He will be conceived of as being in Himself, then besides, He will Himself be partaker of Himself and Light, if being in things originate, He one and the same be conceived to be of them. But he that has applied his heart unto wisdom, as it is written, sees surely how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who illuminateth them is by participation in things originate, He will not Himself be among the participants and illumined, but Other therefore than they. And if so, He is then not originate, but as Light by Nature and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the Son is not from the Essence of God the Father, but has come from outside and the Father has subordinated Him (as they claim), then He is originate and created. How then could He exist within created things, enlightening them? Or what would remain that is distinctive about the Divine Essence? And how could the very wise Psalmist speak of something marvelous about the One who is God by Nature when he says, "In Your Light we shall see light"? For if the Son, being originate, illuminates all things, then creation would be illuminating itself, having no need whatsoever of God its Maker. In that case, there would be nothing more in God than in the creature, and it would work no less effectively than God could. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not originate, but rather is God, and consequently Light by Nature, just as the Father is.

Another. If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but being from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is then originate and created: how then is He in things made, enlightening them? or what special shall we find any longer in the Divine Essence? or how does the most wise Psalmist say as something marvellous of Him Who is by Nature God, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if the Son being originate illumines all things, the creation will illumine itself, having no wise need thereto of God its Maker. There is then nothing more in God than in the creature, and it inworks no less than God could do. But this is absurd. The Son then is not originate, but God rather, and therefore Light by Nature, as is the Father.

Another of the same. If the Son, being the Light of God the Father (as it is said, "In Thy Light shall we see Light" and "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth"), is originate and brought into being, then nothing would prevent all created things from being called the Light of God the Father by the same reasoning. For if the nature (physis) of created things is even capable of this, it would be potentially common to all of them and not the unique property of the one Son. But this is absurd, since it belongs to the Son alone to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Therefore He is not originate, but is Light—God from God—who enlightens through Himself those things that lack light.

Another of the same. If the Son being the Light of God the Father (as is said, In Thy Light shall we see Light and, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth), is originate and brought into being, there is no longer ought to hinder, by equal analogy, all things originate from being called the Light of God the Father. For if the nature of things created at all admits this, it will be in potential common to them all, and not the own property of the One Son. But this is absurd: for to the Son Alone will it pertain to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Not therefore originate is He, but Light, as God from God Who illumineth through Him things lacking light.

Another. If the Son is Light by nature (physis) but is not of the Essence (ousia) of the Father—instead being from outside and subordinated to Him, according to the ignorant teaching of those who fight against God—it follows that He must be connatural and related to created things, since He would have fallen away from the Divine Essence. But how then is He called Light and is Light, while of the holy Baptist it is said, "He was not the Light," even though the blessed Baptist is potentially light? And not he alone, if we once grant that the Son, being originate, can be Light by nature. For what has once occurred in a given nature is, I suppose, common to everyone who shares in that nature, according to the law of logical consequence. But John was not the Light, while the Son is Light. Therefore He is other by nature and not connatural with created things.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Light is not of the Essence of the Father, but being from without is subordinated, according to the uninstructed speech of the fighters against God, it follows that He is connatural and kin to things created, as having forsooth fallen away from the Divine Essence. How then is He called and is Light, but of the holy Baptist it is said, He was not the Light, albeit the blessed Baptist is light in potential, and not he alone, if it be once granted that the Son being originate, can be by Nature Light? For that which has once had place in the nature, is I suppose common to each that partakes of such nature, according to the law of consequence. But John was not Light, the Son Light. Other therefore by Nature is He and not connatural with things made.

Another of the same. If the Son, being by Nature Light, is created and originated—as though He does not possess the being of the ousia of God the Father, as some suppose—then the physis of originated things will admit both being and being called light. It will be entirely light according to the law of potentiality. For whatever has in its physis to be something will surely be so, I suppose, even if it has not yet become so. Since, then, being light is common to the physis of originated things and is not the property of any one thing alone, why does the Son vainly boast of Himself, saying, "I am the Light"? For He ought, I suppose, to say, "I am light along with you." But since He applies it to Himself alone as His own proper good, joining no one else to Himself, He clearly classes Himself not with originated things but with the Divine ousia of God the Father, to which belongs being by Nature Light.

Another of the same. If the Son being by Nature Light is originate and created, as not possessing forsooth the being of the Essence of God the Father, as some surmise, the nature of things originate will admit of being and being called light; it will be altogether light according to the law of potential. For that which has in its nature to be anything, will I suppose surely be so, even if it have not yet been. Since then the being light is common to the nature of things originate, and the property in aloneness of none, why in vain does the Son vaunt of Himself, saying, I am the Light? for He ought I suppose to say, I am with you the Light. But since He puts it about Himself Alone as His own proper good, joining to Himself no one else, He clearly classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of God the Father, whereto belongs the being by Nature Light..

Another point. What participates in light is not itself the Light in its own nature, since clearly it is one thing existing in another. If, then, the Son is present in created things through participation, as Light, He will be other than those who partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore He is not a created being, nor does He seek illumination from another as created things do. It follows, then, that He is God and able to illuminate. If this is so, He must also be understood as having sprung from the ousia of the Father, if we worship One God and serve none other than the True God.

Another. That which is participate of light is not in its own right the Light; for it is clearly one thing in another. If then the Son be by participation in things originate, as Light; He will be other than those that partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking, as things originate, to be illumined by another: it remains therefore that He is God and able to illuminate. If so, He will be conceived of also as sprung of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than the True God.

Another. When we carefully examine the nature of existing things, we see God and creation, and nothing else besides. For whatever fails to be God by nature is entirely created, and whatever escapes the category of being made is wholly and entirely within the bounds of Divinity. Since we have established this, let them tell us—those who push the Son away from being of the ousia of God the Father—how He can illumine as Light, seeing that the Divine Nature keeps this as its own and gives it to no one else. But if the Son, being created, can also be Light, then surely the grace of this excellence will reach all created things, and all will be light by nature. What further need then would they have of participation with the Son, or what more would they gain from it, since they themselves would also have the property of being light by nature, just as the Son has it in them? But creation does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. Therefore the Son is God by nature, and thus Light, as one able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we behold God and the creature, and nought else besides. For whatever faileth of being by Nature God, is wholly originate, and whatever escapeth the category of being made, is wholly and entirely within the limits of Divinity. Since then we have established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from being of the Essence of God the Father, how He can illumine as Light, seeing the Divine Nature retaineth this as Its own, and yields it to none else. But if the Son being originate, can be also Light, the grace of this excellence will surely overtake all things originate, and all will be by nature light. What further need then have they of participation with the Son, or what more will they gain hence, having themselves too the being by nature light, even as the Son hath it in them? But the creature does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. God then by Nature is the Son, and therefore Light, as able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. The Son, being by nature (physis) Light, is either other than the creature in terms of His mode of being, or connatural with it. If He is cognate and consubstantial with the creature, then it seems He came to us pointlessly when He said, "I am come a Light into the world," because the creation would already have the property of being light in itself. But light does not participate in light in order to be understood as light. However, if He is not connatural with the creature, but the creature lacks light—the creature to whom belongs the question "What do you have that you did not receive?"—then the Son must necessarily escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation and taking with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be light by nature (physis), but rather lacking and a participant in light.

Another. The Son being by Nature Light, is either Other than the creature, in regard that is of the mode of being, or connatural with it. If then He be cognate and consubstantial, vainly, as it seems, did He come to us saying, I am come a Light into the world; for the creation has of its own itself also the being light: but light is impartici-pate of light, that it may be understood to be light. But if He be not connatural, but the creature lack light to whom belongs, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? needs will the Son escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be by nature light, but rather lacking and participate of light.

Another. If nothing can participate in itself, and the creature partakes of the Son as Light, then He is not a creature, nor is the creature Light in the way that the Son is.

Another. If nought be participate of itself and the creature partake of the Son as Light: He is not a creature, nor yet the creature Light, which the Son is.

Another. If illuminating is one thing and being illuminated is another, as action and passion, and the Son illuminates while the creature is illuminated, then the Son and the creature are not the same, since the one who works within is not the same as that which is worked upon.

Another. If to illumine be one thing, to be illumined another, as action and passion, and the Son illumines, the creature is illumined; therefore not the same is Son and creature, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

The wise Evangelist clearly needs to expand for us through this passage the thought he expressed above. He did not think, I suppose, that it would be enough for his hearers to think correctly about God the Word—that He is truly the Light of men—simply by saying "And the Life was the Light of men." For it was likely, I suppose, that some people would arise who would hear these words carelessly and would go on to teach others that the Word of God is indeed truly Light, but not the Giver of light to all. Rather, they would say He pours the light of understanding into whomever He wishes, approving those who ought to receive it and are worthy of so bright a gift, and that the physis of the rest of rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural origin, or God the Father plants mind and understanding into it, as though the Son were unable to do this. So then, in order that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shown to be both Life and Light—not of some individuals but not others, but by some ineffable mode of participation as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in rational things)—mingling Himself in all things that exist, so that rational things may become rational and things capable of sense may have sense, which they could not have in any other way—he needs to say, "And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

Needs does the most wise Evangelist hasten to expand to us by this too that is now before us the thought expressed above. For he did not think, I suppose, that it would suffice to the hearers unto being able to think unerringly of God the Word, that He is verily the Light of men, by only saying, And the Life was the Light of men. For it was like I suppose that some would arise who should hear the things uttered without weighing them, and should moreover set forth or try to teach others also that the Word of God is indeed verily Light, but not Giver of light to all, but in whomsoever He will He infuses the light of understanding, approving him who ought to receive it and is worthy of so bright a gift: and that the nature of the rest of the rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural seed, or God the Father ingrafts into it mind and understanding, as though the Son were unable to do this. In order then that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shewn to be both Life and Light, not of some individually, of others not, but by some ineffable mode of participation, as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in things rational), immingling Himself in all things that are, that the things rational may become rational, and things recipient of sense may have sense, which in no other way they could have had:—-needs does he say, And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Evangelist is crying out to his hearers with complete precision, as if saying this: I said, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men. I did not mean that people who show themselves to be righteous and good receive illumination from Him as a reward for their conduct. Rather, I wanted you to understand that just as the Word is Life in all created things, giving life to things capable of receiving life, so He is also Light in them, making things capable of understanding and perception into what they are. For God the Father, through the Son in the Spirit, is all things in all.

As though he with all exactitude crieth aloud to his hearers after this sort: I said, sirs, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men, not that any should suppose from these words that they who shew themselves righteous and good receive from another, as the reward of their conduct, the illumination from Him, but that ye might learn, that as the Word is Life in all things that have been made, quickening things recipient of life; so He is in them Light also, rendering things recipient of understanding and sense, what they are. For God the Father through the Son in the Spirit is all things in all.

Darkness is what he calls the nature that lacks illumination—that is, the whole created nature. Since he calls Him the Light, he uses the exact opposite term to show that the rational creation which lacks and does not participate in Him is different from Him. In my judgment, he does this not without purpose, but thinking especially about this: that the nature of created things produces nothing at all from itself, but receives its entire being and well-being, such as it is, from its Creator. Therefore it has been rightly said to it, "What do you have that you did not receive?" And since, along with everything else, it also has light as a gift from God—not possessing it but receiving it—then how can what does not have light from itself not be the opposite, or how can it not be called darkness? For the fact that the Light shines in darkness is a believable proof (or rather one that follows from absolute necessity) that creation is darkness and the Word of God is Light. For if the nature of created things receives the Word of God by participation, as Light or as coming from Light, then it receives Him as itself being darkness, and the Son shines in it as light shines in darkness, even though the darkness does not know the Light at all. For this, I think, is the meaning of "the darkness did not comprehend it." The Word of God shines upon all things that are able to receive His radiance, and illuminates without exception things that have a nature capable of being illuminated. But He is unknown to the darkness. For the rational nature on earth—I mean humanity—served the creature more than the Creator. It did not comprehend the Light, because it did not know the Creator, the fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Nevertheless, created things possess the light because of His love for humanity, and are provided with the power of perception implanted in them at the same time they come into being.

Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. For since he calls Him the Light, to shew that the rational creation which lacks and is imparticipate thereof is other than It, he turns the force of the epithet used to the very contrary, doing this also, after my judgment, not without an aim, but considering in himself this above all, that the nature of things originate, producing nothing whatever from its own self, but receiving its whole being and well-being such as it is from its Creator, has rightly said to it, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? And since along with the rest, it has light itself also God-given, not possessing it does it receive it: but that which has not of itself light, how will it not be the contrary, or how will it not be called darkness? For that the Light shineth in darkness is a credible demonstration (yea rather one following from very necessity), that the creation is darkness, the Word of God Light. For if the nature of things originate receive the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light: it receives it then as itself darkness, and the Son shineth in it, as the light doth in darkness, even though the darkness know not a whit the Light. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Things originate possess nevertheless, of His love to man, the light, and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

But we must note here once again that no argument will allow us to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created. Rather, in every way He surpasses our measure and rises above the nature of the creature. He is wholly Other than creatures and far removed from them in quality of ousia, just as light is not the same as darkness, but truly contrary to it and separated from it by an incomparable diversity into complete physical alienness.

But we must again note here, that no argument will permit to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created, but in every way does He surpass our measure, and rise above the nature of the creature, and is wholly Other than they are and far removed as regards quality of essence, even as the light is not the same as darkness, but soothly contrary and parted by incomparable diversity into physical alieniety.

Having now sufficiently worked through the method of reasoning on this matter in what has gone before, we will proceed to what follows.

Having now sufficiently gone through the method of reasoning hereupon in the foregoing, we will go on to what follows.

Having already explained about God the Word and thoroughly worked through the things that demonstrate He is by Nature Son of God the Father, he strengthens their faith in what they had already heard through his words. And since (according to what God said through Moses), "At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established," he wisely brings in the blessed Baptist in addition to himself, and introduces him alongside himself as a highly notable witness. For he did not think that he should, even if his testimony carried the greatest weight, ask the readers of his book about our Savior to trust him beyond what the law requires, or that they should believe him alone when he was declaring things beyond our understanding and perception.

Having before Explained about God the Word, and most accurately gone through the things whereby He is shewn to be by Nature Son of God the Father, he fortifies their faith in what they had already heard by his words. And since (according to what was said by God through Moses), At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established, wisely does he bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist, and introduces him along with himself a most noteworthy witness. For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Saviour credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men—so that through all these things he might show that the Son is by physis God. And the Divine Baptist also testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For truly one will say that He is truly God, in whom the dignity of lordship is inherent by physis and does not belong to any other rightly and truly, since for us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul says. And though there are many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father, truly God.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men, that by all these he might shew that the Son is by Nature God. And the Divine Baptist too testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For soothly one will say that He is Very God, in Whom is by Nature inherent the dignity of lordship and it accrues not to any other rightly and truly, since to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul saith; and though there be many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father Very God.

Therefore, this pair of holy witnesses is most noteworthy, and the things they say deserve credence that can no longer be faulted, both because they have received the fullness of the law and because they are supported by the distinguished character of these persons. For if the blessed Evangelist were to say something about himself and claim his own praises, this would truly be burdensome and, moreover, show poor judgment. He would rightly have heard the words, "You bear record of yourself; your record is not true." Therefore, he leaves it to those who know him to form their own opinion of him, and he turns to his namesake. In doing this too, he does well, and he says that John was sent by God. For he needed to show that the holy Baptist does not come to give his testimony about our Savior on his own initiative or with self-appointed zeal, but rather in obedience to commands from above, and in service to the Divine Will of the Father. This is why he says, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

Therefore, most noteworthy is the pair of holy witnesses, and credence no longer capable of blame is due to the things said, both as having received the fulness of the law, and supported by the notability of the persons. For the blessed Evangelist then to say ought concerning himself, and to take hold of his own praises, were in truth burdensome and moreover ill-instructed. For he would rightly have heard, Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true. Therefore he commits to those who know him to form their opinion of him, and goes to his namesake, doing well in this too, and says that he was sent by God. For it behoved him to shew that not of his own accord nor with self-invited zeal does the holy Baptist come to his testimony respecting our Saviour, but yielding to the commands from above, and ministering to the Divine Will of the Father. Wherefore he says, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

But we must notice how accurately and appropriately he expressed himself regarding each, and in a way that corresponds to the nature of the things being indicated. For in the case of God the Word, "was" is fittingly introduced to indicate in every way His eternity and His existence before all temporal beginning, and to remove the idea that He was created. For how can that which always exists be conceived of as having an origin? But concerning the blessed Baptist, he fittingly says "There was a man sent from God," since he is a man having an originate nature. And very accurately does the Evangelist seem to me here not merely to say "There was," but by adding the word "a man," to overthrow the most ill-conceived notion of some.

But we must notice how unerringly and fitly he expressed himself as to each, and correspondently to the nature of the things indicated. For in the case of God the Word, was is fitly introduced indicating every way His Eternity, and His being more ancient than all beginning that is in time, and removing the idea of His having been created. For that which always is, how can it be conceived of as originate? But of the blessed Baptist, befittingly does he say, There was a man sent from God, as of a man having an originate nature. And very unerringly does the Evangelist herein seem to me not merely to say that There was, but by adding the word a man, to overthrow the most unadvised surmise of some.

For there was already a widespread report among many people, who commonly said that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels from heaven, making use of a human body and sent by God to preach. They found support for this guess in what God said: "Behold I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You." But those who imagine this are mistaken about the truth, because they don't consider that the name of angel indicates ministry rather than essence, just as in the story of the blessed Job, messengers come one after another to announce his many sufferings and to serve those incurable afflictions. The very wise Paul himself defines something similar about the holy angels, writing: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation?"⁶⁶

For already was there a report bruited of many, commonly saying that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels in heaven, making use of human body and sent by God to preach. And the plea for this surmise they found in its being said by God, Behold I send, My messenger before Thy Face, which shall prepare Thy way; before Thee. But they err from the truth who imagine thus, not considering that the name of Angel is indicative of ministry rather than of essence, even as in the history of the blessed Job messengers one after the other run to announce. his manifold sufferings and ministering to those incurable afflictions. Something like this does the most wise Paul himself define respecting the holy angels, writing thus: Are l they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?⁶⁶

John the blessed Baptist is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not because he was actually an angel by nature, but because he was sent to announce and cry aloud, "Prepare the way of the Lord." The text very profitably declares that the angel was sent by God, showing that his witness is completely trustworthy. For someone who was sent by God to preach would not say anything in his teaching that was not entirely according to the will of the One who gave him his mission. Therefore the witness is true because it is God-taught. For the most wise Paul also, when telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery from no one else but by revelation from the One who sent him. Paul indicated this revelation in summary form, so to speak, and briefly, by saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Therefore, being God-taught completely follows from being sent by God. And it is beyond doubt that freedom from lying is completely the goal of the ministers of the truth.

John the blessed Baptist then is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not as being actually by nature an angel, but as sent to announce and crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Very profitably does he declare moreover that the angel was sent by God, shewing that his witness is most sure. For he that was sent by God to preach, would not utter anything in his teaching that was not wholly according to the will of Him Who put the mission on him. True therefore is the witness as being God-taught. For the most wise Paul also telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery not of any other, but by revelation of Him Who sent him, signifying the revelation in sum so to say and briefly, in saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Hence the being God-taught wholly follows on being sent by God. And that freedom from lying is wholly the aim of the ministers of the truth is undoubted.

The man's name, he says, was John. It was necessary that the one who was sent should be recognized by this identifying name, which adds, I think, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel—namely Gabriel who stands in the presence of God, as he himself says—when he announced to Zacharias the good news of his birth from Elizabeth, added this to what he said: that his name shall be John. It is, I suppose, clear and acknowledged by all that he was named this by the angel according to the divine purpose and plan. How then will he who was honored by God with such great distinction not be thought of as beyond all praise? Therefore the mention of his name is both profitably and necessarily included.

The man's name he says was John. It needed that he who was sent should be recognized by the mark of the name, which introduces, as I suppose, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel (namely Gabriel that stand in the presence of God, as himself says) when he declared to Zacharias the good tidings of his birth of Elizabeth, added this to what he said, namely that his name shall be John. It is I suppose clear and confessed by all that he was so named of the angel according to the Divine purpose and appointment. How then will not he who was crowned by God with so great honour be conceived of as above all praise? Wherefore the mention of his name is profitably and necessarily brought in.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God as a witness so that all people through him might believe, we will respond further when our opponents object and say, "Why didn't everyone believe the one sent by God? How could someone appointed beforehand by the decree from above be unable to persuade anyone?" We should say, gentlemen, that we must not blame John for lacking commitment in this matter, but rather condemn the stubbornness of those who did not believe. For as far as the herald's purpose and the manner of his mission from above are concerned, no one would have been excluded from the teaching, nor would anyone have remained in unbelief. But since the hearers had different dispositions and each person has control over his own free choice, some who did not accept the faith missed what was beneficial. Therefore we must say to them, as it says in the prophet: Let the one who hears, hear; and let the one who refuses, refuse.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God for a witness that all men through him might believe, we will further say when our opponents fall foul and say, "Why did not all believe the God-sent? how came he who was fore-appointed by the decree from above to be powerless to persuade any?"—-It is meet, sirs, that we should not blame John for want of zeal herein, but should exclaim against the obstinacy of those who disbelieved. For so far as pertains to the aim of the herald, and the mode of his apostolate from above, none would have been found imparticipate in the teaching, nor would have remained in unbelief: but since there was diversity of disposition in the hearers and each has power over his own free-choice, some receiving not the faith missed what was profitable. Wherefore we must say to them (as it is in the prophet), He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear.

The word "This" is full of the declaration of virtue and praise of the person. For he who was sent from God, he who with good reason struck the whole of Judaea with astonishment by the seriousness of his life and its marvelous exercise in virtue, he who is foretold by the voice of the holy Prophets—called by Isaiah "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness," and by the blessed David "a lamp fore-ordained for Christ"—this man came for a witness to bear witness of the Light. Here he calls God the Word "Light," and shows that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with whom there is by nature nothing else that has the property of illuminating and that does not lack light. Therefore the Word of God is foreign to and, so to speak, of a different nature than the creature, since He truly and verily is strictly Light, while the creature participates in light. He then who is not classified with things made, and is therefore conceived of as being of a different nature than they, how will He be originate? Rather, how will He not be within the limits of Deity and filled with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?⁷⁷

The word This is full of declaration of virtue and praise of person. For he that was sent, he says, from God, he that with reason struck with astonishment the whole of Judaea, by the gravity of his life and its marvellous exercise in virtue, he that is fore-announced by the voice of the holy Prophets: called by Isaiah, The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and by the blessed David, a lamp fore-ordained for Christ; This man came for a witness to hear witness of the Light. He here calls God the Word Light, and shews that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with Whom there is by nature nought else that has the property of illumining, and that is not lacking light. Therefore foreign and, so to say, of other nature than the creature is the Word of God, since verily and truly is He strictly Light, the creature participate of light. He then that is unclassed with things made, and conceived of therefore as being of other nature than they, how will He be originate, rather how will He not be within the limits of Deity and replete with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?⁷⁷

The Baptist valued living in the desert more than living in cities. He showed an unusual dedication to practicing virtue and reached the highest level of righteousness that a human being can achieve. People rightly marveled at him, and some even thought he was Christ Himself. The Jewish rulers, influenced by his virtuous accomplishments to hold such an opinion, sent messengers to him with instructions to ask whether he was the Christ. The blessed Evangelist, knowing what many people were saying about him, necessarily adds "He was not the Light" in order to remove this mistaken belief and also to build up greater credibility for the one who was sent from God as a witness. For how could he not be exceptionally outstanding? How could he not be completely worthy of wonder, if he is clothed with such great virtue and so distinguished in righteousness that he imitates Christ Himself, and through the excellent beauty of his piety, is even thought to be the Light Itself?

The Baptist having esteemed desert-abodes above the haunts of the cities, and having shewn forth an unwonted persistence in exercise of virtue, and having mounted to the very summit of the righteousness attainable by man, was most rightly wondered at, and even by some imagined to be Christ Himself. And indeed the rulers of the Jews led by his achievements in virtue to some such notion, send some to him bidding them to inquire if he be the Christ. The blessed Evangelist then not ignorant of the things that were by many bruited of him, of necessity puts, He was not the Light, that he might both uproot the error as to this, and again build up some weight of credence to him who was sent from God for a witness. For how is he not eminent exceedingly, how is he not every way worthy of marvel, who is so clad with great virtue and so illustrious in righteousness as to imitate Christ Himself, and by the choice beauty of his piety, to be even imagined to be the Light Itself?

He was not then, he says, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. By saying "the Light" with the article, he shows that there is really only one: for this is the truth. We will not deny that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints may rightly be called light, since our Savior said of them, "You are the light of the world." And again it is said of the holy Baptist, "I have ordained a lamp for My Christ," and "He was a burning and a shining light, and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." But even though the saints are light, and the Baptist is a lamp, we are not unaware of the grace that was given to them and their supply from the Light. For the light in the lamp is not its own, nor is the illumination in the saints their own, but they are made bright and luminous by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they hold forth and are therefore called light, except surely the Only-Begotten, who says, "I am the Life"? Therefore, there is truly One who is truly Light, lighting but not enlightened: and by participation in the One, whatever is called light will be considered such by imitation of It.

He was not then, says he, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. In saying the Light, with the addition of the article, he shews that it is really one: for so it is in truth. For that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints, may be rightly called light we will not deny, seeing that it is said of them by our Saviour, Ye are the light of the world. And again it is said of the holy Baptist, I have ordained a lamp for My Christ, and, He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But even though the saints be light, and the Baptist a lamp, we are not ignorant of the grace that was given them and of their supply from the Light. For neither is the light in the lamp its own, nor the illumination in the saints, but they are rendered bright and lightsome by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they holding forth are called light, save surely the Only-Begotten, Who saith, I am the Life? Therefore, One of a truth is That Which is verily Light, lighting, not enlightened: and by participation of the One, whatever is called light, will be so deemed of by imitation of It.

The Divine Evangelist profitably recaps what has already been said and clearly distinguishes That Which is truly the Light—the Only-Begotten—from those that are not, namely created things. He clearly separates That Which is by nature from those which exist by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which participate in it, That Which gives itself to those who lack from those who receive its generosity. And if the Son is Very Light, nothing except Him is truly Light, nor does anything else have in itself the inherent capacity to be called and to be Light, nor will created things produce this as a result of their own nature. But just as they exist from not existing, so they will rise from not being Light to being light, and by receiving the rays of the Very Light and being illuminated by participation in the Divine Nature, they will in imitation of It both be called and be light.

The Divine Evangelist again profitably recapitulates what has been said, and clearly marks off That Which is in truth the Light, the Only-Begotten, from those that are not so, namely things originate: he severs clearly That Which is by nature from them which are by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which are participate of it, That Which ministereth Itself to those who lack from those who are in enjoyment of Its largess. And if the Son is Very Light, nought save He is in truth Light, nor hath of its own in potential the being called and being Light, nor yet will things originate produce this as fruit of their own nature; but just as from not being they are, so from not being Light will they mount up to being light, and by receiving the beams of the Very Light, and irradiated by the participation of the Divine Nature, will they in imitation of It alike be called and be light.

The Word of God is Light according to His Essential nature, not by grace through participation, and this dignity is not something that happens to exist in Him as an accident, nor is it imported into Him as grace. Rather, He is the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing from the Father into the Heir of His ousia. But the creature does not possess the quality of being light in this way. Instead, not having it, the creature receives it; being darkness, it is illumined; it possesses this dignity as an accruing grace through the love of mankind shown by the One Who gives it. Therefore, the Son is truly Light, while the other is not at all. Since the difference is so great, and since such a profound distinction separates the Son of God from the creature with respect to sameness of physis, how can one not reasonably conclude that those who say He is originate and rank the Creator of all alongside created things are foolish—indeed, completely devoid of sound understanding? They do not see, it seems to me, how great an impiety their reckless claim involves, nor do they know what they are saying or what they are affirming.

And the Word of God is Essentially Light, not being so of grace by participation, nor having this dignity as an accident in Himself, nor yet imported, as grace, but the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing through from the Father into the Heir of His Essence. But the creature, not so will it bear about it the being light, but as not having it receives, as darkness it is illumined, it has, as an accruing grace, the dignity from the love to man of Him Who giveth it. Hence the One is Very Light, the other not at all. So great therefore being the difference between, and so great a notion severing off, the Son of God from the creature in respect to sameness of nature, how must one not and with reason deem that they are foolish, yea rather outside of all good understanding, who say that He is originate, and rank with things made the Creator of all, not seeing, as seems to me, how great impiety their daring will risk, not knowing either what they say nor whereof they affirm.

For those who are accustomed to examine more carefully the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shown to be in no way originate or made, or in anything at all connatural with the creature. One may see this on all sides very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are arranged and presented below, gathered for the consideration of what is before us.

For that to those who are used to test more accurately the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shewn to be in no way originate or made, or in any thing at all con-natural with the creature, one may on all sides see and that very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are in order subjoined, collected for the consideration of what is before us.

Reasoning or arguments by which one may learn that the Son alone is true Light, but the creature is not at all; therefore, He is not connatural with the creature.

Thoughts or syllogisms whereby one may learn that the Son Alone is Very Light, the creature not at all; hence neither is He connatural therewith.

If the Son, being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature. Otherwise the creature too would be conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having the potential to be by nature this which the Son is.

If the Son being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature, that the creature too be not conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having in potential the being by nature this which the Son is.

Here is another argument. If the whole creation has the power to be Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son alone? For one ought, I suppose, because of equality, to give to created things also the title of being the Very Light. But this will not fit any originate things; rather it will be predicated of the Son's ousia alone. Therefore it will rightly and truly rest on Him, but not at all on created things. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, since He is above it with the Father?

Another. If the whole creation have the power of being Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son Alone? For one ought I suppose by reason of equality to give to things made also the title of being the Very Light. But no one of things originate will this befit, but it will be predicated of the Alone Essence of the Son. Of right therefore and truly will it rest on Him, on created things not at all. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, as being above it with the Father?

Another. If that which is not truly light is not the same as the true Light (for the statement about each has some difference), and the Son is called Very Light and truly is so, then the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence things that are separated from one another in this way are not connatural either.

Another. If that which is not in truth light be not the same as the in truth Light (for the enunciation of either has somewhat of diversity), and the Son be called Very Light, and be so of a truth: the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence neither are things thus severed from one another connatural.

Another argument. If not only the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, but the creature also possesses the quality of being very light, why does He light every person who comes into the world? For since the created nature also possesses this on its own, being enlightened by the Son would be superfluous. Yet He truly does enlighten, and we all are partakers of Him. Therefore the Son and the creature are not the same in regard to quality of ousia, just as what participates is not the same as that in which it participates.

Another. If not only the Only-Begotten be the Very Light, but the creature too possesseth the being very light, wherefore does He light every man that cometh into the world? For since the originate nature too possesseth this of its own, the being lightened by the Son were superfluous. Yet verily doth He light, all we are partakers of Him. Not therefore the same in regard to quality of essence, are the Son and the creature: as neither with the participator that whereof it is participate.

If being Very Light belongs not only to the Son by Nature but also to the creature, then clearly the Psalmist would be speaking needlessly when he says to some, "Look unto Him and be ye lightened." For that which is truly and wholly light will not become light by participation in something else, nor will it be illumined by enlightenment from another, but rather will possess perfect purity from its own physis. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and the Psalmist speaks truly when he cries out to the Word of God, "For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness." Therefore we are not truly light, but rather participate in the Word that gives light, and we are alien by physis from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another. If not only to the Son by Nature accrues the being Very Light, but the creature too have it, clearly of superfluity as I think will the Psalmist say to some, Look unto Him and be ye lightened. For that which is wholly of a truth light, will not become light by participation of some other, neither will it be illumined by enlightenment from other, but rather will be endowed with perfect purity from its own nature. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and true is the Psalmist crying aloud as to the Word of God, For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness. Not then of a truth light are we, but rather participate of the Word that lighteth, and alien by nature from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another point on the same matter. If the human mind is called a candle, as it says in the Psalms, "For You will light my candle," how can we be truly light? For light is brought to and given to a candle. And if the Only-Begotten alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is He not rather truly light, while we are not at all? But if this is true, how can He be connatural with the creature, when He is so far above it?

Another of the same. If the mind of man is called a candle, as it is sung in the Psalms, For Thou wilt light my candle, how shall we be of a truth light? for to the candle the light is imported and given. And if the Only-Begotten Alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is not He rather of a truth light, we not at all? But if this be true, how can He be connatural with the creature, Who is so far above it?

Another argument. If being truly light can belong to the creature just as it does to the Son, then man will be truly light, since he is a part of it. To whom then was God the Father making a promise through the holy Prophets when he said, "But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise"? For what need would truly light have of the Sun to illuminate it? Yet God the Father promised to give it to us as people in need, and we have received it and are enlightened. The Only-Begotten is therefore different from us and the creature in regard to identity of ousia, being truly Light and able to enlighten things that need light.

Another. If to be very light can accrue to the creature, even as to the Son, man will be very light, as being a portion of it. To whom then did God the Father promise by the holy Prophets saying, But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise? For whatever need of the Sun to illumine it had the of a truth light? Yet did God the Father promise to give it us as being in need, and we have received it and are lighted. Other then than we and the creature in regard to identity of essence is the Only-Begotten, being Very Light and able to lighten things that need light.

Another. If the Son alone is not Very Light, but the creature also possesses this, then it will be in us as well. What then prompted the saints to cry out to God, "O send out Your Light and Your Truth"? In what way were they thinking to help us when they repeatedly sent forth these words, tell me? For if they knew that man needs light and lacks this addition from another source, how can anyone say with truth that he too is Very Light? But if he did not need the lighting word, why did they pointlessly call on Him who could in no way help them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed to grasp the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son to those who lack light. Therefore the Only-Begotten is other by physis in relation to the creature, as one who gives light to things that lack Light.

Another. If not the Son Alone is Very Light, but the creature too possess this, it will be consequently in us too. What then induced the saints to cry aloud to God, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? Wherein thinking to help us thereby did they oftentimes send forth, tell me, those words? For if they knew that man is in need of light and that he lacks this addition from another, how will any say with truth, that he too is Very Light? but if he needed not the lighting word, why to no purpose did they call on Him Who could in no wise aid them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed of the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son as to those who lack light. Other therefore by Nature in respect of the creature is the Only-Begotten, as lighting things that lack Light.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten gives it light, the creature does not bring itself to the Light. Therefore, it is not Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten lightens it, the creature does not bring itself to the Light; hence neither is it Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If what is light by nature and in truth does not admit darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature is likewise Very Light, why does Scripture say of the Son, "The darkness comprehended it not," but of us Paul says, "In whom the god of this world has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe"? And again the Savior Himself says, "While you have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you." For it is clear to everyone, I suppose, that unless it were possible for some of us to be seized by darkness, our Savior would not have said anything like this. How then can the Only-Begotten and the creature any longer be the same in nature—the Unchangeable with the changeable, He who cannot suffer anything harmful with those who are darkened and who can acquire light as something added to them rather than inherent in them by nature?

Another. If that which is by nature and truth light does not admit of darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature likewise Very Light, why does the Scripture say of the Son, The darkness comprehended it not: but of us Paul saith, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not? and again the Saviour Himself, While ye have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you. For it is I suppose clear to all, that unless it were possible for some of us to be apprehended by the darkness, our Saviour would not have said ought of this. How then will any longer be the same in nature the Only-Begotten and the creature, the Unchangeable with the changing, He Who may not suffer ought that injures with the darkened and that can acquire lighting, as something, that is, accruing to it, and not inherent in it by nature?

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

Another argument. If the Only-Begotten is not alone the true light, but the creature also possesses it as something shared naturally with him, how can we cry out to God the Father, "In your light we shall see light"? For if we are truly light, how could we be enlightened by another? But if we say this because we need light from outside ourselves, we clearly are not light in truth. Therefore we are not connatural with the Word, who is by nature far above us.

Another. If the Only-Begotten be not Alone Very Light, but the creature have it too, as connatural with Him, how cry we aloud to God the Father, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if we be very light, how shall we be enlightened in another? But if we as needing light from without us say this, we clearly are not in truth light. Hence neither are we connatural with the Word Who is by Nature so far above us.

Another explanation. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found saying in the Gospel, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light." But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light, how does He come in order to enlighten it, and yet it loved darkness? How does it not come to the light at all, if it is itself the very light? For things that belong to anything by physis have their possession inherently. Things that are subject to choice of the will do not have that inherence. As for example: one does not attain to being a rational man by one's own will, for one has it by physis. But one will choose of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise by one's own power love righteousness or the opposite. If the creature is by physis the light (for this is the meaning of "very"), how does it not come to the light? Or how does it love the darkness, as though it did not possess by physis the being of very light, but made through choice instead its inclination toward the better or the worse?

Another expository. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found to say in the Gospel, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light. But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light: how cometh He in order to lighten it, and it loved darkness? How at all cometh it not to the light, if itself be the very light? For things that pertain to any by nature have their possession inherent: things that are eligible of the will, have not that inherence: as for example;—-not of one's own will does one attain to being a rational man; for one has it by nature: but one will have it of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise of one's own power love righteousness or the reverse. If the creature is by nature the light (for this is the meaning of very), how cometh it not to the light? or how loveth it the darkness, as though it possessed not by nature the being very light, but made through choice rather its inclination to the better or the worse?

Either our opponents must dare to say that the attributes beyond those of the creature do not naturally belong to the Son—in which case they will be convicted of more open blasphemy and will hear from everyone, "The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaks proud things"—or if they truly confess that these good things are in Him essentially, then they must not join together with Him in unity of nature the nature that is not so, as we have just shown.

Either therefore let our opponents dare to say that the endowments above those of the creature are not naturally inherent in the Son, that they may be convicted of more naked blasphemy and may hear from all, The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, or if they surely confess that these goods are in Him Essentially, let them not connect with Him in unity of nature, the nature that is not so, as we have just shewn.

Another argument: If the Word of God is not alone the Very Light, but the creature also possesses the being very light just as He does, why does He say, "I am the light of the world"? Or how can we tolerate someone stripping our nature of its most excellent privilege, if it is in any way possible that we too could be very light, with originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten truly says, "I am the Light of the world," it is clear that the creature will be light by participation in Him, and in no other way. If this is so, then the creature is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Word of God be not Alone the Very Light, but the creature too possess the being very light, as He does, why does He say, I am the light of the world? or how shall we endure one to despoil our nature of its most excellent prerogative, if it is any way possible that we too should be very light, the originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten says truly, I am the Light of the world, by participation it is plain with Him, and no otherwise, will the creature be light. If so, it is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son is not alone truly Light, but this also exists in created things, what shall we say when the most wise Paul writes to us, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light"? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, if we are ourselves also the truly light? How have we been called to the light if we are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak falsely, who was bold to say, "Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" And we are called into His marvelous Light, as from darkness, and not otherwise. But if this is true, the creature is not truly light, but the Son alone is truly and strictly Light, and created things are so by participation in Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son be not Alone in truth Light, but this exist in things originate also:—-what shall we say, when the most wise Paul writes to us, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, being ourselves also the in truth light? how have we been called unto the light, who are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak untrulySvho was bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and we are called into His marvellous Light, as from darkness that is, and no otherwise. But if this be true, the creature is not of a truth light, but the Son is alone truly and strictly Light, and things originate are so by participation of Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Others, by citing scriptural passages and drawing readers through simpler arguments to confess that the Son of God alone is the true Light, show that the physis of created things is illuminated by generous gift from Him, and does not possess being light essentially as He does.

Others with citation of utterances, gathering the readers by simpler thoughts to the confession that the Son of God Alone is the Very Light, the nature of things originate lighted by largess from Him, not possessing the being light essentially as He is.

The Psalmist says, "The light of Your Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord." And what is the Countenance of God the Father, whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, who therefore says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"? But it was impressed on us, making us similar in form to Himself and engraving the illumination that comes through His own Spirit as a divine Image upon those who believe in Him, so that they too may now be called both gods and sons of God, just as He is. But if any created thing were the true light itself, how could it be impressed upon us? For "the Light shines in darkness," according to the truthful voice of the one clothed with the Spirit. For how can light be made visible in light?

The Psalmist says, The light of Thy Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord. And what is the Countenance of God the Father Whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, and Which therefore says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? But it was impressed on us, making us of like form with Himself and engraving the illumination which is through His own Spirit as a Divine Image upon those who believe on Him, that they too may now be called as He both gods and sons of God. But if ought of things originate were the very light, how was it impressed upon us? For the Light shineth in darkness, according to the unlying voice of the Spirit-clad. For how will light be manifest in light?

Another example. The Psalmist says, "Light sprang up for the righteous." If the light sprang up for someone who already has it and lacks nothing, this would be pointless. But if the Light springs up for someone who does not have it, then the Only-Begotten alone is Light, while the creature is a participant in Light and therefore alien in physis.

Another. The Psalmist says, Light sprang up for the righteous. If to him who hath and lacketh not, it is superfluous. But if the Light springeth up as to one who hath it not, the Only-Begotten Alone is Light, the creature participate of Light and therefore alien-in-nature.

Another argument. The Psalmist says, "For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance." The light of the countenance of God the Father here refers to His revelation through the Son by the Spirit, and His guidance of all things that exist, which alone saved Israel and freed them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If the Only-Begotten is not alone the true light, but the creature also possesses equal dignity, why were those of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are described as needing additions from a foreign and unnecessary light? But it is clear that the Only-Begotten shone forth upon those lacking Light. Therefore He is—and He alone—the True Light, and the creature receives the grace from Him. If this is so, how can the creature any longer be connatural (sharing the same physis) with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance. The light of the countenance of God the Father he here calls His revelation from the Son through the Spirit, and His conducting thereof unto all things that are, which alone was what saved Israel and liberated them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If then not the Only-Begotten Alone be the very light, but an equal dignity be inherent in the creature too, why were these of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are set forth as supplied by additions from an alien and needless light? But it is clear that the Only Begotten shone forth as on those lacking Light. Hence is He (and that alone) the Very Light, and the creature borrows of Him the grace. If so, how will it any longer be connatural with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why would they not walk in their own light instead? Tell me, why do they receive illumination from another source and barely obtain salvation for themselves, if they too are truly light, just as the Countenance of God the Father is—that is, the Son? But I think it is obvious to everyone from this passage as well that the Word grants illumination to the creature, which lacks it. The creature is saved by receiving what it does not have. How then can the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him still be the same in ousia?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why shall not they too walk rather in their own light? why, tell me, do they gathering illumination from another, hardly attain for themselves salvation, if they too are in truth light, as is the Countenance of God the Father, that is, the Son? But it is I suppose plain to every one from this too, that the Word bestoweth illumination on the creature, as lacking it, it is saved by receiving what it has not. How then are the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him any longer the same in essence?

Another argument. The Psalmist says, "He has sent forth light in the darkness to the upright." How could the upright person be in darkness at all, if he himself were truly light, possessing this just as the Only-Begotten does—if created nature had this quality? But if the Light is sent to the upright person because he does not have it, we won't need many words to explain this. The very nature of things will loudly proclaim that the one who is in need is not the same in ousia as the Perfect One, nor is the one who lacks the same as the One who bestows out of abundance.

Another. The Psalmist says, Unto the upright He hath sent forth light in the darkness. How was the upright in darkness at all, being himself too very light, if the nature of things originate have this, just as the Only-Begotten? But if the Light is sent to the upright as not having it, we shall not need many words; for the very nature of things will proclaim aloud that not the same in essence is the needy with the Perfect, the Bestower out of abundance with the lacking.

Another argument. "Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." If the nature of created things has light from its own resources, and this is precisely what we say the Only-Begotten is with regard to being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack someone to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, the Son Alone is Very Light, Who lights her and gives her what she does not have. If this is so, how is He not entirely Other by nature (physis) than she?

Another. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. If the nature of things originate have light from its own resources, and this be strictly what we say that the Only-Begotten is in regard of being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack one to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, Very Light Alone is the Son Who lights her and gives her what she has not. If so, how is He not wholly Other by Nature than she?

Another passage: "Behold I have given You for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." How could the rational creature on earth need light at all if being truly light belonged to it by nature? God the Father gives His own Son to it precisely because it does not already possess this light. By receiving Him, the creature demonstrates through the very nature of the situation both the poverty of its own physis and the rich dignity of the One who illuminates it.

Another. Behold I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. For how should the rational creature that is on earth at all need light, if to be very light is inherent in it by nature? For God the Father gives His Own Son to it as having it not already: and it receiving Him proclaims by the very nature of the thing, both the poverty of its own nature and the Rich Dignity of Him Who lights it.

Another passage: "O house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light of the Lord." Why do these people not walk in their own light instead, but rather the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the distinctive good of His own Essence? But since they do not trust in what is their own, they borrow what belongs to another: precisely because they do not possess it, they know how to do this.

Another. O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord. Why do these not rather walk in their own light, but the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the own good of His Essence? But trusting not in what is their own, do they borrow what is another's: as not having therefore, they know how to do this.

Another passage. The Savior says, "I am the Light of the world: he who follows Me will not walk in darkness but will have the Light of life." Let the creature dare to say such a thing too, if it also is light by physis. But if it shrinks back from saying these words, it will also reject the reality itself, acknowledging the true Light, that is, the Son.

Another. The Saviour saith, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of life. Let the creature too dare to utter such a word, if it too be by nature light. But if it shrink back from the word, it will also flee the thing itself, confessing the true Light, that is, the Son.

The Lord says, "While you have light, believe in the Light, that you may be the children of light." Would those who were light by physis lose the light by not believing? Is it even possible for the originate essence to be the very light? How could this be? Loss does not happen through negligence with things that belong to anyone by essence, but rather with things that the will produces and that can come and go without damaging the subject. For example, a person is rational by nature, a shipbuilder by will, or physically sick by accident. He cannot become irrational at all. He may lose his shipbuilding skill if he is negligent, and he may drive away illness by seeking improvement through medicine. Therefore, things that belong to anyone essentially have a fundamental position. So if the nature of originate things can be the very light, how do those who will not believe lose the light, or how will those who believe become children of light? For if they too are the light by nature, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward for those who believe? For those who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. Drawing the truth from such considerations, we would say that the Only Begotten alone is the Very Light, while the creature lacks light and is therefore other in nature.

Another. The Lord saith, While ye have light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light. Would they who were by nature light, by not believing, lose the light? if it be indeed any way possible for the originate essence to be the very light. And how could this be? For not as to things that of essence accrue to any does the loss of them at all happen through negligence, but as to things whereof the will works the possession, and that can accrue and depart without the damage of the subject. As for example, a man is rational by nature, a ship-builder by will, or infirm in body by accident. He cannot at all become irrational; he may lose his ship-building experience, if for example he be negligent, and he may drive away what befalls him of sickness, hastening to improvement through medicine. Therefore things that accrue to any essentially have their position radical. If then the nature of things originate can at all be the very light, how do they who will not believe lose the light, or how will they who believe become children of light? For if they too are by nature the light, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward to them that believe? for they who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. From such considerations inferring the truth, we shall say that the Only Begotten is Alone the Very Light, the creature lacking light and hence other in nature.

Jesus said to them, "The light is with you for just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness will not overtake you." You can apply the same argument here that was used above. For that which is light by physis will never be overtaken by darkness.

Another. Jesus then said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you. To this too you may apply well the argument used above. For that which is by nature light, will never be apprehended by darkness.

John says, "He that says he is in the light and hates his brother is in darkness even until now." Therefore the light in us comes from choice and from will rather than from ousia, if someone who hates his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by physis, for He does not have this dignity as the result of choice. Therefore He is not connatural to created things, since He is so far above them.

Another. John saith, He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now. Of choice then is the light in us, and of will rather than of essence accrues it to things originate, if he that hateth his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by Nature, for He hath not the dignity as the fruit of choice. Hence neither is He connatural to things originate Who is so far above them.

Here's a similar point. The one who loves his brother remains in the light. Love gives to created things what they do not possess by nature, namely Light. But the Only-Begotten is Light. Therefore He is different from those in whom He dwells through love.

Another akin to this. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Love imparteth to things originate what they have not, Light that is, but the Only-Begotten is Light: Other therefore is He than they in whom through love He is.

Which gives light to every man who comes into the world.

Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The Divine text is certain, for it not only declares that the Only-Begotten is indeed the Very Light, but immediately adds to what has been said the proof of this, practically crying out with the most earnest voice, "I say that He is the Very Light which gives light to every person who comes into the world."

Sure is the Divine, for he not only thinks that he ought to declare that the Only-Begotten is indeed the Very Light, but he adds forthwith to the things that he has said the demonstration thereof, all but crying aloud with most earnest voice, I say that He is the Very Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Do then (someone might say, wanting to understand the Divine teachings more carefully), the angels not enlighten the mind of men? Tell me, from whom did Cornelius learn that he must be saved by God through Baptism? And was not Manoah, the father of Samson, instructed beforehand by an angel's voice about things to come? Does not the Prophet Zechariah likewise clearly tell us, "And the angel that talked with me said unto me I will show thee what these be"? And again, going through the same words, does he not clearly show that angels used to reveal the knowledge of hidden things spiritually to him? And he says, "Behold, the angel that talked with me went forth and another angel went out to meet him and said unto him Run, speak to this young man saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein." Tell me, does not the very wise Daniel also, encountering marvelous visions, gain through the voice of angels the revelation of the things he saw? For hear him saying, "And it came to pass when I, I Daniel had seen the vision and sought for the meaning, then behold there stood before me as the appearance of a man, and I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai which called and said Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision." Therefore the power of enlightening is in angels, and not only in them, but even man also receives illumination from man. And truly that Eunuch eager to learn, when he did not understand the prophecies about our Savior, says to Philip, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man?" And those who hurry to this world's teachers go to them, I suppose, for no other reason than this alone. And why do we still delay on these matters, when we can free ourselves easily by producing as proof what was said by our Savior to the holy Apostles, "Ye are the light of the world"?

Do then, (may one say who would fain receive the Divine doctrines not without search,) the angels not lighten the mind of men? Cornelius, tell me, from whom did he learn that he must by Baptism be saved by God? And Manoah the father of Sampson, was he not by an angel's voice fore-instructed of things to come? The Prophet Zechariah likewise does he not clearly tell us, And the angel that talked with me said unto me I will shew thee what these be? And again going through the same words, does he not clearly shew that angels used to reveal the knowledge of hidden things spiritually to him? And behold, says he, the angel that talked with me went forth and another angel went out to meet him and said unto him Run, speak to this young man saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein. What, tell me, does not the most wise Daniel too, falling in with marvellous visions, gain through the voice of angels the revelation of the things beheld by him? For hear him saying And it came to pass when I, I Daniel had seen the vision and sought for the meaning, then behold there stood before me as the appearance of a man, and I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai which called and said Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Hence the power of lighting is in angels, and not only in them, but even man too borrows illumination from man. And of a truth that Eunuch eager after learning when he understood not the prophecies about our Saviour says to Philip, I pray thee, of whom speak-eth the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man? And they who hasten to this world's teachers, go to them I suppose for no other reason than this alone. And why do we yet linger in these things, when it is in our power to free ourselves easily, producing as proof what was said by our Saviour to the holy Apostles, Ye are the light of the world?

Someone in their confusion might say such things, but they will hear this reply from us: We see, my friend, that created beings are composite, and nothing simple exists in them. Therefore, anyone who can give wisdom to others, if they are a created being, is not wisdom itself but a servant of the wisdom that is in them, for a person is wise through wisdom. And the one who teaches the prudent is not prudence itself but the servant of prudence that is in them, for these people too are prudent through prudence. And again, the one who has the ability to enlighten others is not the light itself but the one who lends the light that is in them, sharing it with others through teaching and communicating to the rest the good that they have received. This is why it was also said to the holy Apostles, "Freely you have received, freely give." For whatever good things were in them, these were certainly given by God, and human nature cannot boast at all of its own good things, nor can the nature of the holy Angels. For after being called into existence, each created thing has from God the manner of its existence, and we say with certainty that nothing exists in them essentially which is not a gift from the generosity of the One who created them, and which does not have as its source the favor of the Maker.

Such things is it like that one in his perplexity will say, but he will hear from us the reply, We see my friend that in the creature is what is compound, and nought of simple is in it: hence he who can give wisdom to others, if he be originate, is not wisdom itself, but a minister of the wisdom that is in him: for in wisdom is the wise man wise. And he who teaches the prudent, is not prudence itself, but the minister of prudence that is in him; for in prudence are these too prudent. And he again who has skill to enlighten others, is not the light itself, but the lender of the light that is in him, imparting it to others also by teaching, and communicating to the rest the good that he has received. Wherefore it was said to the holy Apostles also, Freely ye have received, freely give. For whatever goods there were in them, these were surely God-given, and the nature of men may not a whit boast itself of its own goods, nor yet that of the holy Angels. For after the being called into being, each of things that are has of God the mode of its existence, and we lay it down for certain that nought is in them essentially which is not a gift of the liberality of Him Who created, and has for its root the Favour of the Maker.

Since created things are composite, there will be in them no light strictly and simply or without composition, but this too along with everything else they will possess through participation and receiving it from God. But the True Light is that which gives light, not that which is illuminated by another; and this is what the Only-Begotten is, when considered in simple and uncompounded physis: for the Godhead withdraws from anything double.

Since therefore things originate are compound, there will be in them no light strictly and simply or without compound, but this too with everything else they will have of participation and receiving it of God. But the Very Light, is that which lightens, not which is lighted of another; and this the Only-Begotten is, considered in simple and uncompounded nature: for the God-head withdraws from ought of double.

These things, then, are as we have said. But our opponent will perhaps say to us again: If the saints were not light by physis, why did the Savior not call them partakers of light, but simply light? And how is the creature different in physis from Him, if the rational creation is called light just as He is called Light? For the disciples heard, "You are the light of the world."

These things then are thus. But the opponent will haply say again to us, If the saints were not by nature light, why did the Saviour call them not partakers of light, but light? And how is the creature other in nature than He, if as He is called Light, so too is the rational creation? For Ye are the light of the world, did the disciples hear.

What then, excellent sir, will we reply? We are called sons of God and gods by the Divine Scriptures, as it says, "I have said you are gods and all of you are children of the Most High." Should we then, abandoning what we are, ascend to the Divine and unspeakable Essence, and remove the Word of God from His very Sonship, and sit with the Father in His place, making the kindness of the One who honors us an excuse for impiety? God forbid! Rather, the Son will remain unchangeably in what He is, while we, adopted into sonship and made gods by grace, are not ignorant of what we are. In this way we believe that the saints are light.

What then, excellent sir, will we reply? Sons of God and gods are we called by the Divine Scriptures, according as it is said, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. Shall we then, leaving off being what we are, mount up to the Divine and unutterable Essence, and deposing the Word of God from His very Sonship, in place of Him sit with the Father and make the kindness of Him Who honours us a pretext for impiety? God forbid; but the Son will be unchangeably in that which He is, we, adopted unto sonship and gods by grace, not ignorant of what we are: and in this way do we believe that the saints are light.

I think we should also consider and look at this. The rational part of creation, being enlightened, enlightens others by participation in ideas poured from the mind into another's understanding, and this kind of enlightenment would rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God lighteth every man that cometh into the world, not in the manner of teaching, as angels or men do, but rather as God in the mode of creation. He engrafts in each of those who are called into being the seed of wisdom or of Divine knowledge, and implants a root of understanding, thus making the living creature rational and showing it to participate in His own physis. He sends into the mind certain luminous vapors, as it were, of the Unutterable Brightness, in a way and manner that He alone knows—for one should not, I think, say too much on these subjects. Therefore our forefather Adam is also seen to have attained wisdom not in time, as we do, but immediately from the very beginning of his existence. He appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given by God to his nature while it was still untroubled and pure, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

I think that we should consider and look at this also. The rational portion of the preation being enlightened enlightens by participation of ideas out of the mind inpoured into another's understanding, and such sort of enlightenment will rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God lighteth every man that cometh into the world, not after the manner of teaching, as the angels for example or men, but rather as God after the mode of creation He engrafteth in each of those that are called unto being, the seed of wisdom or of Divine knowledge, and implanteth a root of understanding and so rendereth the living creature rational, shewing it participate of His own Nature, and sending into the mind as it were certain luminous vapours of the Unutterable Brightness, in way and mode that Himself knoweth: for one may not, I deem, say on these subjects anything overmuch. Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained the being wise not in time, as we, but straightway from the first beginnings of his being does he appear perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

The Son therefore lights in the manner of creation, since He Himself is the Very Light, and the creature shines forth by participation with the Light, and is therefore called and is light, rising up to what is above its nature by the kindness of Him Who glorified it and Who crowns it with various honors. This is so that each one of those who have been honored may reasonably come forth and, lifting up prayers of thanksgiving, sing with a loud voice, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits, Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases, Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with loving kindness and tender mercies, Who satisfies your mouth with good things." For truly the Lord shows mercy, making those who are small and mere nothing according to their own nature great and worthy of marvel through His Goodness toward them, just as He has, as God, willed to adorn us generously with His own goods, and therefore calls us gods and light—and what good things does He not call us?

The Son therefore lights after the manner of creation, as being Himself the Very Light, and by participation with the Light the creature shines forth, and is therefore called and is light, mounting up to what is above its nature by the kindness of Him Who glorified it and Who crowneth it with divers honours, so that each one of those who have been honoured, may with reason come forth and lifting up prayers of thanksgiving, sing with loud voice, Bless the Lord O my soul and forget not all His benefits, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who healeth all thy diseases, Who redeemeth thy life from destruction, Who crowneth thee with loving kindness and tender mercies, Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things. For verily doth the Lord mercies, rendering those that are little and a mere nothing according to their own nature, great and worthy of marvel through His Goodness toward them, even as He has, as God, willed to adorn us ungrudgingly with His own goods, and hence calls us gods and light, and what of good things does He not call us?

What does he say next? That He was in the world. The Divine Scripture profitably adds this, introducing a thought that is very necessary for us. When he said, "He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world," it was not completely clear to the hearers whether this meant that the Light gives light to every man who comes into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing from some other place into the world, gives its illumination to all people. Therefore the Spirit-bearer reveals the truth to us and interprets the meaning of his own words by saying immediately about the Light that He was in the world. From this you should understand that the phrase "coming into the world" refers to man, and that it should be applied to the enlightened nature, which is called out of non-being into being. For non-being is like a certain place conceived in thought for created things, from which they pass in a manner into being and eventually take another place, namely that of being. Therefore the nature of man can more properly and fittingly acknowledge for itself that it was given light right from the beginning, and that it received understanding that was simultaneous and co-created with its being from the Light which is in the world—that is, the Only-Begotten, who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the Godhead. He is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, does not leave even Hell itself empty of His Godhead, and abiding everywhere with all things removes Himself from none. Reasonably, then, the very wise Psalmist, marveling at this, says: "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me." For the Divine Hand grasps every place and all creation, holding created things together in being and drawing together into life those things that lack life, and implanting the spiritual light in things capable of receiving understanding. Yet it is not in a place, as we have already said, nor does it undergo movement from place to place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather it fills all things as God.

What does he say next? That He was in the world. Profitably does the Divine add this also, introducing thereby a thought most needful for us. For when he said, He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world, and it was not wholly clear to the hearers, whether it meant that the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing as from some other place into the world, maketh its illumination of all men: needs does the Spirit-bearer reveal to us the truth and interpret the force of his own words, saying straightway of the Light, that He was in the world: that hence you might understand the words coming into the world of man, and that it might be predicated rather of the enlightened nature, as being called out of not being into being. For like a certain place seen in thought is the not being to things originate, whence in a sort of way passing into being, it takes at length another place, that namely of being. Hence more properly and fitly will the nature of man admit of itself that it was lighted immediately from the first periods, and that it received understanding coincident and co-fashioned with its being from the Light Which is in the world, that is the Only-Begotten, Who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the God-head, and is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, leaves not even Hellitself empty of His God-head, and everywhere abiding with all removes from none, so that with reason does the most wise Psalmist marvelling thereat say: Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me. For the Divine Hand graspeth every place and all creation, holding together into being things made and drawing together unto life things lacking life, and implanting the spiritual light in things recipient of understanding. Yet It is not in place, as we have already said, nor does it endure motion of place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather fulfils all things as God.

But perhaps someone will object: What then should we say, good friend, when someone brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? What about when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? For here He Himself clearly says that He came into the world, as if He were not in it. And the Psalmist was again asking that He who was not yet present should be sent—according, that is, to the plain meaning of the words and their statement about His being sent to us.

But perhaps some one will say to this, What then do we say, good sir, when any brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? what when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth 1 For lo here He Himself clearly says that He is come into the world, as not being in it, that is: and the Psalmist again was entreating that He Who was not yet present should be sent, according, that is, to the meaning of the words, and its declaration of His being sent to us.

To this we say that the Divine, having clothed the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity, declares that He is ever and unceasingly in the world as Life by physis, as Light by ousia, fulfilling the creation as God—not limited by place, not measured by intervals, not contained by quantity, not encompassed at all by anything, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but dwelling in all and forsaking none. Yet Scripture asserts that He came into the world (although already present in it) through the Incarnation. For He appeared on earth and lived among men in flesh, making His presence in the world more evident through this, and He who was previously grasped only by thought was at last seen by the very eyes of the body as well. He implanted in us a more physical perception, so to speak, of the knowledge of God, making Himself known through wonders and mighty works. And the Psalmist prays that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world in no other way, as it seems to me, but in this manner. But I think that the thoughtful reader should consider this as well: that the mind is keener than all speech, and the movement of the understanding is sharper than the tongue. Therefore, insofar as concerns the subtlety of the mind and its refined movement, we perceive the varied beauty of the Divine physis. But we express what concerns it in a more human manner and in the speech that belongs to us, since the tongue cannot extend to the full measure of the truth. For this reason Paul too, the steward of the mysteries of the Savior, used to ask God for utterance to open his mouth. Therefore the poverty of our language will not harm the natural dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived in a divine manner, yet will necessarily be expressed in a more human manner—both by Him for our sake and by the saints concerning Him according to the measure of our nature.

To this we say, that the Divine having clad the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity says that He is ever and unceasingly in the world, as Life by Nature, as Light by Essence, fulfilling the creation as God, not circumscript by place, not meted by intervals, not comprehended by quantity, neither compassed at all by ought, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but in all He dwells, none He forsakes: yet he asserted that He came in the world (although present therein) by the Incarnation. For He shewed Himself upon earth and conversed with men with flesh, making His Presence in the world more manifest thereby, and He Who was aforetime comprehended by idea, seen at length by the very eyes of the body also, implanted in us a grosser so to speak perception of the knowledge of God, made known by wonders and mighty deeds. And the Psalmist entreats that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world, in no other way as seems to me, but in this. But I think that the studious should consider this again, that keener is the mind than all speech, sharper the motion of the understanding than the tongue. Hence as far as pertains to the delicacy of the mind and its subtil motion, we behold the varied beauty of the Divine Nature: but we utter the things respecting it in more human wise and in the speech that belongs to us, the tongue not being able to stretch forth unto the measure of the truth. Wherefore Paul too, the steward of the Mysteries of the Saviour, used to ask of God utterance to open his mouth. Nought then will the poverty of our language hurt the Natural Dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived of after a Divine sort, but will be uttered as matter of necessity in more human wise, both by Him for our sakes and by the Saints of Him according to the measure of our nature.

It would seem reasonable to be satisfied with what has already been said in explaining the words before us. But since I believe that writing about divine doctrines should never be lazy, let us bring forward this passage again and examine more carefully how the words "coming into the world," which are rightly applied to man, should be understood. For the Light was in the world, as the Evangelist himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that comes into the world but rather the man who is being lighted. Some therefore say, speaking from their own hearts and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, that the souls of men existed beforehand in Heaven before their bodies were formed, spending a long time in bodiless blessedness and enjoying the true Good more purely. But when dissatisfaction with better things came upon them and, eventually declining toward what is worse, they fell into strange thoughts and desires, the Creator, justly displeased, sends them forth into the world and entangles them with earthly bodies, compelling them to be burdened by them. Having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, he decreed to teach them through this very experience itself how bitter it is to be carried away toward what is worse and to disregard what is good. In proof of this most ridiculous story of theirs, they first distort this passage now before us: "He was the True Light which lighteth every man coming into the world," and besides this, certain other passages of Divine Scripture, such as "Before I was afflicted I went astray." Moreover, not ashamed of such foolish babbling, they say: Look, the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed, and therefore it was justly afflicted, brought into bondage to death and corruption, just as Paul also describes the body, saying "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" But if the soul, he says, goes astray before it was afflicted, it also comes into the world as having a previous existence (for how could it sin at all if it did not yet exist?); and it comes into the world, setting out from somewhere. Stringing together such things against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the rubbish of their empty interpretations in the ears of the faithful, they will rightly hear: "Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" For they are setting visions, omens from birds, and prophecies from their own hearts against the words spoken by the Spirit, and they do not perceive to what great absurdity their theory will lead, as the Psalmist says to God: "Thou, Thou art to be feared, and who may stand in Thy sight when once Thou art angry?"

It were then, it seems, not amiss to be content with what has been already said in explanation of the words before us. Yet since I deem that the pen that ministers to the Divine doctrines should be above sloth, come let us bringing forward the lection again examine more exactly how the words coming into the world predicated of man, as is fit, should be understood. For the light was in the world, as the Evangelist also himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that cometh into the world but rather the man who is being lighted. Some therefore say, belching forth of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is "written, that the souls of men were pre-existent in Heaven before the fashioning of their bodies, passing long time in un-embodied bliss, and enjoying more purely the true Good. But when the sate of better things came into them and, declining at length to the worser, they sank to strange thoughts and desires, the Creator justly displeased sends them forth into the world, and entangled them with bodies of earth compelling them to be burdened therewith, and having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, decreed to instruct them by the very trial itself, how bitter it is to be carried away to the worser, and to make no account of what is good. And in proof of this most ridiculous fable of theirs, they wrest first of all this that is now before us: He was the Very Light Which lighteth every man coming into the world, and, besides, certain other things of the Divine Scripture, such as, Before I was afflicted I went astray, and moreover not ashamed of such foolish prating say, Lo the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed and that therefore it was justly afflicted, brought in bondage to death and corruption, even as Paul too stileth the body saying O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from, the body of this death? But if the soul, he says, goeth astray before it was afflicted, it also cometh into the world, as having that is a previous being (for how could it sin at at all if it existed not yet?); and cometh into the world, setting out that is from some quarter. Such things as these they stringing against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the trash of their empty expositions in the ears of the of the faithful will rightly hear, Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! For visions in truth, and auguries by birds and prophecies of their own heart they setting against the words spoken by the Spirit, do not perceive to how great absurdity their device will run; as the Psalmist says unto God, Thou, Thou art to be feared: and who may stand in Thy Sight when once Thou art angry?

It would be completely absurd to suppose that the soul exists before the body, and to think that it was sent down into earthly bodies because of sins committed earlier. We will try to prove this to the best of our ability through the arguments that follow, keeping in mind what is written: "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning."

But that it is most exceedingly absurd to suppose that the soul pre-exists, and to think that for elder transgressions it was sent down into bodies of earth, we shall endeavour to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations, knowing what is written, Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

If the human soul exists before the body is formed, and—as some speculate—falls into evil and descends into flesh as punishment for its transgression, how does the Evangelist say that it is enlightened when it comes into the world? For this seems to be an honor and the receiving of good gifts. But no one is punished by being honored, nor is anyone disciplined by receiving divine good things; rather, punishment comes from experiencing the wrath of the one inflicting it. But since man is not in such a state when coming into the world, but instead is actually enlightened, it is clear that the one who is honored with flesh does not receive embodiment as a punishment.

1. If the soul of man have existence prior to the formation of the body, and, declining to evil according to the surmises of some, has for punishment of its transgression a descent into flesh, how, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is lighted on coming into the world? For this I suppose is honour and the addition of fair gifts. But not by being honoured is one punished, nor yet chastised by being made recipient of the Divine good things, but by meeting with what is of the wrath of the punisher. But since man on his coming into the world is not in this condition, but on the contrary is even lighted, it is I suppose clear that he that is honoured with flesh has not his embodiment for a punishment.

Another point. If the soul existed as a pure mind before the body, living in blessedness, but then turned toward evil, fell, and for this reason came to be in flesh, how is it enlightened upon its entry into the world? For one must necessarily say that it lacked light before it came. If that is the case, how could it any longer have been that pure mind which only began to be enlightened when it came into the world, and not apart from flesh?

2. Another. If before the body the soul were a mind yet pure, living in bliss, and by turning aside to ill fell, and therefore came to be in flesh, how is it lighted on its entry into the world? For one must needs say that it was destitute of light before it came: if so, how any longer was that pure mind which had then scarce a beginning of being lighted, when it came into the world, and not without flesh?

3. Another. If the human soul existed before the body, and the mind therefore existed still pure, more naturally drawn to desire good things, but because of turning aside to what is worse is sent into an earthly body—and once it is in that body, no longer refuses the will to transgress—how is it not wronged when it is not specially entrusted with doing this at the time when it existed with a greater capacity for virtue, not yet in bondage to the evils that come from the body? Instead, when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, it is then compelled out of season to do this. But the Divinity will not miss the fitting time, nor will that one do injury to whose nature doing injury does not belong. Therefore, we rightly refuse sin when we are in the flesh at the proper time and season, having this time alone of existence in which we come into the world with bodies, leaving behind the former non-existence as though it were a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of existence.

3. Another. If the soul of man existed before the body; and the mind therefore existed yet pure, attached more properly to the desire of good things, but from turning aside to the worser is sent into earthly body, and being therein, no longer rejects the will to transgress, how is it not wronged, not then specially entrusted with the doing of this, when it existed with a greater aptness for virtue, not as yet in bondage to the ills that proceed from the body, but when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, then out of season compelled to do this? But the Divinity will not miss of the befitting time, nor that injure to Whose Nature doing injury belongeth not. In season then and rightly do we refuse sin when in the flesh, having this season alone of being, in which with bodies we come into the world, leaving the former not being, as though a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of being.

Another question I'd like to ask them: What reasoning justifies a soul that sinned before the body being sent into the body so that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to propose this idea as well, although the soul ought instead to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of evils, not thrust down into the very depths of base pleasures. For this would be a proper method of healing, rather than the other. So if embodiment increases the soul's disease by allowing it to revel in bodily pleasures, one could not praise the Corrector, who injures what was sick by the very means He thought would help it. But if embodiment is meant to make the soul cease from its passions, how is it possible that the soul, having fallen into the very depths of lust, should rise again? Would it not have been better for it to have rejected the very beginning of the disease while it was still free from what dragged it down into sin?

4. Another. What reason is there, I would fain ask them, in the soul that sinned prior to the body being sent into the body, that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to set forth this too, although it ought rather to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of its ills, not thrust down to the very depth of base pleasures. For this rather than the other were a mode of healing. If then it has the embodiment an increase of its disease in order that it may revel in the pleasures of the body, one would not praise the Corrector, injuring that which was sick by the very means whereby He thought to advantage it. But if it has it in order that it may cease from its passions, how is it possible that it having fallen into the very depth of lust should arise, and not rather have spurned the very beginning of the disease, while it was free from that which dragged it down into sin?

If the soul sinned before it existed and was therefore bound up with flesh and blood as punishment, shouldn't those who believe in Christ and have received forgiveness of sin immediately leave their bodies and cast off what was placed on them as punishment? How can the human soul have complete forgiveness while still carrying around the means of its punishment? But we see that believers are so far from wanting to be freed from their bodies that along with their confessions of faith in Christ they proclaim the resurrection of the flesh. Something that is honored even in the confession of faith and bears witness to the divine power of the Savior—who is able to do all things easily—through its return to life cannot be a method of punishment.

5. Another. If the soul in pre-existence transgressed and was for this reason entangled with flesh and blood, receiving this in the nature of punishment, how is it not the duty of them who believe in Christ and who received thereby the remission of sin, to go forthwith out of their bodies and to cast away that which is put about them as a punishment? How, tell me, does the soul of man have perfect remission while yet bearing about it the method of its punishment? But we see that they who believe are so far from wishing to be freed from their bodies, that together with their confessions in Christ they declare the resurrection of the flesh. No method of punishment then will that be which is honoured even with the confession of the faith, witnessing, through its return back to life, to the Divine Power of the Saviour the being able to do all things easily.

6. Another. If the soul existed before and sinned, and was for this reason entangled with flesh—as they claim—why does the Law order the graver offenses to be punished with death, and allow the person who has committed no crime to live? For I would think it would have been more fitting to let those who are guilty of the worst crimes linger longer in their bodies so they might be punished more severely, and to free those who had committed no crime from their bodies, if being embodied counts as a punishment. But the opposite happens: the murderer is punished with death, while the righteous person suffers nothing in his body. Therefore, being embodied does not belong to punishment.

6. Another. If the soul pre-existing according to them sinned and was for this reason entangled with flesh, why does the Law order the graver offences to be honoured with death, and suffer him who has committed no crime to live? For I suppose that it would rather have been right to let those who are guilty of the basest ill linger long in their bodies, that they might be the more heavily punished, and to let those who had committed no crime free from their bodies, if the embodiment ranks as a punishment. But on the contrary, the murderer is punished with death, the righteous man suffers nothing in his body. The embodiment does not therefore belong to punishment.

Another argument: If souls were placed in bodies because of earlier sins, and the body's physis was designed as a kind of punishment for them, how did the Savior benefit us by destroying death? Wouldn't decay actually be a kindness, since it destroys what punishes us and puts an end to God's anger toward us? From this perspective, one could argue that we should be more grateful to decay than to the One who imposed endless suffering on us through the resurrection of the dead. Yet we give thanks to Christ for freeing us from death and decay. Therefore, being embodied is not a form of punishment for the human soul.

7. Another. If souls were embodied for previous sins, and the nature of the body were invented as a species of punishment for them, how did the Saviour profit us by abolishing death? how was not rather decay a mercy, destroying that which punished us, and putting an end to the wrath against us? Hence one might rather say that it were meeter to give thanks to decay than on the contrary to Him Who laid on us endless infliction through the resurrection of the dead. And yet we give thanks as freed from death and decay through Christ. Hence embodiment is not of the nature of punishment to the soul of man.

8. Another argument from the same idea. If human souls were bound to earthly bodies as payment for previous sins, what reason do we have to thank God for promising us the Resurrection? For this would clearly be a renewal of punishment and a rebuilding of what harms us, since a long punishment is obviously bitter to everyone. It would be terrible if bodies were to rise that serve as instruments of punishment for their wretched souls. And yet nature has received from Christ, as a gift renewing it to joy, the resurrection. Therefore embodiment is not by nature a punishment.

8. Another from the same idea. If the souls of men were entangled with earthly bodies in satisfaction of elder transgressions, what thank tell me shall we acknowledge to God Who promises us the Resurrection? For this is clearly a renewal of punishment and a building up of what hurts us, if a long punishment is clearly bitter to every one. It is then hard that bodies should rise which have an office of punishment to their wretched souls. And yet nature has from Christ, as a gift renewing it unto joy, the resurrection. The embodiment is not therefore of the nature of punishment.

Another argument. The prophetic word appears to announce to us some great and long-awaited feast. For it says, "The dead shall arise, and those who are in the tombs shall be raised." But if embodiment were truly of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of human beings, how could the Prophet not rather grieve when proclaiming these things as from God? How would that proclamation be in any way good if it brings us the continuation of what troubles us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to bring joy to those who had received bodies because of sin, "The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish." But on the contrary, he brings them joy by saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body—in which both we ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased—be (according to the foolish notion of some) of the nature of a punishment?

9. Another. The Prophetic word appears as publishing to us some great and long desired-feast. For, says it, the dead shall arise, and they that be in the tombs shall be raised. But if the embodiment were indeed of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of men, how would not the Prophet rather sorrow when proclaiming these things as from God? How will that proclamation be in any way good which brings us the duration of what vexes us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to rejoice those who had received bodies by reason of sin, The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish. But on the contrary he rejoices them saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body wherein both ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased be (according to the uncounsel of some) of the nature of a punishment?

10. Another. God, when blessing the blessed Abraham, promised that his descendants would be as numerous as the countless stars. If it were true that the soul, having sinned before the body, is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, then God would have promised the righteous man an ignoble multitude of condemned people, fugitives from goodness, and not descendants who share in blessing. But God speaks this as a blessing to Abraham; therefore the origin of bodies is freed from all accusation.

10. Another. God, in blessing the blessed Abraham promised that his seed should be as the multitude innumerable of the stars. If it be true that the soul sinning before the body is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, God promised to the righteous man, an ignoble multitude of condemned, runagates from good, and not a seed participant of blessing. But God says this as a blessing to Abraham: hence the origin of bodies is freed from all accusal.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites grew into a great and countless multitude. The priest Moses rightly marvels at this and prays for them, saying, "And behold, you are this day as the stars of heaven in number. May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are." But if it were a punishment for the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must necessarily exist this way and not without them, then Moses' words would actually be a curse, not a blessing. But this is not the case—it was spoken as a blessing. Therefore, embodiment is not of the nature of punishment.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites spread forth into a multitude great and innumerable. And indeed justly marvellous at this does the hierophant Moses pray saying to them, And behold ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude: the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are. But if it were punishment to the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must needs so be, and not bare of them, Moses' saying will be found to be verily a curse, not a blessing. But it is not so, it was made as a blessing: the embodiment therefore is not of the nature of punishment.

Another argument. God does not grant requests to those who ask wrongly. The Savior's disciple provides us with a reliable witness to this, saying, "You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss." If being embodied were a punishment for the soul, one could reasonably say that Hannah, the wife of Elkanah, completely missed what was proper when she so earnestly poured out her prayer to God and asked for a male child. For she would have been asking for a soul's downfall and its descent into a body. How then could God have given her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were absolutely necessary that a soul must sin in order to become entangled with a body and thereby fulfill the woman's request? Yet God did give, and it is His nature to give only good things. By readily granting her request, He clears it of all blame. Therefore, embodiment is not a result of sin, nor is it punishment by nature, as some claim.

12. Another. To those who attempt to ask amiss God endures not to give. And an unlying witness to us will be the disciple of the Saviour, saying, Ye ash and receive not, because ye ash amiss. If then it were a punishment to a soul to be embodied, how would not one with reason say that Hannah the wife of Elkanah missed widely of what was fit, when she so instantly poured her prayer unto God and asked for a man child. For she was asking for the downfall of a soul and its descent into a body. How then came God to give her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were wholly of necessity that a soul should sin, in order that so, entangled with a body, it might fulfil the woman's request. And yet God gave, to Whom it is inherent to give only good things and, by readily assenting to her, He frees her request from all blame. Hence embodiment is not a result of sin, nor yet of the nature of punishment as some say.

Another argument. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what led Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, though he was good and wise, to plead with bitter tears against the death of the body, and to shrink from laying aside the instrument of his punishment, and to beg that he might be granted an increase of years? Surely if he were truly good, he ought not to have pleaded against death, but rather to have considered it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have recognized this as a favor rather than the other. And how did God promise him as a favor, saying, "Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years," when the promise would have been an addition of punishment, not an act of kindness, if those who teach this were speaking the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition was a kindness. Therefore embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

13. Another. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what induced Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, although good and wise, to deprecate not without bitter tears the death of the body, and to shrink from putting off the instrument of his punishment, and to beseech that he might be honoured with an increase of years, although he surely ought, if he were really good, not to have deprecated death, but to have thought it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have acknowledged this rather than the other as a favour. And how did God promise him as a favour saying, Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years, albeit the promise was an addition of punishment, not a mode of kindness, if these set forth the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition a kindness. Hence the embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

Another. If the body is given to the soul of man as a punishment, what favor did God repay to the Eunuch who brought Jeremiah up out of the dungeon, when he said, "I will give you your life as a prize and will save you from the Chaldeans"? God should rather have let him die so that he might also honor him by releasing him from the prison and punishment. What, tell me, did God give to the young men of Israel when he delivered them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? Why did he rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But truly he does these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of punishment, so that honor and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same thing.

14. Another. If the body is given to the soul of man in the light of punishment, what favour did God repay to the Eunuch who brought up Jeremiah out of the dungeon, saying, I will give thy life for a prey and will save thee from the Chaldeans? For He should rather have let him die that He might also honour him, releasing him from the prison and punishment. What tell me did He give to the young men of Israel, in delivering them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? why did He rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But verily He doeth these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of punishment, in order that honour and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same.

Paul teaches us that in due time there will be an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each person's life, saying, "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad." But if a person receives punishment from the Judge or is considered worthy of appropriate reward only for the things done in the body, and no mention is made of earlier sins, nor is any charge from before his birth examined, then how could the soul have had any pre-existence? And how was it humbled as a consequence of sin, as some claim, since only its time with the flesh is marked out, given that only the things done in it are examined?

15. Another. Paul teaching us that there shall be in due time an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each man's life says, For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he done, whether it be good or bad. But if it be only for the things done in the body that a man either receiveth punishment at the hands of the Judge, or is accounted worthy of befitting reward, and no mention is made of prior sins, nor any charge previous to his birth gone into: how had the soul any pre-existence, or how was it humbled in consequence of sin, as some say, seeing that its time with flesh is alone marked out, for that the things alone that were done in it are gone into?

16. Another. If souls were given bodies because of previous sins, how can Paul write to us saying, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God"? For if bodies were given to our wretched souls as a form of punishment, how should we present them as a pleasing aroma to God? How can that through which we received our sentence be acceptable? Or what kind of virtue can possibly exist in something whose very nature is punishment and whose root is sin?

16. Another. If souls were embodied on account of previous sins, how does Paul write to us saying, Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God? For if in the nature of punishment they were given to our wretched souls, how should we present then for an odour of a sweet smell to God? how will that be acceptable through which we received our sentence? or what kind of virtue at all will that admit of, whose nature is punishment, and root sin?

Another argument. In showing that corruption has spread to the whole nature (physis) of humanity because of Adam's transgression, Paul says, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." How then does he say that death reigned even over those who had not sinned, if the mortal body were given to us as a result of previous sins? For where are those who have not sinned, if embodiment itself is the punishment for sins, and our existence in this life with our body is evidence of a pre-existing charge against us? Therefore the argument of our opponents is ignorant.

17. Another. Shewing that corruption is extended against the whole nature of man, because of the transgression in Adam, Paul saith, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. How then does he say that death reigned even over them that had not sinned, if the mortal body were given us in consequence of former sins? For where at all are they that have not sinned, if the embodiment be the punishment of faults, and our being in this life with our body is a pre-existing charge against us? Unlearned then is the proposition of our opponents.

The disciples once asked our Savior about a man born blind, saying, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples thought this might be the case with this man. What does Christ say in response? "Truly I tell you, neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." How does He exempt them from sin, even though they were not blameless in their lives? For being human, they were certainly subject to faults. But it is clear and obvious that the statement refers to the period before birth, during which they did not yet exist and therefore had not sinned, so that Christ's words may be true.

18. Another. The Disciples once made enquiry of our Saviour concerning one born blind, and said, Master who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? For since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures, of God, that He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples began to imagine that such was the case with this man. What then does Christ say to this? Verily I say to you, neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. How then does He exempt them from sin, although not free from blame as to their lives? for being men, they were surely liable also to faults. But it is manifest and clear that the discourse pertains to the period prior to birth, during which they not yet existing, neither had they sinned, that Christ may be true.

The blessed prophet Isaiah, explaining the reason why the earth was made, says, "He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited." But it was entirely right that the earth should be inhabited—not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclothed souls, but with bodies suited to it. Was it then God's plan that worked to make souls sin, so that the physis of bodies would also come into being, and thus the earth would finally be shown to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd. Therefore the other position is better.

19. Another. The blessed Prophet Isaiah explaining the reason of the earth being made says, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited. But it was altogether right that the earth should be inhabited, not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclad souls, but with bodies suitable to it. Was it then Divine Counsel that wrought that souls should sin, in order that the nature of bodies should also come into being, and thus at length the earth be shewn to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd; the other therefore has the better.

Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs, "I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having completed the world and took delight in the sons of men." Now when God rejoices exceedingly at the completion of the world in the forming of man, how can anyone not be completely senseless who claims that the soul is subject to previous sins and says that it was embodied for this reason, and was punished in this way? For would God not then be the maker of a prison rather than a world? Would He not be unreasonably delighting in those who are undergoing punishment? And how can He be Good if He delights in such absurd things? But truly He is Good and therefore the Maker of good things. Therefore embodiment will not be punishment by physis.

20. Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having consummated the world and took delight in the sons of men. When then on His completion of the world, God rejoices exceedingly in the forming of man, how will he not be bereft of all sense who subjects the soul to previous sins and says that it was therefore embodied, and was punished after this fashion? For will not God be the maker of a prison rather than a world? will He not be delighting contrary to reason in those who are undergoing punishment? And how will He be Good who delights in things so absurd? But verily He is Good and therefore the Maker of things good: the embodiment will not therefore be of the nature of punishment.

If the human soul pays the penalty for sins committed before its birth into the world through its entanglement with flesh, and if the body serves as a punishment for it, why was the Flood brought upon the world of the ungodly while righteous Noah was preserved and received this reward for his faith from God? Shouldn't those who had sinned greatly have remained in the body for a longer time so they could be punished more severely, while the good should have been freed from their fleshly bonds and received release from the body as the reward for their piety toward God? But I believe that the Creator of all, being righteous, imposes on each order the sentence it deserves. Therefore, since He is righteous and punishes the ungodly with bodily death, yet also blesses the righteous with life together with the body, bodies cannot be a punishment for human souls—otherwise God would be unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favor while honoring the righteous with punishment.

21. Another. If the soul of man by its entanglement with flesh pays the penalty of transgressions prior to its birth in the world, and the body occupies the position of a punishment to it, why was the Flood brought in upon the world of the ungodly, and Noah being upright was preserved and has this recompense of his faith from God? For ought not rather those who had sinned exceedingly to have lingered longer time in the body that they might be punished also more severely, and the good to have been set free from their bonds of flesh and received the release from the body as the recompense of their piety toward God? But I suppose that the Creator of all being Righteous lays on each rank the sentence due to it. Since then He being Righteous punishes the ungodly with the death of the body, gladdens again the righteous with life together with the body: bodies are no punishment to the souls of men, that God be not unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favour, honouring again the righteous with punishment.

22. Another. If the soul has descended into flesh and body to pay the penalty for previous offenses, why did the Savior love Lazarus by raising him and compelling him—who had been set free from his bonds—to return to them again? But Christ did this to help him, and as a friend He honored the dead by raising him from the dead. Therefore the argument of the opponents is pointless.

22. Another. If to pay the penalty of previous offences the soul has descended into flesh and body, how did the Saviour love Lazarus, raising him, and compelling him. who was once set free from his bands to return to them again? But Christ did it helping him and as a friend did He honour the dead by raising him from the dead. To no purpose then is the proposition of the opponents.

23. Another. If, as those who talk nonsense claim, the body was given to the soul as a punishment devised because of its previous sin, then sin brought about the nature of human bodies. But death also entered through sin. Therefore sin clearly appears to be arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand, as our Savior says? But truly, to think this way is unbelievable. Therefore the opposite is true.

23. Another. If, as those in their nonsense say, the body was given to the soul in the light of a punishment, devised on account of former sin of its, it was sin that brought in the nature of human bodies. But again also death entered by sin: sin therefore clearly appears arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is therefore divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand? as our Saviour saith. But verily so to think is incredible: the contrary therefore is true.

God created all things in incorruption and did not make death, but death came into the world through the devil's envy. But if it is true that the body was given to the human soul as a form of punishment, why should we blame the devil's envy for bringing us the end of our misery and destroying the body that is our punishment? And why on earth would we give thanks to the Savior for binding us again to the flesh through the resurrection? Yet we do give thanks, and the devil's envy has afflicted our nature, bringing corruption to our bodies. Therefore the body is not a form of punishment, nor is it the penalty for our former sin.

24. Another. God created all things in incorruption and He made not death, but through envy of the devil came death into the world. But if it be true, that the body was given in nature of punishment to the soul of man, why, sirs, should we accuse the envy of the devil for bringing in to us the termination of wretchedness and destroying the body which is our punishment? And for what in the world do we offer thanks to the Saviour for having again bound us to the flesh through the resurrection? yet we do indeed give thanks, and the envy of the devil has vexed our nature, procuring corruption to our bodies. No mode of punishment then is the body nor yet is it the wages of our former sin.

The Evangelist in these words necessarily points out that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although he had called Him Word very clearly at the beginning and affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing came into being, and thereby demonstrated that He was their Maker and Creator, it was still necessary now to take this up again in particular, so that no opportunity for error and destruction might be left to those who are accustomed to twisting the correctness of the Divine teachings. For when he said that the Light was in the world, so that no one might distort this statement into foolish ideas and count the Light as one among the visible parts of the universe (as the sun and moon and stars, for example, are in the world, but as parts of the universe and as limbs of one body), the Evangelist profitably and necessarily introduces the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Maker of the whole universe, and thereby firmly establishes us again and leads us into a correct and right understanding of the truth. For who would be so foolish or have such great stupidity in his mind as not to understand that He through Whom the universe is said to have been made is wholly other than the universe, and to put the creature in its own place, to separate off the Creator in reasoning, and to understand that His physis is Divine? For the thing made must necessarily be other in physis than the Maker, so that maker and made do not appear to be the same.

The Evangelist in these words needfully indicates that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although, having called Him most distinctly Word at the beginning, he affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing was brought into being, and demonstrated thereby that He was their Maker and Creator: yet it was necessary now most particularly to take this up again anew, that no room of error and perdition might be left to those who are wont to pervert the uprightness of the Divine dogmas. For when he said of the Light that it was in the world, that no one wresting the saying to senseless conceptions, should make the Light connumerate with the visible portions of the universe (as sun and moon and stars for example are in the world, but as parts of the universe, and as limbs of one body), profitably and of necessity does the Evangelist introduce the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Artificer of the whole universe, and thereby again fully stablishes us and leads us into an unerring and right apprehension of the truth. For who would be so silly or have such great folly in his mind, as not to conceive that wholly other than the universe is He through Whom it is said to have been made, and to put the creature in its own place, to sever off the Creator in reasoning and to conceive that His Nature is Divine? For the thing made must needs be other in nature than the Maker, that maker and made appear not the same.

For if they are conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will rise up to the nature of the Maker, and the Creator will descend to that of the creatures. He will no longer have alone the power to bring things into being, but this will be found to exist potentially in created things also, if nothing at all separates them from being consubstantial with God. And so at length the creature will be its own creator, and the Evangelist will be giving the Only-Begotten a mere honorary title when he says that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in nature. Therefore, the made and the Maker, God and creature, will not be conceived of as the same by those who know how to believe rightly. Rather, the one will be subject as a servant, acknowledging the limit of its own physis, while the Son will reign over it, having alone with the Father the power both to call things which are not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which does not yet exist into being.

For if they be conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will mount up to the nature of the Maker, the Creator descend to that of the creatures, and will no longer have Alone the power of bringing into being, but this will be found to exist in potential in things made also, if nothing at all severs them from being consubstantial with God: and so at length the creature will be its own creator and the Evangelist will endow the Only-Begotten with a mere title of honour when he says that He was in the world, and the world, was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in Nature. Not as the same then will made and Maker, God and creature be conceived of by those who know how to believe aright, but the one will be subject as a bondman, acknowledging the limit of its own nature: the Son will reign over it, having Alone with the Father the power both to call things which he not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which is not yet into being.

But that the Son, being by physis God, is wholly other than the creature—since we have already sufficiently covered this in the discourse on the Holy Trinity—we will say nothing more about it here. However, we will add this for profit: that in saying the world was made through Him, he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" he also brings in the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

But that the Son being by Nature God, is wholly Other than the creature, we having already sufficiently gone through in the Discourse of the Holy Trinity, will say nothing more here. But we will add this for profit, that in saying that the world was made through Him he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" brings in also the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hurries to prevent the clever false arguments of some people, and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He called the Son the True Light and declared that He gives light to every person who comes into the world, and he also says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hastens to forestall the sophistry of some; and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He named the Son Very Light, and affirmed that He lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and besides says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

But one of our opponents might immediately say, "If the Word, gentlemen, were light and if it lit the heart of every person—that is, toward divine knowledge and toward the understanding that is appropriate for humanity—and if it were always in the world and was itself the world's Maker, how did it remain unknown even for such long periods of time? Therefore it was not lighting, nor was it the Light at all."

But one of our opponents might forthwith say, "If the Word, sirs, were light and if it lighted the heart of every man, unto Divine knowledge that is and unto the under-standing that befits man, and if it were always in the world and were Himself its Maker, how came He to be unknown even during so long periods? He therefore was not lighting nor yet was He at all the Light."

The Divine Word responds to these things with considerable passion, saying, "The world knew Him not." He was not unknown because of any deficiency on His part, he says. Rather, let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son gives light, while the creature dulls the grace. The creature had been given sight to perceive Him Who is God by Nature, but it squandered the gift. It made created things the limit of its contemplation. It shrank from going further. It buried the illumination under its negligence. It neglected the gift—the very thing Paul commands his disciple to guard against. Therefore, the fault of the enlightened is not attributed to the light. Just as the sun's light rises upon everyone, but the blind person receives no benefit from it—yet we do not reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the eyesight, since the one was giving light while the other did not receive the lighting—so also, I think, we ought to understand the Only-Begotten as being truly Light. But the god of this world, as Paul also says, has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the knowledge of God should not shine among them. We say, then, that humanity was subjected to blindness in this matter, not by reaching a total deprivation of light—for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in human nature—but by quenching it through a more foolish manner of life, and by turning aside to what is worse, thereby wasting and dissolving the measure of grace. This is why the very wise Psalmist, when representing to us the character of such a person, rightly begs to be enlightened, saying to God, "Open my eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Your law." For He gave them the law as their help, which rekindled in us the Divine Light and purged away from the eyes of the heart the darkness that came upon them from the ancient ignorance, like a kind of discharge.

These things the Divine meets with some warmth saying The world knew Him not: not on His own account was He unknown, says he; but let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son lighteth, the creature blunts the grace. It had imparted to it sight to conceive of Him Who is God by Nature, and it squandered the gift, it made things made the limit of its contemplation, it shrank from going further, it buried the illumination under its negligence, it neglected the gift which that it might not befall him Paul commands his disciple to watch. Nought then to the light is the ill of the enlightened. For as the light of the sun rises upon all, but the blind is nothing profited, yet we do not therefore reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the sight (for the one was lighting, the other received not the lighting): so (I deem) ought we to conceive of the Only-Begotten also, that He is Very Light. But the god of this world, as Paul too saith, hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the knowledge of God should shine among them. We say then that the man was subjected to blindness herein, not that he reached a total deprivation of light (for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in his nature) but that he was quenching it with his more foolish manner of life and that by turning aside to the worse he was wasting and melting away the measure of the grace. Wherefore the most wise Psalmist too when representing to us the character of such an one, then indeed (and rightly) begs to be enlightened, saying to God, Open Thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. For He gave them the law to be their help, which re-kindled in us the Divine Light and purged away like a sort of humour from the eyes of the heart the darkness which came upon them from the ancient unlearning.

The world, then, is charged both with unthankfulness and with lack of perception in this matter—being ignorant of its own Creator and producing no good fruit from being enlightened. This makes it clear that what was sung by the prophet's voice about the children of Israel applies to the world as well: "I looked for it to bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns." The fruit of being enlightened is truly the correct understanding of the Only Begotten, hanging like a cluster of grapes from the vine branch—that is, from human understanding. The opposite is the foolish counsel that leads to polytheistic error, which is like a sharp briar rising up within us and wounding our mind to death with its deceits.

The world then is under the charge of unthankfulness alike and want of perception in this matter, both as ignorant of its own Creator, and shewing forth no good fruit from being lighted, that that again may be manifestly true of it, which was sung by prophet's voice of the children of Israel, I looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns. For the fruit of being enlightened is verily the true apprehension of the Only Begotten, hanging like a grape-bunch from the vine branch, I mean man's understanding, and not on the contrary the uncounsel that leads to polytheistic error, like the sharp briar rising up within us and wounding to death our mind with its deceits.

The Evangelist continues his argument that the world did not know its Illuminer, that is the Only-Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he moves quickly to strengthen the charges against the Gentiles and shows the disease of ignorance and unbelief that lay upon the whole world. Very fittingly does he press forward to discuss the Incarnation, and from speaking of the Godhead, he gradually comes down to explaining the Dispensation with Flesh, which the Son made for our sakes.⁸⁸

The Evangelist pursues his plea that the world knew not its Illuminer, that is the Only-Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he hastens to clench the charges against the Gentiles and shews the disease of ignorance alike and unbelief which lay upon the whole world. Very appositely does he drive forward to discourse of the Incarnation, and from speaking of the Godhead, he comes down by degrees to the exposition of the Dispensation with Flesh, which the Son made for our sakes.⁸⁸

For it would be no marvel, he says, if the world did not know the Only-Begotten, since it had abandoned the understanding that belongs to human nature and was ignorant that it was made in honor, becoming like the beasts that perish, as the Divine Psalmist also said. But even the very people who were supposed above all others to belong to Him rejected Him when He was present in the Flesh and would not receive Him when He came among them for the salvation of all, offering to faith the kingdom of Heaven. But notice how precise his language is about these things. He accuses the world of not knowing Him Who enlightens it at all, crafting for it a pardon, so to speak, on this very account, and preparing beforehand reasonable grounds for the grace given to it. But concerning those of Israel who were counted among those specially belonging to Him, he says they did not receive Him. For it would not have been true to say they did not know Him, since the older law proclaimed Him and the Prophets who came after led them by the hand to grasp the truth. Therefore the sentence of severity upon them was just, as was also the goodness shown to the Gentiles. For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relationship with God through their fall into evil, lost also the knowledge of Him Who enlightens them. But the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a way of life pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God Who was already known to them and Who came among them as to His own. For the whole world is God's own, in regard to its creation and its being brought into existence from Him and through Him. But Israel will more fittingly be called His own and will gain this glory, both because of the election of the holy fathers and because he was named the beginning and the firstborn of the children of God. For "Israel is My son, My firstborn," God says somewhere to Moses. Setting them apart for Himself as unique and chosen, He used to call them His own people, saying to Pharaoh king of Egypt, "Let My people go." Evidence from the books of Moses also shows that Israel specially belongs to God. For it says, "When the Most High was dividing the nations, when He was separating the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and His people Jacob became the Lord's portion, Israel the lot of His inheritance." Among them He also walked, as in His own lot and special portion, saying, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."^9101191011

For it were no marvel if the world knew not, says he, the Only-Begotten, seeing that it had left the understanding that befits man, and was ignorant that it is and was made in honour, and compared to the beasts that perish, as the Divine Psalmist also said; when the very people who were supposed above all to belong to Him shook Him off when present with the Flesh and would not receive Him when He came among them for salvation to all, recompensing to faith the kingdom of Heaven. But observe how exact is his language about these things. For the world he accuses of not at all knowing Him Who lighteth it, elaborating for it a pardon so to speak just on this account, and preparing beforehand reasonable causes for the grace given to it: but of those of Israel who were reckoned among those specially belonging to Him, he says, Received Him not. For it would not have been true to say, Knew Him not, when the older law preached Him, the Prophets who came after led them by the hand to the apprehension of the truth. The sentence therefore of severity upon them was just, even as the goodness too upon the Gentiles. For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relation with God through their downfall into evil, lost besides the knowledge of Him Who enlighteneth them: but the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a polity pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God Who was already known to them and Who came among them as to His own. For the whole world is God's own, in regard of its creation, and its being brought into being from Him and through Him: but Israel will more fitly be called His own, and will gain the glory hereof, both on account of the election of the holy fathers and for that he was named the beginning and the first-born of the children of God. For Israelis My son, My first-born, says God somewhere to Moses: whom also setting apart for Himself as one and picked out, He was wont to call His own people, saying to Pharaoh king of Egypt Let My people go. Proof from the books of Moses also shews that Israel specially pertains unto God. For when, it says, the Most High was dividing the nations, when he was separating the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the member of the angels of God, and his people Jacob became the Lord's portion, Israel the lot of his inheritance. Among whom He also walked, as in His own lot and special portion, saying, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.^9101191011

But when He was not received, He transfers the grace to the Gentiles, and the world which did not know Him at the beginning is enlightened through repentance and faith, and Israel returns to the darkness from which he had come forth. Therefore the Saviour also says, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."

But when He was not received, He transfers the grace to the Gentiles, and the world which knew Him not at the beginning is lighted through repentance and faith, and Israel returns to the darkness whence he had come forth. Wherefore the Saviour too saith, For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.

A right judgment, truly worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out, for he would not remain in proper relationship with God. He did not receive the Son who came among His own, he rejected the One who bestows nobility, he pushed away the Giver of Grace. The Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore Israel will justly receive the wages of their foolishness, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own bad counsel, deprived of the sonship. And the Gentiles will delight themselves in the good things that come through faith, they will find the bright rewards of their obedience and will be planted in his place. For they will be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by physis and be grafted contrary to physis into a good olive tree. And Israel will hear, "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger." But one of Christ's disciples will say to the Gentiles, "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous Light." For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and by physis to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for mankind that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in no other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed to likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus, barely recovering the pristine beauty of our physis and re-formed to that Divine physis, we will be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up to dignity above our physis for Christ's sake, and we too will be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we are adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving "I have said, You are gods and all of you are children of the Most High." For the created and subject physis is called to what is above physis by the mere nod and will of the Father. But the Son and God and Lord does not possess this being God and Son by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very ousia of the Father, He receives to Himself by physis what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by physis has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation, hence He is Son by physis and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

A right judgement verily and worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out; for he would not abide in ownness with God, nor did lie receive the Son, Who came among His own, he rejected the Bestower of Nobility, he thrust away the Giver of Grace: the Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore will Israel with reason receive the wages of their folly, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own ill-counsel, bereft of the sonship; and the Gentiles will delight them selves in the good things that are through faith, they shall find the bright rewards of their obedience and shall be planted out in his place. For they shall be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and be grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree. And Israel shall hear, Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger: but one of Christ's disciples shall say to the Gentiles, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light. For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and of nature to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for man that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in none other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us, through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed unto likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus hardly recovering the pristine beauty of our nature, and re-formed unto that Divine Nature, shall we be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up unto dignity above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. For the created and subject nature is called to what is above nature by the mere nod and will of the Father: but the Son and God and Lord will not possess this being God and Son, by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very Essence of the Father, He receives to Himself by Nature what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by Nature has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation: hence He is Son by Nature and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

Those who, he says, have been called through faith in Christ to sonship with God, set aside the smallness of their own nature and, adorned with the grace of the One who honors them as with a splendid robe, rise up to a dignity above nature: for they are no longer called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.

They who, he says, have been called by faith in Christ unto sonship with God, put off the littleness of their own nature, and adorned with the grace of Him Who honoureth them as with a splendid robe mount up unto dignity above nature: for no longer are they called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.

Notice how carefully the blessed Evangelist chose his words. Since he was about to say that believers are begotten of God, he needed to prevent two misunderstandings: first, that they are actually born from the ousia of God the Father and achieve exact likeness with the Only-Begotten; second, that the phrase "From the womb before the Day star I begot You" applies less properly to Him, which would reduce Him to the physis of creatures even though He is said to be begotten of God. So the Evangelist deliberately includes this extra safeguard. After saying that power was given to them by the One who is Son by physis to become sons of God—thereby first establishing that this is by adoption and grace—he can safely add afterward that they "were begotten of God." This shows the greatness of the grace given to them: gathering what was alien to God the Father into a kind of kinship of physis, and raising the slave to the nobility of his Lord through His deep love.

But note how great guardedness the blessed Evangelist used in his words. For since he was going to say that those who believe are begotten of God, lest any should suppose that they are in truth born of the Essence of God the Father and arrive at an exact likeness with the Only-Begotten, or that of Him too is less properly said, From the womb before the Day star begat I Thee, and so at length He too should be brought down to the nature of creatures, even though He be said to be begotten of God, needs does he contrive this additional caution. For when he had said that power was given to them from Him Who is by Nature Son, to become sons of God, and had hereby first introduced that which is of adoption and grace, without peril does he afterwards add were begotten of God; that he might shew the greatness of the grace which was conferred on them, gathering as it were into kinness of nature that which was alien from God the Father and raising up the bond to the nobility of its Lord, by means of His warm love to it.

What more, then, someone might ask, or what special privilege do those who believe in Christ have over Israel, since Israel too is said to have been begotten of God, as in "I begat and exalted sons, but they rejected Me"? To this I think we must say, first, that the Law, having a shadow of good things to come and not the actual image of those things, did not give the children of Israel this in truth, but sketched it upon them as in a type and outline, until the time of reformation, as it is written, when those who should more properly and truly call God Father would finally be revealed, because the Spirit of the Only-Begotten dwells in them. For the one group had the spirit of bondage leading to fear, while the other has the spirit of adoption leading to freedom, by which we cry "Abba, Father." Therefore the people who would attain sonship through faith in Christ were described beforehand in Israel as though in shadow, just as we understand that circumcision in the Spirit was foreshadowed in their ancient circumcision in the flesh, and in short, all our realities were present in them in type. Besides, we say that Israel was called to sonship typically through the mediator Moses. Therefore they were also baptized into him, as Paul says, in the cloud and in the sea, and were transformed from idolatry to the law of bondage, with the commandment contained in the letter being administered by angels. But those who attain sonship with God through faith in Christ are baptized not into anything created, but into the Holy Trinity itself, through the Word as Mediator, who joined human things to himself through the Flesh that was united to him, being joined by physis to the Father, in that he is by physis God. For in this way the bond to sonship reaches upward, through participation with the true Son, called and so to speak raised up to the dignity that is in him by physis. Therefore we who have received regeneration by the Spirit through faith are called and are begotten of God.

What more then, will one perchance say, or what special have they who believe in Christ over Israel, since he too is said to have been begotten of God, as in, I begat and exalted sons, but they rejected Me? To this I think one must say, first, that the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, did not give to the children of Israel to have even this in truth, but limned as in type and outline upon them, until the time of reformation, as it is written, wherein they should at length be manifested who should more fitly and truly call God Father, because the Spirit of the Only-Begotten dwells in them. For the one had the spirit of bondage to fear, the other the spirit of adoption unto liberty, whereby we cry Abba, Father. Therefore the people who should attain unto sonship through faith that is in Christ, were fore-described in Israel as it were in shadow, even as we conceive that the circumcision in Spirit was fore-typified in theirs of old in the flesh, and in short, all of ours were in them in type. Besides, we say that Israel was called to sonship typically through the mediator Moses. Wherefore they were baptized into him too, as Paul saith, in the cloud and in the sea, and were refashioned out of idolatry unto the law of bondage, the commandment contained in the letter being ministered by angels: but they who by faith in Christ attain unto sonship with God, are baptized into nought originate, but into the Holy Trinity Itself, through the Word as Mediator, Who conjoined to Himself things human through the Flesh which was united to Him, being conjoined of nature to the Father, in that He is by Nature God. For so mounteth up the bond unto sonship, through participation with the in truth Son, called and so to say raised up to the dignity which is in Him by Nature. Wherefore we who have received the regeneration by the Spirit through faith, are called and are begotten of God.

But since some in mad peril dare to lie not only against the Son but also against the Holy Spirit, saying that He is originate and created, and to thrust Him forth completely from consubstantiality with God the Father, come let us once again array the word of the true Faith against their unbridled tongues, and produce occasions of profit both for ourselves and for our readers. For if He who is His own Spirit—and therefore essentially present in Him—is neither God by physis, O sirs, nor of God, but is other than He and not removed from being connatural with things made, how are we who are begotten through Him said to be begotten of God? For either we shall say that the Evangelist certainly lies, or (if he is true and it is so and not otherwise) the Spirit will be God and of God by physis, of whom we too, being accounted worthy to partake through faith toward Christ, are rendered partakers of the Divine physis and are said to be begotten of God, and are therefore called gods—not by grace alone winging our flight to the glory that is above us, but as having now God too indwelling and lodging in us, according to what is said in the prophet: I will dwell in them and walk in them.

But since some in mad peril dare to lie, as against the Son, so against the Holy Ghost too, saying that He is originate and created, and to thrust Him forth altogether from. Consubstantiality with God the Father, come let us again arraying the word of the true Faith against their unbridled tongues, beget occasions of profit both to ourselves and to our readers. For if neither God by Nature, O sirs, nor yet of God, is He Who is His Own Spirit and therefore Essentially inexistent in Him, but is other than He, and not removed from being connatural with things made, how are we who are begotten through Him said to be begotten of God? For either we shall say that the Evangelist certainly lies, or (if he is true and it be so and not otherwise), the Spirit will be God and of God by Nature, of Whom we too being accounted worthy to partake through faith to Christ-ward, are rendered partakers of the Divine Nature and are said to be begotten of God, and are therefore called gods, not by grace alone winging our flight to the glory that is above us, but as having now God too indwelling and lodging in us, according to what is said in the prophet, I will dwell in them and walk in them.

Let those who are filled with such great ignorance tell us this: how can we, having the Spirit dwelling in us, be temples of God according to Paul, unless the Spirit is God by nature (physis)? For if the Spirit is a creature and originated, why does God destroy us for defiling the temple of God when we defile the body in which the Spirit dwells, when the Spirit possesses the entire natural property (physis) of God the Father and likewise of the Only-Begotten? And how will the Savior be truthful in saying: If a man loves Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him and we will come to him and make Our abode with him and rest in him? Yet it is the Spirit who dwells in us, and through Him we believe that we have the Father and the Son, just as John himself said again in his epistles, By this we know that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And how can the Spirit be called Spirit of God at all, if He is not from Him and in Him by nature (physis) and therefore God? For if, being originated as they say, He is the Spirit of God, there is nothing to prevent the other creatures from also being called spirits of God. For this status will already be available to them potentially, if it is at all possible for originated essence to be Spirit of God.

For let them tell us who are filled full with so great unlearning, how, having the Spirit dwelling in us, we are according to Paul temples of God, unless He be God by Nature. For if He be a creature and originate, wherefore does God destroy us, as defiling the temple of God when we defile the body wherein the Spirit indwells, having the whole Natural Property of God the Father and likewise of the Only-Begotten? And how will the Saviour be true in saying: If a man love Me, he will keep My Words: and My Father will love him and we will come unto him and make Our abode with him and rest in him? albeit it is the Spirit Who dwells in us, and through Him do we believe that we have the Father and the Son, even as John himself said again in his epistles, Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And how at all will He be called Spirit of God, if He be not of Him and in Him by Nature and therefore God? For if being, as those say, originate, He is the Spirit of God, there is nothing to hinder the other creatures too from being called spirits of God. For this will have already overtaken them in potential, if it is at all possible that originate essence should be Spirit of God.

It would truly be appropriate to present a lengthy discussion on these matters and to address them more thoroughly, refuting the foolish arguments of the heretics. However, since we have already adequately covered what concerns the Holy Spirit in the work On the Trinity, we will therefore refrain from saying much more at this point.

And it were meet in truth to set forth a long discourse upon these things and to satiate more at length, overturning the uncounsels of the heretics. But having already sufficiently gone through what relates to the Holy Ghost, in the De Trinitate, we shall therefore forbear to say much yet.

He has now openly begun to declare the Incarnation. For he clearly states that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for his saying that the Word was made Flesh means this and nothing else: it is as though he said more plainly The Word was made Man. And in speaking this way he introduces nothing strange or unusual to us, since the Divine Scripture often calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet is saying that the Divine Spirit should be given to human flesh that is soulless and by itself (for this would certainly be absurd): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for this was the right way and not otherwise. And why this is so, I think it is necessary to explain.

He has now entered openly upon the declaration of the Incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for this and nought else does his saying that the Word was made Flesh signify: for it is as though he said more nakedly The Word was made Man. And in thus speaking he introduces again to us nought strange or unwonted, seeing that the Divine Scripture ofttimes calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet says that that the Divine Spirit should be bestowed upon human flesh soul-less and alone (for this would be by no means free from absurdity): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for thus it was right and not otherwise. And why, it is needful I suppose to say.

Man is a rational creature, but a composite being made of soul and this perishable, earthly flesh. When God made him and brought him into being, he did not possess incorruption and imperishability by his own nature (for these things belong essentially to God alone). He was sealed with the spirit of life, gaining through participation with the Divinity the good that is above nature (for Scripture says, "He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul"). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, he justly heard "Dust you are and to dust you shall return," and he was stripped of grace. The breath of life—that is, the Spirit of Him who says "I am the Life"—departed from the earthly body, and the creature fell into death through the flesh alone, while the soul was kept in immortality, since it was to the flesh alone that it was said, "Dust you are and to dust you shall return." Therefore, what was especially endangered in us needed to be restored with greater care, and by being intertwined again with the Life that exists by Nature, be recalled to immortality. The sentence "Dust you are and to dust you shall return" needed finally to be relaxed, with the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word who gives life to all things. For it needed to become His Flesh so that it might share in the immortality that comes from Him. It would be utterly absurd if fire has the power to infuse into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and almost transform into itself the things in which it exists by participation, yet we should not fully believe that the Word of God, who is over all, would work His own Good—that is, Life—into the flesh.

Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it had been made by God, and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and imperishableness (for these things appertain essentially to God Alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life, by participation with the Divinity gaining the good that is above nature (for He breathed, it says, into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice hearing Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, he was bared of the grace; the breath of life, that is the Spirit of Him Who says I am the Life, departed from the earthy body and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh too alone was it said, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return. It needed therefore that that in us which was specially imperilled, should with the greater zeal be restored, and by intertwining again with Life That is by Nature be recalled to immortality: it needed that at length the sentence. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return should be relaxed, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word That quickeneth all things. For it needed that becoming His Flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from Him. For it were a thing most absurd, that fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transfashioning into itself the things wherein it is by participation, and that we should not fully hold that the Word of God Which is over all, would in-work in the flesh His own Good, that is Life.

For this particular reason, I believe, the holy Evangelist, pointing to the creature specifically through the part that was affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, so that we might see at once both the wound and the medicine, the sick person and the Physician, that which had fallen into death and the One who raised it to life, that which was overcome by corruption and the One who drove away the corruption, that which was held captive by death and the One who is superior to death, that which was deprived of life and the Giver of life.

For this reason specially I suppose it was that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specially from the part affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, that so we might see at once the wound and the medicine, the sick and the Physician, that which had fallen unto death and Him Who raised it unto life, that which was overcome of corruption and Him Who chased away the corruption, that which was holden of death and Him Who is superior to death, that which was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

But he does not say that the Word came into flesh, but that it was made flesh, so that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the prophets or other saints by participation, but did Himself become actual flesh, that is, man—for so we just said. Therefore He is also God by nature in flesh and with flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah: Men of stature shall come over to you and they shall be yours; they shall come after you; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down to you, they shall make supplication to you, for God is in you, and there is no God beside you. Look, they say that God is in Him, not severing the flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is no other God except Him, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him as His very own, that is, the temple of the Virgin: for He is one Christ of both.

But he says not that the Word came into flesh but that It was made Flesh, that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the Prophets or other of the Saints by participation, but did Himself become actual Flesh, that is man: for so we just now said. Wherefore He is also God by Nature in Flesh and with Flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being Other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah, Men of stature shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, for God is in thee, and there is no God beside thee. Lo they say that God is in Him, not severing the Flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is none other God save He, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him, as His very own, that is the temple of the Virgin: for He is One Christ of Both.

The Evangelist profitably repeats what he has already said and brings the meaning of the idea to clearer understanding. Since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, some people in great ignorance might imagine that He abandoned His own physis and was truly changed into flesh—something that is impossible, since the Godhead is completely removed from all variability and change into anything else in terms of mode of being. Therefore the divine author very wisely immediately added "And dwelt among us," so that by considering that two things are mentioned—the Dweller and that in which the dwelling occurs—you would not suppose that He was transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that comes from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul says.

The Evangelist profitably goes over again what he has said, and brings the force of the thought to a clearer comprehension. For since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, lest any out of much ignorance should imagine that He forsook His own Nature, and was in truth changed into flesh, and suffered, which were impossible (for the Godhead is far removed from all. variableness and change into ought else as to mode of being): the Divine exceeding well added straightway And dwelt among us, that considering that the things mentioned are two, the Dweller and that wherein is the dwelling, you might not suppose that He is transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that is from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul saith.

But he profitably affirms that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature rises up to his Person. Since he was therefore named the last Adam, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, just as the first Adam gave what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one, so that since the one was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come to all human nature, and thus because of one of us, "I have said you are gods and all of you are children of the Most High" might come to us also. Therefore in Christ the bond is truly made free, rising up to mystical union with him who bore the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the one because of the kinship according to the flesh. For why does he take on not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, so that in all things it was necessary for him to be made like his brothers and to become truly man? Is it not clear to all that he descended to the condition of bondage, not giving anything to himself thereby, but bestowing himself on us, so that we through his poverty might be rich, and soaring up through likeness to him to his own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For he who is by physis Son and God dwelt in us, therefore in his Spirit we cry "Abba, Father." And the Word dwells in one Temple taken for our sake and from us, as in all, so that having all in himself, he might reconcile all in one body to the Father, as Paul says.

But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature mounteth up unto His Person; since therefore was He named the last Adam,, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one that the One being declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come unto all the human nature and thus because of One of us, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High might come to us also. Therefore in Christ verily is the bond made free, mounting up unto mystic union with Him Who bare the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the One because of the relation after the flesh. For why doth He take on Him not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, whence in all things it behoved Him to he made like unto His brethren, and to become in truth Man? Is it not clear to all, that He descended unto the condition of bondage, not Himself giving thereby ought to Himself, but bestowing Himself on us, that we through His Poverty might be rich, and, soaring up through likeness to Him unto His own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For He Who is by Nature Son and God dwelt in us, wherefore in His Spirit do we cry Abba Father. And the Word dwells in One Temple taken for our sakes and of us, as in all, in order that having all in Himself, He might reconcile all in one body unto the Father, as Paul saith.

Having said that the Word became flesh, that is, man, and having brought him down to kinship with created and enslaved things, the writer still preserves his divine dignity intact and shows him again full of the Father's own nature that inherently belongs to him. For the divine nature truly has stability in itself, not capable of suffering change into anything else, but always remaining constant and abiding in its own attributes. Therefore, even though the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh, he still affirms that it was not overcome by the weaknesses of the flesh, nor did it fall from its original power and glory when it clothed itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, his glory surpassing that of others, and such glory as one must confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, for he was full of grace and truth. For if one looks at the company of the saints and considers the things that are wondrously accomplished by each, one will reasonably marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the inspired writers and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but far surpassing it and rising up by incomparable excellences, having no measured grace as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from outside by way of addition, but essentially existing within, and the fruit of the Father's essential property passing naturally to the Son who is from him.

Having said that the Word was made Flesh, that is Man, and having brought Him down to brotherhood with things made and in bondage, he preserves even thus His Divine dignity intact and shews Him again full of the own Nature of the Father inherent to Him. For the Divine Nature has truly stability in Itself, not enduring to suffer change to ought else, but rather always unvarying and abiding in Its own Endowments. Hence even though the Evangelist says that the Word was made Flesh, he yet affirms that It was not overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor fell from Its pristine Might and Glory, when It clad Itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, His Glory surpassing that of others, and such as one may confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father: for full was He of grace and truth. For if one looks at the choir of the saints and measures the things that are wondrously achieved by each, one will with reason marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the Divines and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but very far surpassing it and mounting up by incomparable excellencies, having no measured grace, as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from without in the way of accession, but essentially in-existent, and the fruit of the Father's essential Property passing Naturally to the Son Who is of Him.

If anyone wants to test what has been said more thoroughly, let him think carefully about both the deeds that each of the saints has done miraculously and those of our Savior Christ, and he will find the difference is as great as we have just said. And there is this also: they are true servants in the house, but He is a Son over His own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten, Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent to you all my servants the prophets. And the one group received the grace from above, while the other, as the Lord of Hosts says, If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me, but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe My works. So if the Only-Begotten is shown by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will fittingly be honored with equal honors as the One who does equal works, and He will surely surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called to brotherhood, just as much as God by physis exceeds the limits of men, and the true Son surpasses the sons by adoption.

And if it seem good to any to test more largely what has been said, let him consider with himself both the deeds that are wonderfully done by each of the saints and those of our Saviour Christ and he will find the difference as great as we have just said. And there is this besides;—-they are true servants about the house, He as a Son over his own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets. And the one were recipients of the grace from above, the other as Lord of Hosts says, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not: but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe My works. If then the Only-Begotten is seen by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will conformably be celebrated by equal honours, as the Doer of equal works, and will surely as much surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called unto brotherhood, as God by Nature overleaps the limits of men, and the Very Son the sons by adoption.

But since it is written in blessed Luke, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace," we must observe here that the Spirit-inspired writer said that the Son has His glory full of grace. How then can that which is full advance, or what addition can it possibly receive when there is nothing beyond it? Therefore He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He was ever more greatly marveled at and appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him through His achievements. The disposition of those who marveled was advancing in grace, as is more truly said, rather than He who is perfect as God. Let these things then be spoken for profit, though they are somewhat discursive.

But since it is written in the blessed Luke, And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace, we must observe here that the Spirit-clad said that the Son hath His glory full of grace. Whither then will that which is full advance, or what addition will that at all admit, beyond which there is nought? Hence He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He ever more greatly marvelled at, appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him, through His achievements, the disposition of those who marvelled advancing, as is more true to say, in grace, than He Who is Perfect as God. Be these things then spoken for profit, though they be somewhat discursive.

The very wise Evangelist again follows the flow of his thoughts and makes what follows properly connect with what came before. When he said about the Son of God, "we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father," he wanted to avoid appearing to say this alone (since the word "we" does not fit a single person), so he joins with himself his fellow witness who shares his name, who has the same piety as he does. "I bear witness," he says, "for I have seen what I said, and the Baptist likewise bears witness." These are a most weighty pair clothed with the Spirit, and a remarkable pair of men who are brothers in truth and who do not know how to lie.

The most wise Evangelist follows again the course of his thoughts and makes the sequel duly correspondent to what preceded. For when he said of the Son of God, we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that he might not appear to alone say this (the word we have seen not suiting a single person), he joins with himself his namesake witness, having one and the same piety with himself. I then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. A most weighty pair of Spirit-clad, and a notable pair of men foster-brothers in truth and unknowing how to lie.

Notice how exceptionally forceful he made his declaration. He doesn't merely say that John bears witness of Him, but usefully adds "and cried," drawing his proof from the words "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness," and this very appropriately. For it was possible that some of the opponents might ask, "When did the Baptist testify to the Only-Begotten, or to whom did he communicate the things concerning Him?" He cried then, he says—that is, he didn't speak these things in a corner, he didn't bear witness gently and in secret. You can hear him crying aloud more clearly than a trumpet (not you alone hearing these things). His message is widespread and directed to all, the herald is glorious, the voice is remarkable, the Forerunner is great and well known.

But see how exceeding forcible he made his declaration. For he not only says that John bears witness of Him, but profitably adds and cried, taking his proof from the words The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and this too exceeding well. For it was possible that some of the opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only-Begotten or to whom did he impart the things regarding Him? He cried then, says he, that is, not in a corner does he utter them, not gently and in secret does he bear witness: you may hear him crying aloud more clear than a trumpet, (not you alone hearing these things,) widespread and to all is his speech, glorious the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unknown the Forerunner.

Having named the witness who shares the same mind and name with himself, and having shown that he used a powerful voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the manner of his testimony as well, for this is where the whole question particularly lies. What then do we find the great John crying out regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. The saying is deep and demands careful investigation into its meaning.

Having named the witness same-minded and same-named with himself, and having shewn that he used a great voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the mode too of his testimony: for it is in this in particular that the whole question lies. What then do we find the great John crying regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. Deep is the saying and one that demands keen search into its meaning.

For the obvious and commonly accepted meaning is this: As far as concerns the time of his birth in the flesh, the Baptist came before the Savior, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after him by six full months, as the blessed Luke recorded. Some people think that John said this so it would be understood as: He who comes after me in age is preferred before me. But anyone who looks more carefully at the divine thoughts can see, first of all, that this interpretation leads us to pointless ideas and takes us far away from what we actually need to consider. For the holy Baptist is presented as a witness not to show that Christ was once later and then again earlier in the time of his birth, but as a co-witness of his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

For the obvious and received meaning is thus: As far as belongs to the time of the Birth according to the Flesh, the Baptist preceded the Saviour, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose that John said this, that it may be understood thus, He that cometh after me, in point of age, is preferred before me. But he who fixes a keener eye on the Divine thoughts may see, in the first place, that this view introduces us to futile ideas and carries us far from the needful subject of consideration. For the holy Baptist is introduced as a witness, not in order to shew that Christ was once later, then again earlier in the time of His Birth, but as a co-witness of His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

What meaning then can one give to such poorly timed explanations as these? Or how can anyone give us any clear interpretation by understanding the words before us—"He that cometh after me became before me"—in terms of time? For let it be established beyond doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how then will He also be before him, I mean in time? For proper order and sequence call us to this meaning in keeping with what came before. But I think it is evident to everyone that this is impossible. For what falls short of something in point of time will never get ahead of what leads it. Therefore it is utterly senseless and completely unbelievable to imagine that the holy Baptist was speaking about time according to the Flesh when he said, "He that cometh after me has become before me." But if we understand it instead in keeping with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this: The blessed Baptist fittingly raises his way of speaking from an everyday expression to its spiritual meaning, and advances, as it were, from an image drawn from our human affairs to the explanation of more subtle thoughts.

What meaning then can one give to such unseasonably introduced explanations as these? or how can one give us any clear interpretation, by understanding of time the words before us, He That cometh after me became before me? For be it laid down beyond a doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, as being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how will He be also before him, I mean in time? for due order and sequence call us to this sense analogously to what preceded. But I think that it is evident to every one, that this is an impossibility. For that which cometh short of anything in point of time will never have the start of its leader. Hence it is a thing utterly senseless and altogether past belief, to imagine that the holy Baptist said of time after the Flesh,. He that cometh after me has become before me. But understanding it rather in accordance with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this. The blessed Baptist meetly carries up his mode of speaking from a customary phrase to its spiritual import, and advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts.

What leads is always considered more glorious than what is said to follow, and things that come after yield the place of honor to things that come before. For example, a skilled worker in bronze, or a carpenter, or a weaver takes the lead and has superiority over someone who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing toward perfect knowledge. But when such a person surpasses his teacher's skill and, leaving that behind, attains something superior, I think the one who is surpassed may fittingly say of his pupil who has outstripped him: He that cometh after me has become before me.

For that which leads is ever considered to be more glorious than those which are said to follow, and things which succeed yield the palm to those that precede them. As for example, he who is a skilled worker in brass, or carpenter, or weaver, takes the lead and has superiority over him who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing to perfect knowledge. But when such an one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and leaving that behind attains to something superior, I deem that he who is surpassed may not unfitly say of his outstripping pupil, He that cometh after me, has become before me.

Transferring this kind of reasoning to our Savior Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by everyone, he was making many disciples, and a great crowd of those who came for baptism was always surrounding him. Christ, although superior, was unknown—they did not know that He was Very God. Since He was unknown while the Baptist was admired, He seemed to fall short of him. He came a little after someone who still held the higher position in honor and glory from people. But He who comes after has become before, being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was eventually revealed by His works to be God, while the other, not surpassing the measure of human physis, is found at last to have become after.

Transferring then after this sort the force of our idea to our Saviour Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by all, he was making many disciples, a great multitude of those who came for Baptism was always surrounding him: Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, they knew not that He was Very God. Since then He was unknown, while the Baptist was admired, He seemed I suppose to fall short of him; He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honour and glory from men. But He That cometh after has become before, being shewn to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by His works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

Therefore the blessed Baptist spoke in veiled language: "He that comes after me has become before me," meaning: He who was once behind me in honor is now seen to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. If we understand the words this way, we will find him to be a witness of the glory of the Only-Begotten and not an untimely proclaimer of useless things. For when he says that Christ is greater than himself—someone who has a great reputation for holiness—what else is this than witnessing to His special glory?

Hence the blessed Baptist said darkly, He that cometh after me has become before me, instead of, He who was once behind me in honour, is beheld to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. Thus understanding the words, we shall find him a witness of the Glory of the Only-Begotten and not an unseasonable setter forth of useless things. For his saying that Christ is greater than himself who has a great reputation for holiness, what else is it than witnessing to His especial glory?

Having said that He has become before me, he necessarily adds, "For He was before me," ascribing to Him the most ancient glory and affirming that the priority of all things did not come to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by physis. "For He was before me," he says, instead of, "Always and in every way superior and more glorious." And by His being compared with one among created things, the judgment against all is concentrated in favor of Him Who is above all. For we do not consider the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone—that He surpassed the glory of John—but in His surpassing every created essence.

Having said that He has become before me, he needfully adds, For He was before me, ascribing to Him glory most ancient, and affirming that the precedence of all things accrued not to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by Nature. For He was before me, says he, instead of, Always and every-way superior and more glorious. And by His being compared with one among things originate, the judgment against all is concentrated in behalf of Him Who is above all. For we do not contemplate the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone that He surpassed the glory of John, but in His surpassing every originate essence.

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist and makes clear the proof of our Savior's superiority and His essential possession of that which surpasses everything created, both with respect to glory itself (which he is now especially discussing) and with respect to the splendid catalog of all the other good things.

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist, and makes clear the proof of the superiority of our Saviour, and of His possessing essentially the surpassing every thing originate, both in respect of glory itself (whereof he is now more especially speaking) and of the bright catalogue of all the other good things.

The Baptist, he says, speaks most excellently and most truly about the Only-Begotten when he says "He was before me"—that is, far surpassing and superior. For all of us who have been enrolled in the company of the saints enjoy the riches of His own goodness, and human nature is ennobled with His excellences rather than its own, whenever it is found to possess anything noble. For from the fullness of the Son, as from an ever-flowing fountain, the gift of divine graces springs forth and comes to each soul found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies from His natural fullness while the creature is supplied, how can He not be understood as having glory unlike the rest, but rather such glory as befits the Only-Begotten of God, possessing superiority over all as the fruit of His own nature (physis) and preeminence as the dignity of His Father's being? And I think that the most wise Paul, when defining the nature (physis) of all things, was moved by this to true understanding, so that he then addressed the creature with these words: "What do you have that you did not receive?" For together with existence, well-being of such and such a kind is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own but becomes rich only through the generosity of Him who gives to it. But we must note again that he says the Son is full—that is, completely perfect in all things, and so far removed from lacking anything whatever that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

For most excellently, says he, and most truly does the Baptist appear to me to say of the Only-Begotten, For He was before me, that is far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of His proper good, and the nature of man is ennobled with His rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have ought that is noble. For from the fulness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the Divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as of His Natural fulness, the creature is supplied:—-how will He not be conceived of as having glory not similar to the rest, but such as will beseem the Only-Begotten of God, having the superiority over all as the fruit of His own Nature, and the pre-eminence as the Dignity of His Father's Being? And I think that the most wise Paul too when defining as to the nature of all things, was moved thereby to true ideas, so as hence at length to address the creature, For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For together with being, the well-being after such and such wise, is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own, but becomes rich only with the munificence of Him Who gives to it. But we must note again that he says that the Son is full, that is, All-perfect in all things, and so greatly removed from being lacking in anything whatever, that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution, and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

Having said that the glory of the Only-Begotten was found more brilliant than any fame among people, and introducing the greatness in holiness that is in Him—incomparable above all saints—he works to prove this from those who have climbed to the height of virtue. About John, the Savior says, "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist." But this great and exalted man he brought forward just now, as John himself says, crying out and saying with a loud voice, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me." But since John's glory was inferior and gave way to the Only-Begotten, how can one not conclude that none of the other saints is brought up to equal measure with the Savior Christ regarding the glory that appears in the splendor of their actions? The saints who lived at the time of the coming, not being able to surpass the virtue of John or climb to the measure that he achieved, will along with him yield the victor's palm to Christ. For the blessed Baptist, reaching the highest summit in what is good and having failed in no kind of excellence, receives the judgment of inferiority to Him not through the voice of another but sealed it against himself, speaking truly as a saint. But since it was necessary that Emmanuel should be shown to be greater and better than the saints of old, the blessed Evangelist necessarily comes first to the hierophant Moses, to whom it was said by God, "I know you before all, and you found grace in My sight." That he was known before all to God we can know by this again: "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all My house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles." The all-wise Moses therefore having such great excellence above the earlier saints, the Evangelist shows that the Only-Begotten is in every way superior and of greater renown, so that He might be shown in all things to have the preeminence, as Paul says. Therefore he says, "And grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." For I think the blessed Evangelist would indicate something like this: The great Baptist, he says, made true confession, declaring openly about the Only-Begotten, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me, for of His fullness we have all received." And let no one suppose that the Only-Begotten surpasses John or the rest of the saints who belonged to the times of the coming but fell short of the glory of the earlier saints who were distinguished in holiness in the times before the coming. For he will see Him, he says, far surpassing the measure of Moses, although Moses possessed superiority in holiness compared with them, for the Lawgiver clearly stated that He knew him before all. John then was convicted by his own mouth of coming behind the glory of Christ. He falls short of His splendor, and there is no question at all about him or anything to confuse the discovery of the truth.

Having said that the glory of the Only-Begotten was found more brilliant than any fame among men, and introducing the greatness in holiness incomparable above all saints that is in Him, he studies to prove this from those who have mounted up to the height of virtue. Of John then the Saviour saith, Verily I say unto you, Among them that are horn of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. But this so great and exalted man, he brought forward but now, as himself says, crying and saying with a loud voice, He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me. But since John's glory was inferior and gave place to the Only-Begotten, how must one not needs suppose that no one of the saints besides is brought up to equal measure with the Saviour Christ in regard of the glory which appears in the splendour of their actions? The Saints then that lived at the time of the Advent, not being able to surpass the virtue of John, nor mounting up to the measure that accrued to him, will with him yield the victor's palm to Christ, if the blessed Baptist gaining the highest summit in what is good, and having failed in no manner of excellence, receives not through the voice of another the judgment of inferiority to Him, but himself sealed it against himself, speaking, as a saint, truly. But since it was necessary that Emmanuel should be shewn to be greater and better than the saints of old, needs does the blessed Evangelist come to the hierophant Moses first; to whom it was said by God, I know thee before all and thou didst find grace in My sight. For that he was known before all to God, we shall know by this again: If, he says, there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all Mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches. The all-wise Moses having therefore so great excellency above the elder saints, he shews that the Only-Begotten is in every way superior and of more renown, that He might be shewn in all things to have the pre-eminence, as Paul saith: and therefore he says, And grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ: for I think that the blessed Evanglist would indicate something of this kind: The great Baptist, he says, made true confession declaring openly respecting the Only-Begotten, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me, for of His fulness have all we received. And let no one suppose that the Only-Begotten surpasses John or the rest of the saints who belonged to the times of the Advent, but came short of the glory of the elder saints, who were illustrious in holiness in the times before the Advent; for he will see Him, says he, far surpassing the measure of Moses, although he possessed the superiority in holiness as compared with them; for the Lawgiver clearly affirmed that He knew him before all. John then was convicted by his own mouth of coming behind the glory of Christ: he comes short of His splendour, and there is no question at all about him, or anything to embarrass the finding out of the truth.

Where then can we find that the sacred teacher Moses himself also fell short of the glory of the Lord? The student should, he says, carefully examine the gospel grace given to us by the Savior, in comparison with the grace of the law that came through Moses. For then he will see that the Son was far superior, as He is proven to be the Lawgiver of better things than the system of the law and introducing things superior to all those which came through Moses. For the law, he says, was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What then is the difference between the law and the grace that comes through the Savior? Let the one who loves to search and is a friend of good labor see this again. We will say a little out of much, believing that the number of thoughts relating to this is boundless and vast. Therefore the Law was condemning the world (for God through it concluded all under sin, as Paul says) and showing us subject to punishments, but the Savior rather sets it free, for He came not to judge the world but to save the world. And the Law also used to give grace to men, calling them to the knowledge of God, and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray, and in addition to this both pointing out evil and teaching good—if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully. But the truth and grace which are through the Only-Begotten does not introduce to us the good which exists in types, nor sketch out profitable things as in shadow, but in glorious and most pure ordinances leads us by the hand to even perfect knowledge of the faith. And the Law used to give the spirit of bondage to fear, but Christ the spirit of adoption unto liberty. The Law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh which is nothing (for circumcision is nothing, as Paul writes to certain people), but our Lord Jesus Christ is the Giver of circumcision in the spirit and heart. The Law baptizes the defiled with mere water, but the Savior with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The Law brings in the tabernacle as a figure of the true one, but the Savior bears us up to Heaven itself and brings us into the truer tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. And it would not be hard to pile up other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.

Whence then shall we find that the hierophant Moses himself also came short of the glory of the Lord? Let the student, he says, diligently examine the evangelic grace given to us by the Sayiour, in contrast with the grace of the law that was through Moses. For then will he see that the Son was as much superior, as He is proved to be the Lawgiver of better things than the polity of the law and introducing things superior to all those which were through Moses. For the law, he says, was given through Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What then is the distinction between the law and the grace that comes through the Saviour, let him again see who is fond of search and an ally of good labours; we will say a little out of much, believing that boundless and vast is the number of the thoughts thereto belonging. The Law therefore was condemning the world (for God through it concluded all under sin, as Paul saith) and shewing us subject to punishments, but the Saviour rather sets it free, for He came not to judge the world but to save the world. And the Law too used to give grace to men, calling them to the knowledge of God, and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray and in addition to this both pointing out evil and teaching good, if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully: but the truth and grace which are through the Only-Begotten, does not introduce to us the good which is in types, nor limn things profitable as in shadow, but in glorious and most pure ordinances leads us by the hand unto even perfect knowledge of the faith. And the Law used to give the spirit of bondage to fear, but Christ the spirit of adoption unto liberty. The Law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh which is nothing (for circumcision is nothing, as Paul writes to certain): but our Lord Jesus Christ is the Giver of circumcision in the spirit and heart. The Law baptizes the defiled with mere water: the Saviour with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Law brings in the tabernacle, for a figure of the true: the Saviour bears up to Heaven itself and brings into the truer tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. And it were not hard to heap up other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.

We should say this because it is both profitable and necessary. The blessed Paul solved this question briefly when he spoke about the law and the Savior's grace: "For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." He says that the commandment given through Moses is the ministration of condemnation, while he calls the grace given through the Savior the ministration of righteousness, which he declares surpasses the other in glory. He examines the nature of things most perfectly, being clothed with the Spirit. Since the Law that condemns was given by Moses, while the grace that justifies came through the Only-Begotten, how is He not superior in glory, Paul asks, through whom the better things were established? The Psalmist will also be proven true, crying aloud in the Spirit that our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses the entire illustrious company of the saints. For "who among the clouds shall be made equal to the Lord? Or who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?" The spiritual clouds—that is, the holy Prophets—will yield the victory to Christ and will never think they should aim for equal glory with Him, especially when Moses, who was known by God above all people, is relegated to second place. And those who were called sons of God at the time of the Advent will not be entirely likened to Him who is Son by physis, but will acknowledge their own proper measure, just as the holy Baptist says that he himself is far behind, though the One who knows hearts says of him, "Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Therefore the blessed Evangelist speaks truly when he says that he has seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father—that is, the glory that befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, and not rather those who are called to brotherhood with Him, of whom He is Firstborn.

But we will say this for profit and need. The blessed Paul in few words solved the question, saying of the law and of the Saviour's grace, For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For he says that the commandment by Moses is the ministration of condemnation; the grace through the Saviour, he calls the ministration of righteousness, to which he gives to surpass in glory, most perfectly examining the nature of things, as being clad with the Spirit. Since then the Law which condemns was given by Moses, the grace which justifies came by the Only-Begotten, how is not He, he says, superior in glory, through Whom the better things were ordained? The Psalmist then will also be true, crying aloud in the Spirit that our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses the whole illustrious multitude of the saints. For who, he says, among the clouds shall be made equal unto the Lord? or who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God? For the spiritual clouds, that is the holy Prophets, will yield the palm to Christ, and will never think that they ought to aim at equal glory with Him, when he who was above all men known of God, Moses, is brought down to the second place: and they who were called sons of God at the time of the Advent, will not be wholly likened to Him Who is by Nature Son, but will acknowledge their own measure, when the holy Baptist says that he himself is far behind, of whom He That knoweth the hearts says, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. True therefore is the blessed Evangelist, saying that he has seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that is, which beseems the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, and not rather those who are called to brotherhood with Him, of whom He is Firstborn.

No one has ever seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed Him.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the Only-Begotten God, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

See again here the vigilance of the one clothed by the Spirit. He was well aware that some people would surely say, bitterly questioning the things spoken about the Only-Begotten: "You said, good sir, that you had seen His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father. Then when you should have explained this to us and told us something worthy of God and appropriate, you based your demonstration on His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as if there were no other way to see His Glory. Yet the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with two he covered his face and with two he covered his feet and with two he did fly; and one cried to another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.' Ezekiel likewise cried out openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne the Lord of Hosts as well. His words are these: 'And there was a voice,' he says, 'from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the color of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upward and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.'"

See again herein the vigilance of the Spirit-clad. He was not ignorant that some would surely say, bitterly searching into the things which are spoken of the Only-Begotten: You said, good sir, that you had beheld His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father: then when you ought to unfold to us the explanation of this and to tell us some thing God-befitting and due, you made your demonstration from His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as though one could not in any other way see His Glory, although the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with twain he covered his face and with twain he covered his feet and with twain he did fly; and one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory: Bzekiel again cried openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne likewise the Lord of Hosts: his words are these, And there was a voice, says he, from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it: and I saw as the colour of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upwards and from the appearance of his loins even downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Since it was quite likely that many less educated people would say such things to us, the blessed Evangelist hurries to cut short their attempts, saying, "No man has seen God at any time." For the Only-Begotten Himself, being God and in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying very clearly to the hierophant Moses, "No man shall see My face and live," and at one time to His own disciples, "Not that any man has seen the Father, except He who is of God—He has seen the Father." For to the Son alone who is by physis is the Father visible, and in such a way as one may think that the Divine Nature divinely sees and is seen, and to no one else among the things that exist. Yet the speech of the holy Prophets is not false when they cry out that they saw the Lord of Hosts, for they do not claim that they saw the very essential thing that the physis of God is, but they themselves openly cry out, "This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD." Therefore the form of the Divine Glory was dimly represented through things such as belong to us, and was rather a likeness presenting divine things as if in a picture, while the truth of them rises up to excellence beyond mind and speech. Most excellently then does the very wise Evangelist, saying, "And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," bring in the demonstration of this from His superiority to all. For just as from the beauty of the creatures the Power of the Creator of all is proportionally beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork, so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more brilliant, surpassing understanding as regards the power of the eye, as God; and in whatever way He surpasses the creature, in that way He is considered and glorified as being above it. This thought and no other I believe the words now before us are full of. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, so that He may be shown again to be outside of any shared nature with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is truly Only-Begotten God, how is He not different in physis from those who are gods and sons by adoption? For the Only-Begotten will be understood not among many brothers, but as the only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul says many who are called gods in heaven and on earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside the rest and will not be counted among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul join Him, saying to us, "But to us there is one God the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things." For the Father being by physis one God, the Word who is of Him and in Him will not remain outside of being God, outstanding in the distinctive property of Him who begat Him, and rising essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by physis God.

Since therefore it was not unlikely that not a few of the more unlearned would say some such things to us, needs does the blessed Evangelist hasten to cut short their attempts, saying, No man hath seen God at any time; for the Only-Begotten Himself being God, Which is in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, There shall no man see My Face and live: and sometime to His own disciples, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Which is of God, He hath seen the Father. For to the Son Alone That is by Nature is the Father visible and that in such wise as one may think that the Divine Nature Divinely sees and is seen, and to none other of things which are. Yet will the speech of the holy Prophets in no way be false when they cry aloud that they saw the Lord of Hosts: for they do not affirm that they saw that very essential Thing that the Nature of God is, but they themselves too openly cry out, This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD. Therefore the fashion of the Divine Glory was darkly formed out of things such as are ours, and was rather a likeness giving things Divine as it were in a picture, while the truth of them mounts up to excellence above mind and speech. Most excellently then does the most wise Evangelist saying, And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, bring in the demonstration thereof from His superiority to all. For like as from the beauty of the creatures proportionably is the Power of the Creator of all beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork: so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more resplendent, surpassing apprehension, as regards the power of the eye, as God; and wherein He surpasses the creature, therein deemed of and glorified as being above it. Such thought then and no other I deem that the words now before us are replete with. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God, and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be shewn again to be outside of any connaturality with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is verily Only-Begotten God, how is He not Other in nature than they who are by adoption gods and sons? For the Only-Begotten will be conceived of not among many brethren, but as the Only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul saith many who are are called gods in heaven and earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside of the rest and will not be reckoned among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul conjoin Him, saying to us, But to us One God the Father of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things. For the Father being by Nature One God, the Word That is of Him and in Him will not remain external from being God, eminent in the ownness of Him Who begat Him, and ascending essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by Nature God.

Therefore he says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, so that you may again understand His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For just as here he uses From the womb because of His being of Him and that truly, drawing from the likeness of things belonging to us (since things born of humans proceed from the womb), so too when he says in the bosom, he would clearly show the Son as being nearly in the womb of the Father who begot Him forth (as if in some divine shining forth and inexpressible coming forth into His own Person), yet the Father still possesses Him, since the divine Offspring did not come forth from the Father by cutting away or physical division. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has the Father in Him as well. For the very own of the Father's ousia passing essentially into the Son shows the Father in Him, and the Father in turn has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of ousia and begotten of Him, yet not by division or spatial separation, but dwelling within and eternally coexisting. This is how we should piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are accustomed to fight against God have interpreted it, whose condemnation is just. For they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, corrupting the ears of the simpler ones and sinning recklessly against the brethren for whom Christ died.

Therefore does he say that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that you may again conceive His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For as here he puts From the womb, because of His being of Him and that really, from likeness of things belonging to us (for things born of men proceed from the womb); so too when he says in the bosom, he would plainly shew the Son all but in the womb of the Father which begat Him forth, (as it were in some Divine gleaming forth and unspeakable forth-come unto His own Person), but which yet possesses Him, since not by cutting away or division after the flesh, did the Divine Offspring come forth of the Father. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has again the Father in Him. For the very own of the Father's Essence passing essentially into, the Son, shews the Father in Him, and the Father again has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of Essence and begotten of Him, yet not by division or interval of place, but inherent and ever co-existing; thus rather shall we piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are wont to fight against God have taken it, whose damnation is just: for they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, undoing the ears of the simpler ones and sinning without heed against the brethren, for whom Christ died.

Here is what these people think, say, and try to teach others, which we must address. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, the children of the Church think correctly and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father. They rightly insist that the true mode of Generation must be preserved. But immediately those who are drunk with complete ignorance laugh openly and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is complete nonsense. You do not think about God correctly when you assume that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore entirely of His ousia. You foolishly imagine that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have you not heard, they say, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was speaking about the Rich man and Lazarus, that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? Will you then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that he is therefore of him and in him by physis? Or will you not rightly refuse to say this, and even you yourselves along with us will allow that love is meant by "bosom"? We say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, meaning in His love, as He Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

What it is then that these both think and say and try to teach others, we must needs say. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, and the children of the Church think rightly, and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father, and contend and that aright, that the true mode of Generation must be preserved; straightway they that are drunk with all unlearning laugh outright and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is all nonsense: for not well-instructedly do ye think of God, deeming that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore wholly of His Essence, and foolishly imagining that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have ye not heard, say they, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was discoursing of the Rich man and Lazarus, that it came to pass that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? will ye then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that therefore he is of him and in him by nature, or will ye not rightly refuse to say this, and yourselves too with us allow that love is meant by the "bosom"? we say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, instead of in His love, as Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

When these critics attack us with such words, even though they are eager for nothing but fault-finding, we too will answer them by setting against them the true word of truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love—for this is what we just heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Savior says, and "The Lord loves the gates of Zion," according to the holy Psalmist, boldly say that both the world itself and the gates of Zion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He also says to the hierophant Moses, "Put your hand into your bosom," does He command him, tell me, to love his hand rather than to keep it hidden? How then shall we not invite great ridicule by this, or rather how shall we not act impiously toward the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that which is the special privilege of the Only-Begotten common to everything else, so that the Son may have nothing above creation?

But when the fault-finders hit us with these words, though they be zealous to nought but railing, then we too will answer them, arraying against them the right word of the truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love: for this we just now heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Saviour saith, and The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, according to the holy Psalmist, fearlessly say that both the world itself and the gates of Sion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He says too to the hierophant Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom, does He bid him, tell me, love his hand and not rather keep it hidden? Then how shall we not incur great laughter hereby, yea rather how shall we not behave with impiety towards the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that common to the rest which is the special prerogative of the Only-Begotten, in order that the Son may have nought above the creature?

Therefore, setting aside their misguided advice, we will continue on the straight path of thoughts about the Truth. When the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, we should understand Him as being of Him and in Him. When we carefully examine the meaning of this phrase, we will find it to be exactly this and nothing else. He says, "The Only-Begotten God, who is in the Bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." For when he said "Only-Begotten" and "God," he immediately adds "who is in the Bosom of the Father," so that He may be understood as the Son who is of Him and in Him by nature, using "Bosom of the Father" instead of "Essence," as a physical comparison. For visible things serve as patterns for spiritual things, and things in our experience guide us toward understanding things that are above us. Physical things are often used as images and lead us to grasp more subtle ideas, even though they are understood in their proper context as they were originally spoken, as in the example of "Put your hand into your bosom" spoken to Moses. Nor does it harm our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom—rather, it supports it and aligns with our reasoning. For the Divine Scripture speaks in this way: Lazarus, having died and departed from his bodily life, was carried into Abraham's bosom, meaning "was counted among Abraham's children." For God said to him, "I have made you a father of many nations," as it is written of him somewhere, "For a father of many nations have I made you."

Hence bidding good bye to their ill-counsel, we will go on the straight road of thoughts of the Truth, when the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, conceiving of Him as of Him and in Him: and accurately taking in the force of the thought, we shall find it thus and not otherwise. The Only-Begotten God, he says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared. For when he said Only-Begotten and God, he straightway says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be conceived of as Son of Him and in Him Naturally, saying Bosom of the Father instead of Essence, as by corporeal simile. For things manifest are types of things spiritual, and things among us lead us by the hand to the apprehension of the things which are above us: and the corporal things are often taken in the way of image and introduce to us the apprehension of subtler thoughts, even though they be in their proper time understood as they were uttered, as I mean that to Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom. And it will no way hurt our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom, but will aid it rather and will go along with our thoughts. For the Divine Scripture says so to speak thus: Lazarus having died and deceased from his life in the body, was carried into Abraham's bosom, instead of "was numbered among Abraham's children." For "I have made thee a father of many nations," said God to him, for so is it somewhere written of him, For a father of many nations have I made thee.

This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

19, 20 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

The Evangelist recalls his own words and tries to explain to us more fully (doing very well) what he had already told us briefly as a summary. For having said "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light," he must now bring in the manner of the witness John gave. For when, he says, the leaders of the Jewish divisions under the Law sent priests and Levites to him, telling them to ask what he would say about himself, then John very clearly confessed, rejecting all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, "I am not the Christ." Therefore neither do I, he says, the compiler of this book, lie when I say of him, "He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light."

The Evangelist recalls his own words and endeavours to explain to us more fully (doing exceeding well) what he had already told us told us briefly as in summary. For having said There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, needs does he bring in the mode also of the witness given by him. For when, he says, the chiefs of the Jewish divisions after the Law, sent priests and Levites to him, bidding them ask him, what he would say of himself, then very clearly did he confess, spurning all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, I am not the Christ. Therefore neither do I, says he, the compiler of this Book, lie saying of him, He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light.

After explaining his confession "I am not the Christ," John tries to show how or in what manner this confession was made. He seems to me to want to expose the Jews' lack of instruction through this. For while claiming to be wise they became fools, and though puffed up with their knowledge of the Law and constantly putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, their foolish questions prove that they are completely uninstructed. For Moses the hierophant (sacred teacher), saying that the Lord would be revealed as a Prophet, foretold to the children of Israel: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me; you shall listen to Him, according to all that you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb." The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and advance messenger, says: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." And in addition to these, the Prophet Joel says of the Tishbite (he was Elijah): "Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."^13141314

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to shew how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel says of the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.^13141314

Since there were three persons who were promised to come—Christ, John, and Elias—the Jews expected that even more would come, so they rightly heard, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures." For when they questioned the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they responded, "What then? Are you Elias?" And when he said "I am not," they should have asked about the forerunner (since he was the one who remained), but instead they ignorantly turned back to Christ Himself, who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. Notice what they say, not knowing what was told to them through Moses: "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." For he was not the Christ, as he had already declared before.

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? art thou Elias? and on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? and he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

He sharply accuses them of knowing nothing and confirms the purpose entrusted to him through prophetic testimony. For he says, I come to say nothing else than that the One who was looked for is finally at the doors—or rather, the Lord is already within the doors. Be ready to go whatever way He commands you. You have followed the way given through Moses; now take up the way through Christ, for this is what the company of holy prophets foretold to you.

He accuses them sharply as knowing nothing, and accredits the design or purpose entrusted to him by Prophetic testimony. For I come, he says, to say nothing else than that He, The Looked for, is at length at the doors, yea rather the Lord within the doors. Be ye ready to go whatsoever way He bids you, ye have gone the way given you through Moses, take up that by Christ: for this the choir of the holy Prophets foretold you.

Isaiah: Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us His ways and we will walk in His paths.

Isaiah. Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.

The same. There will be a highway and a road there, and it will be called The Way of Holiness. No lion will be there, and no dangerous beast will travel on it, but those who have been redeemed will walk there.

The same. And an highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; no lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but the redeemed shall walk there.

The same. I will provide a beginning to Sign, and will urge Jerusalem to follow the way.¹⁵¹⁵

The same. I will give beginning to Sign, and will exhort Jerusalem unto the way.¹⁵¹⁵

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they did not know. I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not: I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

Jeremiah. Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

Jeremiah. Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for you souls.

What then is the good way that purifies those who walk in it? Let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

What then is the good way and that purifies those who walk in it, let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

Those who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and some who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. Because they assumed that Christ was one person and that the Prophet declared by the Law was another, they asked, after the holy Baptist had said "I am not the Christ," "Are you the Prophet?" But look, the crowd of Pharisees is also caught up in pretending to have wisdom rather than actually having accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For it says, "Why do you baptize at all, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" and they are shown again to be full of considerable foolishness against the Baptist. For apparently they do not consider him worthy to be counted among those who were expected, but sick with the pride that was their constant companion, they think he is nothing, even though he was foretold by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord," they did not accept his word but rebuked him without restraint, saying something like this: "There is nothing in you, sir, worthy of belief, nor wonderful nor great. Why do you baptize at all? Why do you, who are absolutely nothing, take on such a great task?" It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act this way—to disparage someone who had already come while pretending to honor someone who was still to come. For in order to always secure honors for themselves from the Jews and obtain income for themselves, they wanted no one except themselves to appear distinguished. For in this same way they also killed the heir Himself, saying "Come, let us kill Him and seize His inheritance."¹⁷¹⁷

They who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and certain of those who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. For supposing that Christ was one person, the Prophet declared by the Law another, they said, after the holy Baptist had said, I am not the Christ, Art thou the Prophet? But lo, the multitude of the Pharisees also is caught in conceit of wisdom rather than having really an accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For why, it says, baptizest thou at all, if thou be not the Christ nor Elias neither the Prophet? and they are shewn again to be full of no small senselessness against the Baptist. For they do not, it seems, vouchsafe to put him in the number of those expected, but sick with the haughtiness that was their foster-sister, they deem that he is nought, albeit he be fore-announced by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord: receiving not his word, they rebuke him without restraint saying after this sort: There is nought in thee, Sir, worthy of credit, nor wondrous nor great: why baptizest thou even at all? why dost thou, who art absolutely nothing, take in hand so great a thing? It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act thus, to disparage one who was already come, to pretend to honour one who was to come. For in order that they might always procure for themselves honours at the hand of the Jews, and might procure to themselves incomes of money, they desire that none save themselves should appear illustrious. For thus slew they the heir Himself also, saying Come let us kill Him and let us seize on His inheritance.¹⁷¹⁷

The blessed Baptist patiently endures those who find fault with him, and he very appropriately uses the statement about himself as a foundation for saving preaching. He teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees—now even against their will—that Christ was already present among them. For he says, I am bringing an introductory baptism, washing with water those defiled by sin as a beginning of repentance, and teaching them to rise from the lower to the more perfect. For this would be to accomplish in action what I was sent to preach: "Prepare the way of the Lord." For the Giver of the greater and most remarkable gifts, and the Supplier of all perfection of good things, stands among you, still unknown because of the veil of flesh, but so far surpassing me the Baptist that I must consider myself unworthy even to hold the position of a servant in His presence. For this, I believe, is the meaning of "I am not worthy to untie His sandal strap."

Much enduringly does the blessed Baptist bear with the fault finders: and very seasonably does he make the declaration regarding himself a basis of saving preaching: and teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing in an introductory Baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of penitence and teaching them to go up from the lower unto the more perfect. For this were to accomplish in act, what I was sent to preach, Prepare ye, I mean, the way of the Lord. For the Giver of the greater and most notable gifts and Supplier of all perfection of good things, standeth among you, unknown as yet by reason of the veil of flesh, but so much surpassing me the Baptist, that I must deem myself not to have the measure even of a servant's place in His Presence. For this I deem is the meaning of, I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet.

In speaking the truth, he accomplishes something else that is beneficial, for he persuades the proud Pharisee to think humbly, and he presents himself as an example of this.

And in saying what is true, he works something else that is useful, for he persuades the haughty Pharisee to think lowlily, and brings himself in as an example of this.

He says these things happened in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, adding this as a sign of precise and careful narration. For all of us are accustomed, so to speak, when giving accounts of matters that require it, to mention also the places where they occurred.

But he says that these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, putting this too as a sign of accurate and careful narration. For we are all accustomed, so to speak, in our accounts of things that require it to mention also the places where they happened.

The Psalmist declares very well that the Lord will give utterance to those who evangelize with great power. But I believe that those who should approach this task are not just any random people, but those who have been illuminated with grace from above, since both "All wisdom is from the Lord," as it is written, and "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights." For speaking about the Essence that is above all and the Mysteries that belong to it is uncertain and not without danger to many people, while silence on these subjects is free from danger. Nevertheless, although we think we have great need of silence, God Who is over all excludes us from this, saying to one of the Saints (this was Paul), "Speak and do not hold your peace." And the ordinance of the Law shows this no less clearly, indicating spiritual things through the more physical type. For it commands those who have been called to the Divine Priesthood to declare to the people by the sound of trumpets about those things which they ought to learn. For when God willed to set forth most excellent things in His laws, I do not believe He intended that the leaders of the people should lay their hand on their mouth, as it is written, and, in fear of appearing to rashly attempt things above the mind of man, hold back from the doctrine that is so necessary for those who are being instructed in piety and the knowledge of God, and choose a silence that is perilous to those who are their disciples. But the Disciple of Christ again terrifies us, saying "Be not many masters," and moreover the most wise Preacher too darkly shows the peril that exists in teaching such things. For, he says, "He that splits wood shall be endangered by it; if the iron head falls off, both himself has troubled his face and he shall strengthen powers." For he likens the keenness of the mind to the iron head, in that it is naturally able to pierce through and sinks into the innermost parts, even though it is resisted by the thickness and close texture of the wood. He calls in a figure the thoughts that are in Holy Scripture "wood," which make the Books wherein they are a kind of Spiritual Paradise, and yet more than this, full with the fruitfulness that comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore he says that whoever tries to unfold the spiritual wood—that is, the Divine and Mystic thoughts of Divinely-inspired Scripture—by means of investigation and most accurate grasp and keenness of mind, will run very deep risk when the iron head slips off, that is when the mind, not carried to a true understanding of the things which are written, misses the right perception, and having left, as it were, the straight path, is carried on some other way of thought turned aside from what is fitting. As a result he will place in jeopardy the face of his soul, that is, his heart, and will strengthen against himself the evil opposing powers, who with their bitter perverse words corrupt the mind of those who have gone astray, not allowing it to behold the beauty of truth, but perverting it in many ways and persuading it to go astray after mad thoughts. For "no one calls Jesus Anathema except in Beelzebub."

THE LORD will give utterance to them who evangelize with much power, declareth exceeding well the Psalmist. But I deem that they who ought to approach this, are, not mere chance persons, but those who have been illumined with the grace that is from above, seeing that both All wisdom is from the Lord, as it is written, and Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights. For a thing unsure and not unfraught with peril to the many, is the speaking concerning the Essence that is above all, and the Mysteries belonging thereunto, and silence on these subjects is free from danger. Us nevertheless albeit deeming that we have much need of silence, God Who is over all excludes from this, saying to one of the Saints (this was Paul), Speak and hold not thy peace. And no less does the ordinance of the Law shew this, indicating things spiritual in the grosser type. For it enjoins those who have been called to the Divine Priesthood, to declare to the people by the sound of trumpets, about those things which they ought to learn. For God, when He willed to set forth in His laws most excellent things, did not I deem intend that the leaders of the people should lay their hand on their mouth, as it is written, and, in fear of appearing rashly to attempt things above the mind of man, hold back from the doctrine that is so necessary for those who are being instructed in piety and the knowledge of God, and choose a silence perilous to those who are their disciples. But the Disciple of Christ again terrifies us, saying Be not many masters, and moreover the most wise Preacher too, darkly shewing the peril that exists in the teaching of such things. For, says he, he that cleaveth wood, shall be endangered thereby; if the iron head fall, both himself hath troubled his face and he shall strengthen powers. For he likens the keenness of the mind to the iron-head, in that it is of a nature to pierce through, and sinks in to the innermost parts, even though it be resisted by the thickness and close texture of the wood. Wood again he in a figure calls the thoughts that are in Holy Scripture, which render the Books wherein they are a kind of Spiritual Paradise, and yet more than this, full with the fruitfulness that comes of the Holy Ghost. He that endeavours therefore to unfold the spiritual wood, that is the Divine and Mystic thoughts of Divinely-inspired Scripture by means of insearch, and most accurate grasp and keenness of mind, will run very deep risk, saith he, when the iron-head slippeth, that is when the mind not carried to a true understanding of the things which are written, misses the right perception, and having left, as it were, the straight path, is borne on some other way of thought turned aside from what is fitting. Whereupon he will place in jeopardy the face of his soul, that is, his heart, and will invigorate against himself the bad opposing powers, who with their bitter perverse words sophisticate the mind of those who have gone astray; not suffering it to behold the beauty of truth, but manifoldly perverting it and persuading it to go astray after mad thoughts. For no one calleth Jesus Anathema save in Beelzebub.

And let no one think that the explanation given above is mistaken or based on false reasoning. For Divine Scripture does sometimes, as we said before, call the thoughts of Holy Scripture "wood." And indeed the God Who is over all says something of this sort through the all-wise Moses to those at that time: "When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by forcing an axe against them, for you may eat of them and you shall not cut them down (is the tree of the forest a man, to go before you to the palisade?). Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, those you shall destroy and cut down." But that the God of all would not have considered it worthwhile to prescribe such things to us if they were to be understood only as earthly trees is, I suppose, clear to everyone. Yet I think it should also be shown from another command that He is very unsparing of these and takes no account of them. For what, I ask, does He command should be done to the falsely-called gods? "You shall destroy their altars," He says, "and break down their images, and cut down their groves." And by His own altar He in no way allows any tree to be cultivated. For He plainly declares: "You shall not plant a grove of any trees near the altar of the Lord your God." And if one must add anything to this, I will speak in the manner of the very wise Paul: Does God take care for trees? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? By using concrete examples, He leads us by the hand to the understanding of spiritual things.

And let no one deem, himself astray, that the exposition of the above is astray, or otherwise of false reasoning. For Divine Scripture does sometimes, as we said before, call the thoughts of Holy Scripture wood. And indeed the God Who is over all says something on this sort through the all-wise Moses to those at that time: When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them, for thou mayest eat of them and thou shalt not cut them down: (is the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade?) Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down, But that the God of all would not have deemed it worth to prescribe to us such things, if it were to be understood only of trees of the earth, is I suppose clear to every one, yet I think one ought to shew from another command also that He is very unsparing of these, and takes not account of them. For what I pray does He enjoin should be done to the false-called gods? Ye shall destroy their altars, saith He, and break down their images, and cut down their groves. And by His own altar He no way suffers any tree to be cultivated. For He plainly declares: Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God. And if one must add anything to this, I will speak after the manner of most wise Paul. Both God take care for trees? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? by grosser examples leading us by the hand to the idea of spiritual things.

Let us now say that the writings of unholy heretics may be considered as cities, fortified perhaps with no small skill by worldly wisdom and the intricate deceits of their reasoning. Everyone who struggles for the holy dogmas of the Church comes to attack them, in a sense surrounding and besieging them by taking up the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Such a person arrays himself with all his strength against their false teaching, seeking to cast down imaginations, as Paul says, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. When, He says, such a soldier of Christ encircles the bitter writings of heresies as if they were a foreign land, and comes upon the best cultivated trees—that is, if he finds words from divinely inspired Scripture, or things spoken by the Prophets or even testimonies from the New Testament twisted to serve their own purpose—let him not apply his mental sharpness like a tool to destroy and cut them down. For what proceeds from the mouth of God is not to be wholly rejected simply because it has been seized upon by those who do not know how to interpret it rightly. Rather, since it is fruit-bearing, it shall be a help and food for you. For by turning what they have foolishly taken and directing it toward the right argument of the faith, we shall not only avoid being caught unprepared, but we are actually strengthened with words against heresy. But he immediately adds an argument persuading his hearers that the attack of the advocate for truth should be made not to overthrow the divine oracles, but to destroy what is wrongly said by the opponents. For he says, is the tree of the forest a man, to go before you to the palisade? Do you suppose, he says, that the utterance of the holy writings will rise up against you to do battle like one of the arch-heretics, rather than being wronged by their madness? Do not cut it down, he says, but let it be food for you also. Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, these you shall destroy and cut down. For the fruit of those men's writings is inedible to those who would think rightly. Against them let every tool come. There let the might of the spiritual woodsmen be shown; upon them let the axe of strength in advocacy shine. For the uselessness and unprofitableness of the babbling of the heterodox is also most excellently explained to us by the Prophet Hosea, who says: A stalk having no strength to yield meal; if it does yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. For those who are diligent to estrange themselves from friendship with God shall feast themselves on the weak and old-wives' tales of those people's ignorance. As I was saying at the beginning (for I think we must go back to that), the exposition of the divine mysteries is exceedingly difficult, and silence would perhaps be better. But since your persistent urging persuades us, O most labor-loving brother, to offer this work as a sort of fruit of our lips and spiritual sacrifice, I will not shrink from doing this too, encouraging myself in God who makes the blind wise, and who surely does not seek from us what is beyond us, but equally accepts the offerings of poor men. For regarding one who would offer a gift for a burnt sacrifice to the Lord, as is set forth in the beginning of Leviticus, the lawgiver having commanded an offering from the herd and having moreover set down the measure of honor for the type, he again lowers the requirement, saying that those who cannot attain to this should sacrifice from the flock. And he knew well that sad and inexorable poverty will render some powerless even for this. Therefore he says that one shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of young pigeons. But the one who falls short even of these and approaches with the most insignificant offerings, he also honors. For he says, his offering shall be fine flour, defining an offering easily procurable, I suppose, by everyone and not too oppressive to the deepest poverty. For the lawgiver knew well (I think) that it is better and more excellent to bear fruit even a little, than to be wholly bereft of it and through shame at seeming to fall short of others' gifts, to rush forward to the conclusion that one need not honor the Lord of all.

Let us now say that the writings of the unholy heretics may be considered as cities, and fortified, haply not without skill, by the wisdom of the world, and the intricate deceits of their cogitations. There comes to storm them, and in some sort environs and sits round them taking the shield of the faith and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, every one who agonizes for the holy dogmas of the Church, and sets himself in array with all his strength against their false-speaking, studying to cast down imaginations, as Paul saith, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. When then, He says, such a soldier of Christ compasses, as a land of aliens, the bitter writings of heresies, and lights upon the best cultivated trees, that is, if he find words from the Divinely-inspired Scripture, or things spoken by the Prophets or even testimonies from the New Testament, wrested unto their own purpose, let him not apply his mental acumen, like a sort of tool, to destroy and cut them down. For not because taken hold of by those who know not to interpret it aright, is therefore that which proceeds of the Mouth of God to be wholly rejected too: but since it is fruit-bearing, it shall be to thee rather as a help and for food. For turning round unto the right argument of the faith that which is sometimes foolishly taken by them, not only shall we not be caught unstrung, but rather are we nerved into words against heresy. But he subjoins forthwith an argument persuading the hearers, that the onslaught of the advocate for the truth should be made, not for the overthrow of the Divine oracles, but for the destruction of what is non-rightly said by the opponents. For is, it says, the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade? For do you suppose, he says, that the utterance of the holy writings, will of its own self rise up against thee to battle, like one of the arch-heretics, and is not rather wronged by their madness? Do not then cut it down, says it, but let it be to thee as food also; only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down. For uneatable by them who would think aright, is the fruit of those men's writings: against them let every tool come: there let the might of the spiritual wood-men be shewn, upon them let the axe of strength in advocacy glitter. For the uselessness and unprofitableness of the babbling of the heterodox the Prophet Hosea also most excellently interprets to us saying: A stalk having no strength to yield meal; if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. For they that are diligent to estrange themselves from friendship with God, shall feast themselves on the weak and old-wife tale of those people's unlearning. As then I was saying at the beginning (for I think we must go back to that), most exceeding hard is the exposition of the Divine mysteries, and better perchance were silence, but since thy much speech persuadeth us, O most labour-loving brother, to offer the work, as a sort of fruit of our li ps, and spiritual sacrifice, this too will I not shrink from doing, encouraging myself in God who maketh wise the blind, and seeketh at our hands not surely that which is above us, but accepteth equally the offerings of poor men. For him that would offer a gift for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord, as is put in the beginning of Leviticus, the lawgiver having enjoined an offering of the herd and having moreover herein set down the measure of the honour of the type, he again lowers it, saying that they who cannot attain to this, should sacrifice of the flock. And well did he know that sad and inexorable poverty will render some powerless even to this: therefore he says, he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of young pigeons. But him that comes yet short of these too, and approaches with the most insignificant offerings, he honours. For says he, his offering shall be fine flour, defining an offering easily procurable I suppose by every one and not too oppressive to the deepest poverty. For the lawgiver well knew (I think) that better and more excellent is it to bear fruit even a little, than to be wholly bereft of it and through shame of seeming to come short of others' gifts, to rush forward to the conclusion that it needs not to honour the Lord of all.

Convinced by all these considerations, and having set aside the hesitation that comes with silence, I will consider it my duty to honor my Lord with what I have: discourse that is wholesome and joyous to readers, like fine flour mixed with oil. We will begin the Book of John, undertaking an extremely great work, yet one not weakened by our faith. We must readily confess that what we say and think will fall short of what is fitting. But the great difficulty of the book, or more truly, the weakness of our understanding, will lead us to ask appropriate pardon for this.

Persuaded then with reason by all these things, and having dismissed from my mind unreadiness, the ally of silence, I will deem it my duty to honour my Lord with what I have, discourse wholesome and joyous to the readers, like fine flour bedewed with oil: and we will begin the Book of John, taking in hand an exceeding great work, yet by reason of faith, not unstrung. And that we shall say and think less than is meet, we must unhesitatingly confess. But the great difficulty of the book, or to speak more truly, the weakness of our understanding, will persuade us to ask meet pardon for this.

Directing our discussion in every way toward a more doctrinal exposition, we will arrange it according to our ability against the false teachings of those who teach differently. We will not extend it to its full length, but will even cut back what is excessive, and we will take care to make it appropriately fitted. The list of chapter headings that follows will show the topics our discussion covers, to which we have also added numbers so that readers may easily find what they are looking for.

Turning about on every hand our discourse to the more dogmatical exposition, we will set it in array, according to our power, against the false doctrines of them that teach otherwise, not stretching it forth to its full extent, but even retrenching superfluity, and studying to render it not lacking fitness. The subjoined subscription of the chapters, will shew the subjects over which our discourse extends, to which we have also annexed numbers, that what is sought may be readily found by the readers.