Chapter III.

That the Father and the Son must not be divided464    That is, in respect of substance or nature, though the Persons must be distinguished.    S. Matt. xxii. 11.    S. Matt. xxiv. 45, 46.is proved by the words of the Apostle, seeing that it is befitting to the Son that He should be blessed, only Potentate, and immortal, by nature, that is, and not by grace, as even the angels themselves are immortal, and that He should dwell in the unapproachable light. How it is that the Father and the Son are alike and equally said to be “alone.”

15. When, therefore, you read the Name “God,” separate neither Father nor Son, for the Godhead of the Father and the Son is one and the same, and therefore separate them not, when you read the words “blessed and only Potentate,”465    1 Tim. vi. 15.    Bk. II. iv.    S. John xxi. 15 ff. for the words are spoken of God, even as you may read: “I charge thee before God, Who quickeneth all things.”466    1 Tim. vi. 13.    Heb. iv. 14.    S. Matt. xxvi. 70 ff. Christ also indeed doth quicken, and therefore the Name of God is meetly given both to the Father and to the Son, inasmuch as the effect of their activity is in agreement. Let us go on to the words following: “I charge thee,” he says, “before God, Who quickeneth all things, and Jesus Christ.”467    That is to say, God and Christ Jesus are united in the work of quickening.    Ps. xix. 1.    1 Cor. iii. 2.

16. The Word is in God, even as it is written: “In God will I praise His Word.”468    Ps. lvi. 10.    Rev. iii. 20.    1 Cor. ix. 22. In God is His Eternal Power, even Jesus; in [speaking of] God, therefore, the Apostle hath witnessed to the unity of the Godhead, whilst by the Name of Christ he hath witnessed to the sacrament of the Incarnation.

17. Furthermore, to show that he hath spoken of the Incarnation of Christ, he added: “Who bore witness under Pontius Pilate with the good confession,” [I charge thee] “keep undefiled the commandment, until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which in His own good time the blessed and only Potentate shall manifest, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Who alone hath immortality, and dwelleth in light unapproachable, Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.”469    1 Tim. vi. 13–16.    Song of Solomon v. 2.    Tit. iii. 10. Those words, then, are written with regard to God, of which Name the dignity and truth are common to [both the Father and] the Son.

18. Why, then, should there be no thought of the Son in this place, seeing that all these things hold good of the Son also? If they do not so, then deny His Godhead, and so mayest thou deny what is proper to be said of God. His Blessedness cannot be denied, Who bestows blessings, for “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.”470    Ps. xxxii. 1.    Ps. cxviii. 19.    Tit. iii. 9. He cannot but be called “Blessed,” Who hath given us wholesome teaching, even as it is written: “Which is according to the Gospel of the beauty of the Blessed God.”471    1 Tim. i. 11.    Col. iv. 3.    S. Matt. xiii. 25. His Power cannot be denied, of Whom the Father saith: “I have laid help upon One that is mighty.”472    Ps. lxxxix 19.    S. John xvi. 7.    2 Tim ii. 24, 25. And who dare refuse to acknowledge Him to be immortal, when He Himself hath made others also immortal, as it is written of the Wisdom of God: “By her shall I possess immortality.”473    Wisd. viii. 13.    S. John xx. 17.    1 Cor. xi. 16.

19. But the immortality of His Nature is one thing, that of ours is another. Things perishable are not to be compared to things divine. The Godhead is the one only Substance that death cannot touch, and therefore it is that the Apostle, though knowing both the [human] soul and angels to be immortal, declared that God only had immortality. In truth, even the soul may die: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,”474    Ezek. xviii. 20.    S. Matt. xvi. 18.    S. Matt. xxv. 15. and an angel is not absolutely immortal, his immortality depending on the will of the Creator.475    “That is to say, immortality is not of the essential nature of an angel as it is of the essential Nature of God. For God’s existence is such that He necessarily exists, He cannot but exist; His existence is not derived from another, but is from the power of His essential Nature, or rather is that very Nature. Not so with the angel, whose existence is a gift of God, and so the angel’s existence is no part of the idea of an angel, but is a property which is, so to speak, added on from without and accessory to the conception of such a being. Hence, in so far as an angel’s existence issues not of the mere force of his essential properties, but only of the Creator’s Will, we may say that by virtue of the said Will, not by force of his own nature, he continues in existence, and so far is immortal, although in another sense immortality may be called a natural property of an angel, inasmuch as there is no created power whereby he may be destroyed, and nothing in him that renders him liable to be destroyed by God—nay rather, everything about him demands that, once he is created, he should be for ever preserved in being.”—H.    S. Mark iii. 17.    S. Matt. xxv. 26, 27.

20. Do not hastily reject this, because Gabriel dies not, nor Raphaël, nor Uriel.476    Hurter observes that St. Ambrose understands mortality in a wide sense, as including the capacity of any and every sort of change. Immortality, then, in accordance with this definition, would connote perfect absence of change. Hurter cites St. Bernard, § 81 in Cant.: “Omnis mutatio quædam mortis imitatio…Si tot mortes quot mutationes, ubi immortalitas?” and Plutarch, in Eusebius, Præpar. Ev. XI. 12. Plutarch’s view perhaps owed something to study of the reliques of Herachtus. Many fathers expounded 1 Tim. vi. 16 on this definition of immortality as=immutability. This definition would exclude angels, who are naturally fallible (as the rebellion of Lucifer and the third part of the host of heaven proved)—or if they are now no longer fallible, they owe it not to their own natural constitution but to grace. In so far then as angels are mutable, whether for better or worse, they are not immortal.    Ps. ix. 14.    S. Luke xix. 23. Even in their nature there is a capacity of sin, though not one of improvement by discipline,477    Angels being by nature mutable, either for better or for worse, that is, capable of good or evil, and so of death, are de facto sinless, and hence need not, are not meet to be placed under, penal discipline. Or the meaning may be that the angelic nature was not created to be gradually taught in the way of holiness as human nature was.    S. John xv. 22, 23.    1 Cor. iv. 1. for every reasonable creature is exposed to influences from without itself, and liable to judgment. It is on the influences which work upon us that the award of judgment, and corruption, or advance to perfection, do depend, and therefore Ecclesiastes saith: “For God shall bring all His work to judgment.”478    Eccl. xii. 14. Hurter observes that God would not judge rational creatures, were they not capable of advance or retrogression, of becoming better or falling into degradation, and had, as a matter of fact, advanced or fallen back.    Orig. “derogare.” Derogare was a Roman law-term, meaning to repeal a law in part, to restrict or modify it—hence it came to be used generally of diminishing or taking away from anything already established.    1 Cor. iii. 5, 6. Every creature, then, has within it the possibility of corruption and death, even though it do not [at present] die or commit sin; nor, if in anything it deliver not itself over to sin, hath it this boon of its immortal nature, but of discipline or of grace. Immortality, then, that is of a gift is one thing: immortality without the possibility of change is another.479    The Arians regarded the Son as immortal de gratia; the Orthodox esteem Him immortal de jure, with true, absolute immortality.    1 Cor. iii. 9.

21. Do we deny the immortality of Christ’s Godhead,480    i.e. Is Christ God in the true sense of the Name, or not?    1 Cor. iii. 12. because He tasted death for all in the flesh? Then is Gabriel better than Christ, for Gabriel never died, but Christ gave up the ghost. But the servant is not above his lord,481    S. Matt. x. 24.    Ps. xii. 6. and we must discern the weakness of flesh from the eternity of Godhead. Christ’s Death had its source in the flesh, immortality is of the nature of Christ’s sovereignty. But if the Godhead brought it to pass that the flesh saw not corruption, the flesh being surely by nature liable to corruption, how could the Godhead itself have died?

22. And how is it that the Son dwelleth not in light unapproachable, if He is in the bosom of the Father, if the Father is Light, and the Son also is Light, because God is Light?482    1 John i. 5.    S. Matt. xxv. 20. Or, if we suppose some other light, beside the Light of the Godhead, to be the unapproachable Light, is, then, this Light better than the Father, so that He is not in that Light, Who, as it is written, is both with the Father and in the Father?483    S. John i. 1; xvii. 5, 21.    2 Cor. iv. 7. Let men, therefore, not exclude the thought of the Son, when they read only of “God”—and let them not exclude that of the Father, when they read of “the Son” only.484    S. John xvi. 32.    S. Luke x. 35.

23. On earth, the Son is not without485    l.c. S. John x. 30.    S. Matt. xx. 14. the Father, and thou thinkest that the Father is without the Son in heaven? The Son is in the flesh—(when I say “He is in the flesh” or “He is on earth,” I speak as though we lived in the days whose story is in the Gospel, for now we no longer know Christ “after the flesh”486    2 Cor. v. 16.    S. Luke xix. 17.)—He is in the flesh, and He is not alone, as it is written: “And I am not alone, because the Father is with Me,”487    S. John viii. 16.    1 Sam. xviii. 7. and think you that the Father dwells alone in the Light?

24. Lest you should regard this argument as mere speculation take this sentence of authority. “No man,” saith the Scripture,488    S. John i. 18.    S. Matt. xxiii. 14 ff. “hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath revealed Him.”489    Greek ἐξηγήσατο, “explained,” “expounded.” The Incarnation has taught us something about God and about man that we never knew before and never could have known by ourselves.    i.e., either ‘used to their own earthly advantage’ or ‘explained in a carnal earthly sense.’ How can the Father be in solitude, if the Son be in the bosom of the Father? How doth the Son reveal Him, Whom He seeth not? The Father, then, exists not alone.

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

CAPUT III.

Filium a Patre non separandum ex Apostolo confirmari, cum Filio quoque conveniat beatum esse, solum potentem ac immortalem, natura videlicet, non gratia qua ipsi etiam angeli sunt immortales; et lucem habitare inaccessibilem: quo ultimo qua ratione fiat explicato, quo pacto Pater solus, ac Filius pariter solus dicantur, ostenditur.

0592D 15. Ergo cum legis Deum, non separes Patrem, non separes Filium; quia deitas et Patris et Filii una eademque est. Et ideo nec ibi separes, ubi legis quia beatus et solus potens; de Deo enim dictum est, sicut habes: Praecipio coram Deo, qui vivificat omnia (I Tim. VI, 13); sed etiam Christus vivificat: convenit ergo et Patri et Filio Dei nomen; quando convenit et operationis effectus. 500 Persequamur et caetera. Praecipio, inquit, coram Deo qui vivificat omnia, et Christo Jesu.

16. In Deo est etiam Verbum, sicut scriptum est: In Deo laudabo Verbum (Psal. LV, 11). In Deo sempiterna 0593A sua virtus est Jesus: in Deo igitur unitatem divinitatis, in Christi autem nomine incarnationis testificatus est sacramentum.

17. Denique ut de incarnatione Christi se dixisse ostenderet, subdidit: Qui testimonium reddidit sub Pontio Pilato bonam confessionem; ut serves mandatum sine macula usque in adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi: quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potens, rex regum, et Dominus dominantium; qui solus habet immortalitatem, et lucem habitat inaccessibilem: quem vidit hominum nemo, sed nec videre potest (I Tim. VI, 13 et seq.). Ergo de Deo haec scripta sunt, cujus nominis et dignitas et veritas communis est Filio.

18. Cur igitur hoc loco Filius separatur, cum 0593B etiam Filio haec cuncta conveniant? Aut si non conveniant, nega Deum; ut neges quae Deo sunt convenientia. Beatus negari non potest, qui beatitudines donat: Beati enim quibus remissae sunt iniquitates (Psal. XXXI, 1). Beatus negari non potest, qui sanam doctrinam tribuit, sicut scriptum est: quae est secundum Evangelium claritatis beati Dei (I Tim. I, 11). Potens abnui non potest, de quo Pater dicit: Posui adjutorium super potentem (Psal. LXXXVIII, 20). Immortalitatem autem ejus quis audeat diffiteri, cum etiam aliis immortalitatem ipse largitus sit, sicut scriptum est de sapientia Dei: Per hanc habebo immortalitatem (Sap. VIII, 13).

19. Sed alia immortalitas suae naturae, alia nostrae. Non sunt fragilia comparanda divinis: una sola 0593C substantia divinitatis est, quae mori nescit. Unde et Apostolus, cum sciret et animam et angelos immortales, quod solus Deus immortalitatem habeat praedicavit. Nam et anima moritur: Anima enim quae peccat, ipsa morietur (Ezech. XVIII, 20); nec Angelus immortalis est naturaliter, cujus immortalitas in voluntate est Creatoris.

20. Neque ad praejudicium trahas, quod non moritur Gabriel, non moritur Raphael, non moritur Uriel; et in ipsis enim naturae capacitas vitio obnoxia, sed non obnoxia disciplinae. Omnis enim rationabilis creatura accidentia recipit, et subjecta judicio est. In accidentibus autem et poena judicii, et corruptela est, et profectus. Unde et Ecclesiastes ait: Quoniam omne opus suum Deus adducet in judicium0593D (Eccl. XII, 14). Ergo corruptelae et mortis, etiamsi 0594A non moriatur aut peccel, capax tamen omnis est creatura: nec ex immortali natura habet, sed ex disciplina vel gratia, si se in aliquibus ad vitia non mutat. Alia ergo immortalitas quae donatur, alia quae sine capacitate mutabilitatis est semper.

21. An negatur immortalis divinitas Christi, quia in carne pro omnibus mortem gustavit? 501 Jam ergo melior Gabriel quam Christus; quia ille non est defunctus, hic mortuus est. Sed non est servus supra dominum (Matth. X, 24); alia enim carnis infirmitas, alia divinitatis aeternitas: mors carnis est, immortalitas potestatis. Quod si divinitas fecit ne caro videret corruptionem, quae utique corruptelae erat obnoxia per naturam; quomodo mori posset ipsa divinitas?

0594B 22. Quomodo autem lucem inaccessibilem non habitat Filius, cum in sinu Patris Filius sit: lux autem Pater, lux etiam ipse sit Filius; quia Deus lux est (Joan. I, 9)? Aut si aliam lucem inaccessibilem nisi deitatis putamus, numquid melior Patre lux est; ut non sit in luce, qui sicut scriptum est, et apud Patrem est, et in Patre (Ibid., 2)? Non ergo separent Filium, cum legunt solum Deum: nec Patrem separent, cum legunt Filium solum.

23. In terris Filius sine Patre non est, et putas quia Pater sine Filio sit in coelo? In carne est Filius, cum dico in carne est, vel in terris, secundum Evangelii tempora loquor; nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum (II Cor. V, 16): ergo in carne est Filius, et solus non est, secundum 0594C quod scriptum est: Et non sum solus, quia Pater mecum est (Joan. VIII, 16); et putas quod sit Pater solus in luce?

24. At ne hoc argumentum putes, accipe etiam testimonium: Deum, inquit, nemo vidit umquam, nisi unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit (Joan. I, 18). Quomodo solus Pater, si in sinu Patris Filius est? quomodo enarrat, quem non videt? Non ergo solus Pater.

25. Accipe nunc et solum Patrem, et solum Filium. Solus Pater, quia alius Pater non est: solus Filius, quia alius Filius non est: solus Deus, quia una divinitas Trinitatis est.