Chapter V.

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

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

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

51. It is, to take another example, impossible for a sick man to do a strong man’s work; but in this case the reason of the impossibility is of a different kind, for the man is rendered unable, by sickness, to do what he is naturally capable of doing. In this case, then, the cause of the impossibility is sickness, and this kind of impossibility is different from the first, since the man is hindered by bodily weakness from the possibility of doing.712    Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4; S. John i. 1, 2, cpd. with 14.    Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I. viii. 15.

52. Again, there is a third cause of impossibility. A man may be naturally capable, and his bodily health may allow of his doing some work, which he is yet unable to do by reason of want of skill, or because his rank in life disqualifies him; because, that is, he lacks the required learning or is a slave.713    Ps. lxxxviii. 4. See the R.V.    Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I. viii. 15.

53. Which of these three different causes of impossibility, think you, which we have enumerated (setting aside the fourth) can we meetly assign to the case of the Son of God? Is He naturally insensible and immovable, like a stone? He is indeed a stone of stumbling to the wicked, a cornerstone for the faithful;714    “Due” by His own and the Father’s Will. Some reference also, perhaps, to the preaching to the spirits in Hades, a necessary part of our Lord’s work and ministry. 1 Pet. iii. 19.    1 Pet. ii. 7, from Isa. xxviii. 16. but He is not insensible, upon Whom the faithful affection of sentient peoples are stayed. He is not an immovable rock, “for they drank of a Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”715    Ps. lxxxix. 20. See ch. ii. p. 243.    1 Cor. x. 4. The work of the Father, then, is not rendered impossible to Christ by diversity of nature.

54. Perchance we may suppose some things were made impossible for Him by reason of weakness. But He was not weakly Who could heal the weaknesses of others by His word of authority. Seemed He weak when bidding the paralytic take up his bed and walk?716    1 Pet. iii. 19; Acts ii. 24.    S. Mark ii. 11. He charged the man to perform an action of which health was the necessary condition, even whilst the patient was yet praying a remedy for his disease. Not weak was the Lord of hosts when He gave sight to the blind,717    1 Kings xvii. 20 ff.    Ps. cxlv. 8. made the crooked to stand upright, raised the dead to life,718    2 Kings iv. 34.    S. Matt. xi. 5. anticipated the effects of medicine at our prayers, and cured them that besought Him, and when to touch the fringe of His robe was to be purified.719    Rom. viii. 3. Note “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not “in sinful flesh.” Cf. Phil. ii. 7; for the miracle referred to, see 2 Kings xiii. 21.    S. Mark vi. 56.

55. Unless, peradventure, you thought it was weakness, you wretches, when you saw His wounds. Truly, they were wounds piercing His Body, but there was no weakness betokened by that wound, whence flowed the Life of all, and therefore was it that the prophet said: “By His stripes we are healed.”720    Acts iii. 6; ix. 34.    Isa. liii. 5. Was He, then, Who was not weak in the hour when He was wounded, weak in regard of His Sovereignty? How, then, I ask? When He commanded the devils, and forgave the offences of sinners?721    See S. Mark xvi. 17, 18.    S. Luke v. 20. Or when He made entreaty to the Father?

56. Here, indeed, our adversaries may perchance enquire: “How can the Father and the Son be One, if the Son at one time commands, at another entreats?” True, They are One; true also, He both commands and prays: yet whilst in the hour when He commands He is not alone, so also in the hour of prayer He is not weak. He is not alone, for whatsoever things the Father doeth, the same things doeth the Son also, in like manner. He is not weak, for though in the flesh He suffered weakness for our sins yet that was the chastisement of our peace upon Him,722    S. John xi. 41.    Isa. liii. 5. not lack of sovereign Power in Himself.

57. Moreover, that thou mayest know that it is after His Manhood that He entreats, and in virtue of His Godhead that He commands, it is written for thee in the Gospel that He said to Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.”723    S. Luke iv. 3.    S. Luke xxii. 32. To the same Apostle, again, when on a former occasion he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” He made answer: “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build My Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”724    Rom. i. 4.    S. Matt. xvi. 18. Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church? Consider, then, the manner of His entreaty, the occasions of His commanding. He entreats, when He is shown to us as on the eve of suffering: He commands, when He is believed to be the Son of God.

58. We see, then, that two sorts of impossibility furnish no explanation,725    1 Cor. ii. 8.    i.e. we are not to suppose that in S. John v. 19 Jesus refers to any sort of physical impossibility, to any external restraint or limitation. inasmuch as the Power of God can be neither insensible nor weakly. Will you then proffer the third kind [as an account of the matter], namely, that He can do nothing, just as an unskilled apprentice can do nothing without his master’s instructions, or a slave can do nothing without his lord. Then didst Thou speak falsely, Lord Jesu, in calling Thyself Master and Lord, and Thou didst deceive Thy disciples by Thy words: “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am.”726    S. Mark i. 13. Cf. Eph. i. 21.    S. John xiii. 13. Nay, but Thou, O Truth, wouldst never have deceived men, least of all them whom Thou didst call friends.727    Rom. i. 3.    S. John xv. 14, 15.

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

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

61. Yet I would still enquire what it is that the Son cannot do, unless He see the Father doing it. I will take the fool’s line, and propound some examples drawn from things of a lower world. “I am become a fool; ye have compelled me.”728    2 Cor. xii. 11. What indeed is more foolish than to debate over the majesty of God, which rather occasions questionings, than godly instruction which is in faith.729    1 Tim. i. 4; vi. 20, 21. But to arguments let arguments reply; let words make answer to them, but love to us, the love which is in God, issuing of a pure heart and good conscience and faith unfeigned. And so I stickle not to introduce even the ludicrous for the confutation of so vain a thesis.

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

63. If, then, the Son can, by virtue of a common hidden power of the same nature which He has with the Father, both see and act in an invisible manner, and by the fulness of His Godhead execute every decree of His Will, what remains for us but to believe that the Son, by reason of indivisible unity of power, does nothing, save what He has seen the Father doing, forasmuch as because of His incomparable love the Son does nothing of Himself, since He wills nothing that is against His Father’s Will? Which truly is the proof not of weakness but of unity.730    Our Lord did not simply assert that He and His Father are One, without revealing to those, at least, who had faith to perceive it, what is one great bond of that Unity, showing men, so far as man can comprehend the matter, what that Unity consists in, viz., absolute and perfect harmony of will.

530 CAPUT V.

Caeptam objecti loci expositionem urgens, rationes quatuor quibus aliquid fieri non posse affirmamus, explicat, et earum primas tres in Christum non cadere, solutis quibusdam objectiunculis, demonstrat, et Filium propter solam potestatis cum Patre unitatem nihil a se facere posse deducit.

48. Quomodo non potest Filius facere a se quidquam? Quaeramus quid sit quod facere non possit. Multae 0627A sunt impossibilitatum differentiae. Est aliquid natura impossibile, et est aliquid quod est possibile per naturam, impossibile per infirmitatem. Est etiam tertium quod sit possibile per corporis et animi firmitatem, impossibile per imperitiam aut impotentiam. Est etiam quod per definitionem immutabilis propositi, et constantis perseverantiam voluntatis atque amicitiae fidem sit impossibile mutari.

49. Sed haec ut evidentius possimus advertere, per exempla nobis disputatio dirigatur. Impossibile est ut avis sapientiae disciplinam aliquam assequatur aut artem: impossibile est et lapidem prodire quoquam; impossibile est enim lapidem moveri, nisi motu moveatur alterius: non potest ergo lapis per se ipsum moveri, et transire de loco. Non potest 0627B etiam aquila humanis imbui disciplinis. Habes unam speciem, cui impossibilitatis causa natura est.

50. Impossibile est et debili facere opera robusti; sed huic alia impossibilitatis causa est; quod enim facere potest per naturam, per infirmitatem non potest. Causa igitur huic quoque impossibilitati infirmitas. Alia ergo impossibilitatis haec species; quoniam a faciendi possibilitate, corporis infirmitate revocatur.

51. Tertia quoque impossibilitatis est causa, qua etiamsi per naturam quis, et firmitatem corporis facere aliquid possit; non potest tamen facere per imperitiam vel impotentiam, ut aut indoctus, aut servus.

52. Quis igitur harum, quas enumeravimus, impossibilitatum 0627C causas, ut quartam interim sequestremus, Filio Dei existimas convenire? Numquid in sensibilis per naturam, et immobilis, sicut lapis? Lapis quidem est impiis in ruinam, fidelibus angularis. Sed non insensibilis, supra quem sensibilium populorum fideles aedificantur affectus. Non immobilis petra: Bibebant enim ex consequenti petra; petra autem erat Christus (I Cor. X, 4). Non ergo paternum opus per naturae distantiam impossibile Christo.

53. Numquid forte per debilitatem impossibile ei aliquid existimamus? Sed non ille debilis, 531 qui aliorum debilitates imperiali sermone sanabat. An debilis videbatur, cum paralytico praecipiens: Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula (Marc. II, 11), sanitatis jam mandabat officium, cum adhuc ille remedium debilitatis oraret? Num debilis Dominus virtutum, 0627D cum illuminaret caecos, inclinatos erigeret (Psal. CXLV, 8), mortuos suscitaret (Matth. XI, 5), votis nostris medicinae praecurreret effectus, orantes curaret, et fimbriae mundaret attactus (Marc. VI, 56)?

54. Nisi forte debilitatem illam, impii, putabatis, quando vulnera videbatis. Erant quidem illa corporis vulnera, sed non erat vulneris illius ulla debilitas, ex quo omnium vita profluebat. Unde et propheta dixit: Livore ejus nos sanati sumus (Esai. LII, 5). An qui 0628A in vulnere debilis non erat, erat in majestate? Quomodo quaere. Cum daemoniis imperaret, et reis peccata dimitteret; an cum rogaret Patrem?

55. Quo loco fortasse dicant: Quomodo Pater et Filius unum sunt, si Filius nunc imperat, nunc precatur? Et unum sunt, et imperat, et precatur: sed neque cum imperat, solus; nec cum precatur, infirmus. Solus non est, quia quaecumque Pater facit, eadem similiter et Filius facit: infirmus non est, quia etsi in carne infirmatus est propter peccata nostra, tamen illud nostrae erat in eo pacis eruditio, sicut scriptum est, non suae majestatis infirmitas.

56. Denique ut scias quia secundum bominem rogat, divinitate imperat, habes in Evangelio quia Petro dixit: Rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua (Luc. XXII, 0628B 32). Eidem autem supra dicenti: Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi, respondit: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum (Matth. XVI, 18). Ergo cui propria auctoritate regnum dabat, hujus fidem firmare non poterat; quem cum petram dicit, firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit? Quando igitur roget, quando imperet, considera. Rogat quando passurus ostenditur, imperat quando Filius Dei creditur.

57. Duas igitur species impossibilitatis vacare jam cernimus, quod neque insensibilis, neque infirma potest esse Dei virtus. Numquid tertium profertis in medium, quod quasi imperitus sine magistro facere nihil possit, aut servus sine domino? Ergo mentitus es, Domine Jesu, qui te et magistrum, et dominum ipse dixisti; et fefellisti discipulos tuos, dicens: Vos 0628C vocatis me magistrum et dominum, et bene dicitis; sum etenim (Joan. XIII, 13). Sed non falleres, veritas, eos praesertim quos amicos vocasti.

58. Tamen si ut imperitum te ab artifice secernunt, viderint ut tibi, hoc est, Dei sapientiae dicant peritiam defuisse; unitatem tamen substantiae inter te et Patrem separare non possunt. Artificem namque ab imperito imprudentia, non natura secernit: sed non in Patre artificium, neque in te insipientia; non est enim insipiens sapientia.

59. Ergo si neque insensibilis in Filio natura, 532 neque debilitas, neque imperitia, neque servitus potest esse; considerent quod et per naturam et majestatem unum sit cum Patre Filius, et per operationem non discrepet a Patre virtus; cum omnia quae Pater fecerit, 0628D eadem Filius faciat similiter: neque enim similiter potest quisquam facere idem opus, quod alius fecerit; nisi qui et inaequalitatem non habeat operationis, et naturae ejusdem habeat unitatem.

60. Adhuc tamen requiro, quid sit quod non possit facere a se Filius, nisi viderit facientem Patrem (Joan. V, 19); et insipienter aliqua de vilioribus exempla propono: Factus sum insipiens, vos me coegistis (II Cor. XII, 11). Nam quid insipientius, quam de majestate Dei argumenta discutere, quae quaestiones 0629A magis praestant, quam aedificationem Dei, quae est in fide (I Tim. I, 4, 5)? Sed argumentis argumenta respondeant: illis verba, nobis charitas, quae in Deo est, de corde puro et conscientia bona, et fide non ficta. Ergo ad infirmationem tam ineptae propositionis, non piget etiam ridicula derivare.

61. Quomodo ergo videt Filius Patrem? Videt equus picturam, quam per naturam imitari non potest: non utique sic videt Filius. Videt parvulus viri opera majoris, sed imitari non potest: nec utique sic videt Dei Filius.

62. Ergo si Filius per ejusdem cum Patre arcanum commune naturae invisibiliter et videre et facere potest, et per plenitudinem divinitatis quod voluerit exsequi: quid superest, nisi ut per unitatem inseparabilem 0629B potestatis nihil credamus Filium facere, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem; quia per incomparabilem charitatem nihil a se facit Filius; quoniam nihil vult, quod Pater nolit? Quod utique non infirmitatis, sed unitatis est.