Chapter VIII.

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

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

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

80. For if the Father is Almighty by reason of begetting the Son, then, certainly, either the Son is co-eternal with the Father, because if the Father is eternally Almighty, then the Son also is eternal, or, if there was a time when there was not an eternal Son, there was by consequence a time when there was not an Almighty Father. For when they would make out that there was a time when the Son began to be, they are sliding back into [the error of] saying that the Father’s Power also has not been from everlasting, but began to be in consequence of the generation of the Son. So, in their desire to do dishonour to the Son of God, they do so increase His honour as to seem to make Him, contrary to all right belief, the source of His Father’s Power, though the Son saith, “All things that the Father hath are Mine”740    S. John xvi. 15.—that is to say, not the things which He has bestowed upon the Father, but which He has received from the Father, by right as the Son Whom the Father has begotten.

81. And therefore we do declare the Son to be Eternal Power;741    Cf. Rom. i. 20. if, then, His Power and Godhead be eternal, surely His Sovereignty is eternal also. He, then, who dishonours the Son dishonours the Father, and is an enemy and offender against duty and love. Let us honour the Son, in Whom the Father is well pleased, for it is the Father’s pleasure that praise be given to the Son, in Whom He Himself is well pleased.

82. Let us, however, make answer to the conclusion they strive to establish; but we seem to have sought, in pursuit of a personal appeal, to escape from the difficulty of treating the question before us. The Father, they say, has begotten a Son; the Son has not. What proof is this that they are not equal? To beget is the Father’s natural function, as a Father, and no necessary outcome of His Sovereign Power.742    i.e.,the Father begets quâ Father, not quâ Almighty (ὁ Παντοκράτωρ). Furthermore, dutiful regard places persons on an equality with each other, and does not sunder them. Again, our own experience of what holds good amongst us frail mortals teaches us that it may frequently happen that weak men have sons, whilst stronger men have not; that slaves have children, whilst their masters are childless; and that the poor beget offspring, whilst rich men are unblessed with any.

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

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

85. The conclusion we come at, therefore, on the line of your persuasion, is that God the Father is not Almighty, because He could not beget, if He did not beget the Son, but created Him. But forasmuch as the Father is Almighty, He being, as you hold, the Almighty in so far as He is the only Author of Being, then surely He has begotten His Son, and not created Him. Howbeit, we ought to believe His word before yours. He says: “I have begotten,”743    Ps. cx. 3. and that more than once, witnessing to Himself as begetting.

86. It is no sign, then, of infirmity, whether of nature or authority, in Christ, that He has not begotten, for to beget, as we have already said ofttimes, bears no relation to supremacy of authority, but to a personal property in a nature.744    See § 82. For if the Omnipotence of the Father is thereby constituted, that He hath a Son, then He might have been more Almighty had He begotten more Sons.

87. Then is His power exhausted in the begetting of One? Nay, but I will show that Christ also hath sons, whom He begets every day, but with that generation, or rather regeneration, which is related to personal authority rather than nature, for adoption is the exercise and bestowal of authority, and generation the manifestation of a property, as Scripture itself hath taught us: for John saith that “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power745    Or “authority.” to become sons of God, to them which believe in His Name.”746    S. John i. 10 ff.

88. We say, therefore, that it is the function and exercise of His Authority that He has made us sons of God, whereas the oracles of God discover that His generation is in relation to personal attribute, for the Wisdom of God saith: “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High,”747    Ecclus. xxiv. 5. that is to say not of compulsion, but free, not under bond of authority, but born in a hidden birth, according to personal powers of Supreme Sovereignty and rightfulness of authority. Again, concerning the same Wisdom, Which is the Lord Jesus, the Father saith in another place: “Out of the womb I begat Thee, before the morning star.”748    Ps. cx. 3.

89. Now this He said, not to make us think of a bodily womb,749    The word “womb” is used metaphorically in the original, from which St. Ambrose (though inaccurately) quotes. See Ps. cx. in the R.V. but to show that true generation is His proper activity,750    Or “to show the distinctive character of true” or “perfect generation”—as an absolute act, unconditioned of time or space. for if we understand the words as speaking of generation from a body, then [we imply] the Father Almighty conceived and brought forth in travail. But far be it from us that we should make this weak bodily frame the measure of God’s greatness. The word “womb” represents the hidden mystery, the inner sanctuary of the Father’s being, into which neither angels nor archangels nor powers nor dominations, nor any created nature, hath been able to enter. For the Son is always with the Father, and in the Father—with the Father, by virtue of the distinction, without division, proper to the Eternal Trinity;751    Ath. Creed 4. in the Father, by reason of the essential unity of the Divine Nature.

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

91. Why, ask they, is the Son not a Father? Because, on the other side, the Father is not a Son. Why has not Christ begotten? Even because the Father is not begotten. Yet the Son stands none the lower, because He is not a Father; nor the Father, because He is not a Son, for the Son said: “All things that the Father hath are Mine”752    S. John xvi. 15.—so truly is generation involved in the Father’s personal attributes, and comes not by mere right of sovereignty.

92. The Substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that which is distinct,753    sc. internally. an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance. We hold the distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality;754    i.e.without plurality of substance or essential nature. There is one Godhead of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost—not three Godheads. and thus we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits. For “there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.”755    1 Cor. viii. 6. There is One born of the Father, the Lord Jesus, and therefore He is the Only-begotten. “There is also One Holy Spirit,”756    1 Cor. xii. 11. as the same Apostle hath said. So we believe, so we read, so we hold. We know the fact of distinction, we know nothing of the hidden mysteries; we pry not into the causes, but keep the outward signs vouchsafed unto us.

93. O monstrous wickedness, that they who have no power over their own procreation should claim and usurp power to enquire into the Divine Generation! Let them deny, them, that the Son is equal to the Father, forasmuch as He hath not begotten; let them deny that the Son is equal to the Father, because He hath a Father! But if they talked after this fashion about men, who sometimes desire to beget sons, yet cannot, we should call it an insult, just as we should so call it, if of two men, one having sons and the other childless, the latter were said to be inferior to the former on that ground. So monstrous also, I say, does it seem, in regard simply to men, that one should therefore be esteemed the more lightly because he hath a father. Peradventure, indeed, the Arians suppose that Christ is in the position of one in a family, and frets because He is not set free and independent of His Father’s authority, and is not empowered to administer the estate. But Christ is not under tutelage; nay, rather has He abolished all tutelage.757    Cf. Gal. iii. 23 ff.

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

95. Our adversaries’ question, then, falls flat, because they cannot judge Christ—or rather, because He is clear, when He is judged.758    Ps. li. 4. They are worthy, however, to be condemned upon their own sentence, who raise this question against us, for if the Son be therefore not equal to the Father, because He hath not begotten a Son, then by all means let them who sow discussions of this kind759    Or “engage in discussions of this kind.” Lat.—serunt hujusmodi quæstiones. confess, if they have not children, that their very servants are to be preferred before themselves, inasmuch as they cannot be the equals of those who have children—whereas, if they have children, let them regard the merit thereof as due not to themselves, but of right to their sons.

96. The objection, then, holds not together, that the Son cannot be equal to the Father, by reason of the Father having begotten the Son, whilst the Son has begotten no Son of Himself, for the spring begets the stream, though the stream begets no spring out of itself, and light begets radiance, and not radiance light, yet the nature of radiance and light is one.760    Cf. Heb. i. 3, where Christ is called the Radiance of the Father’s Glory (ἀπαύγασμταῆς δόξης).

535 CAPUT VIII.

0632A

Haereticorum objectionem, qua Filium quod alium generare non possit, Patri negabant esse aequalem, primo in adversarios ipsos retorquet: deinde hominum ostendit exemplis quod quispiam generet aut secus, ad potentiam non pertinere; maxime cum alioqui ipsemet Pater minus potens dicendus esset. Inde colligit divina ex humanis non esse judicanda, sed standum Scripturae auctoritate. Postremo omnipotentiam vel Patri abjudicandam, vel adjudicandam Filio ubi demonstravit, ipsos si filios non genuerint, propriis servis qui sobolem procreaverint, minus potentes fore inducit, proindeque totam eorum disputationem ineptam esse.

[Alias cap. VI.] Illud ridiculum est, Imperator auguste, quod quidam hoc etiam ad inaequalitatem Dei Patris et Filii objiciendum usurpare consuerunt, 0632B quod dicant omnipotentem Patrem esse, quod generavit Filium: negent autem omnipotentem Filium, dicentes quia generare non potuit.

78. Sed vide quemadmodum saeva impietas; ut dialectica philosophorum se ipsa convincat. Hac enim quaestione aut coaeternum Patri Filium necesse est sua voce fateantur, aut si principium temporis Filio aliquod ascribunt, principium potentiae necesse est tribuant etiam Patri. Ita cum omnipotentem Filium negant, incipiunt, quod nefas dictu est, asserere per Filium Patrem omnipotentem esse coepisse.

79. Nam si per generationem omnipotens Pater, utique aut coaeternus Patri Filius est; quia si semper omnipotens Pater, sempiternus et Filius: aut si fuit, quando non erat Filius sempiternus; fuit ergo quando 0632C non erat omnipotens Pater. Nam cum volunt dicere Filium aliquando coepisse, in illud recidunt, ut et Patris potentiam dicant non semper fuisse, sed ex Filii generatione coepisse. Ita dum Filio Dei cupiunt derogare, plus tribuunt; ut contra fas omne auctorem paternae potentiae declarare videantur; cum Filius dicat: Omnia quae Pater habet, mea sunt (Joan. XVI, 15). hoc est, non quae Patri ipse tradiderit, sed quae a Patre jure generationis acceperit.

80. Et ideo Filium sempiternam dicimus esse virtutem: si ergo sempiterna ejus virtus atque divinitas, utique et potentia ejus est sempiterna. Filio igitur qui derogat, Patri derogat, pietatem offendit, violat charitatem. Nos honorificemus Filium, in quo Pater complacet; placet enim Patri ut laudetur Filius, 0632D in quo ipse complacuit.

81. Respondeamus tamen intentioni eorum, ne epilogo quodam invidiam quaestionis declinasse videamur. 0633A Generavit, inquiunt, Pater. 536 non generavit Filius. Quod hic argumentum est inaequalitatis? Generatio enim paternae proprietatis est, non potentiae: et pietas aequat, non separat. Denique in ipso usu nostrae infirmitatis frequenter evenire cognoscimus, ut et infirmi filios habeant, et non habeant fortiores: habeant servi, non habeant domini: habeant inopes, non habeant qui potentes sunt.

82. Sed si dicunt et hoc infirmitatis esse, quia volunt homines filios habere; nec possunt: quamvis humana non sint conferenda divinis, intelligant tamen inter ipsos quoque homines non potentiae esse, sed paternae proprietatis, habere filios, vel non habere: nec in potestate nostrae voluntatis esse generare, sed in corporis qualitate; nam si esset potentiae, 0633B utique potentior multos haberet. Ergo non est potentiae habere filios vel non habere.

83. Numquid naturae est? Si naturae infirmitatem putatis, et ad humana vos confertis exempla, eadem Patris est natura quae Filii est. Itaque aut verum Filium dicitis, et Patri in Filio derogatis per unitatem ejusdem naturae (sicut enim Pater natura Deus est, ita et Filius: deos autem ait Apostolus (I Cor. VIII, 5) non natura deos esse, sed dici); aut si negatis esse verum Filium, hoc est, ejusdem naturae, non est ergo generatus: si non est generatus Filius, non generavit Pater.

84. Colligitur itaque juxta sententiam vestram, ut non sit omnipotens Deus Pater; quia generare non potuit, si non generavit Filium, sed creavit. Sed 0633C quia omnipotens Pater, cum juxta sententiam vestram solus generator omnipotens sit, generavit utique Filium, non creavit. Verum ipsi magis quam vobis credendum est. Ille ait: Genui (Psal. CIX, 3); et frequenter ait, generationis suae testis.

85. Non est ergo naturae, non est potentiae in Christo aliqua, quia non generavit, infirmitas; quia generatio, sicut saepe jam diximus, non ad sublimitatem potentiae, sed ad proprietatem refertur naturae. Nam si ideo omnipotens Pater, quia Filium habet; omnipotentior ergo esse potuit, si plures haberet.

86. An vero potentia ejus in una generatione defecit? At ego ostendam et Christum habere filios, quos quotidie generat, sed ea generatione, vel potius regeneratione, quae potestatis est, non naturae; adoptio 0633D enim potestatis est, generatio proprietatis. Quod ipsa Scriptura nos docuit; dicit enim Joannes quia in hoc mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et 0634Amundus eum non cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit illis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine ejus (Joan. I, 10 et seq).

87. Didicimus itaque potestatis esse, quod 537 nos filios Dei fecit: proprietatis autem generationem esse oracula divina declarant; dicit enim Sapientia Dei: Ex ore Altissimi prodivi (Eccl. XXIV, 5), hoc est, non coacta, sed libera: non potestati obnoxia, sed nata generationis arcano, privilegio dominationis et jure potestatis. Denique de eadem Sapientia, hoc est, de Domino Jesu, alibi Pater dicit: Ex utero ante Luciferum genui te (Psal. CIX, 3).

88. Quod utique ideo dixit, non ut corporalem alvum declararet, sed ut proprietatem verae generationis 0634B ostenderet. Nam si ad corporalem referas, ergo omnipotens Pater cum dolore et conceptione generavit. Sed absit, ut Deum ex infirmitate corporis metiamur. Est quidam uterus paternae arcanum substantiae, interiusque secretum, quod non Angeli, non Archangeli, non Potestates, non Dominationes, non aliqua creaturarum potuit penetrare natura. Cum Patre enim semper, et in Patre semper est Filius: cum Patre per distinctionem indissociabilem Trinitatis aeternae, in Patre per divinae unitatem naturae.

89. Quis igitur hic arbiter divinitatis, qui discutiat Patrem ac Filium: ille, quare generaverit: iste, cur non generaverit? Servulum suum aut ancillulam cur non generaverit, nemo condemnat: isti condemnant, 0634C cur non generaverit Christus; condemnant enim sua opinione, cum derogant. Nec conjugibus inter se cur non generaverint, aut charitas minuitur, aut meritum derogatur: isti quia non generavit, Christi minuunt potestatem.

90. Cur, inquiunt, Filius Pater non est? Quia et Pater Filius non est. Cur non iste generavit? Quia nec ille generatus est. Nec ideo minus habet Filius, quia Pater non est: nec Pater minus habet, quia Filius non est. Dixit enim Filius: Omnia quae Pater habet, mea sunt (Joan. XVI, 15). Adeo generatio in paterna proprietate non in jure est potestatis.

91. Est quaedam indistincta distinctae incomprehensibilis et inenarrabilis substantia Trinitatis. Distinctionem etenim accepimus Patris et Filii et Spiritus 0634D sancti, non confusionem: distinctionem, non separationem: distinctionem, non pluralitatem. Divino itaque admirandoque mysterio manentem semper 0635A accipimus Patrem, semper Filium, semper Spiritum sanctum: non duos Patres, non duos Filios, non duos Spiritus. Unus enim Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus Jesus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor. VIII, 6). Unus natus ex Patre Dominus Jesus, et ideo unigenitus. Unus et Spiritus sanctus (I Cor. XII, 11), ut idem Apostolus dixit: Sic accipimus, sic legimus, sic tenemus. Distinctionem scimus, secreta nescimus: causas non discutimus, sacramenta servamus.

92. Facinus indignum, ut qui generationis suae facultatem non habent, divinae generationis examen sibi arrogent, vindicent potestatem: 538 Negent ergo aequalem Patri Filium, quia non generavit Filius: negent aequalem Patri Filium, quia Patrem 0635B habet. Hoc si de hominibus dicerent, quorum aliqui volunt filios habere, nec possunt, injuriam putaremus: sic etiamsi inter duos honore pares habenti filios qui non habet, negaretur aequalis. Et ideo hoc, inquam, grave et de ipsis hominibus videtur, ut quis ideo minor putetur, quod Patrem habet. Nisi forte tamquam constitutum in familia putant Christum dolere, quod emancipatus a Patre non sit, et administrandi patrimonii non habeat facultatem. Sed non est Christus in sacris, qui sacra universa destruxit.

93. Quomodo volunt tamen, respondeant, verane generatio sit, et verus Filius ex Deo Patre natus, hoc est, ex substantia Patris, an ex alia natus substantia? Si enim dicunt ex Patre, hoc est, ex Dei substantia, convenit; quia ex substantia Patris Filium 0635C dicunt. Ergo quia unius substantiae, unius utique potentiae. Si vero ex alia substantia Filius est, quomodo omnipotens Pater est, et omnipotens Filius non est? Quid enim praestantius si ex alia substantia Filium Deus fecit, cum utique et Filius ex alia nos substantia filios Dei fecerit? Ergo aut unius substantiae Filius cum Patre, aut unius potentiae.

94. Friget igitur eorum quaestio, quia de Christo judicare non possunt; immo quia vincit ille, cum judicatur. Digni tamen sunt isti judicio suo, qui hanc objiciunt quaestionem. Si enim ideo aequalis Patri Filius non est, quia non generavit Filium, et isti utique fateantur, si non habent filios, qui serunt hujusmodi quaestiones, suos sibi etiam servulos preferendos, eo quod habentibus filios aequales esse non 0635D possunt. Si autem habent filios, non putent sibi meritum, sed filiorum juri deferri.

95. Non consistit igitur haec quaestio, quia aequalis Filius Patri ideo esse non possit, quia Pater generaverit Filium, Filius nullum ex se ipse generaverit. Nam et fons fluvium generat, et fluvius fontem ex 0636A se ipse non generat: et lux splendorem generat, non splendor lucem; et una natura est splendoris et lucis.