Chapter X.

The objection that Christ, on the showing of St. John, lives because of the Father, and therefore is not to be regarded as equal with the Father, is met by the reply that for the Life of the Son, in respect of His Godhead, there has never been a time when it began; and that it is dependent upon none, whilst the passage in question must be understood as referring to His human life, as is shown by His speaking there of His body and blood. Two expositions of the passage are given, the one of which is shown to refer to Christ’s Manhood, whilst the second teaches His equality with the Father, as also His likeness with men. Rebuke is administered to the Arians for the insult which they are seeking to inflict upon the Son, and the sense in which the Son can be said to live “because of” the Father is explained, as also theunion of life with the divine Life. A further objection, based upon the Son’s prayer that He may be glorified by the Father, is briefly refuted.

118. There are not a few who raise this further objection, that it is written: “As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, liveth also by Me.”778    1 Pet. i. 21; Heb. i. 1, 2; Gal. iv. 4.    S. John vi. 58. “How,” ask they, “is the Son equal with the Father, when He has said that He lives by the Father?”

119. Let those who oppose us on this ground tell us first what the Life of the Son is. Is it a life bestowed by the Father upon one lacking life? But how could the Son ever fail to possess life, He Himself being the Life, as He says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”779    S. John viii. 58.    Isa. xiv. 6. Truly, His life is eternal, even as His power is eternal. Was there a time, then, when (so to speak) Life possessed not itself?

120. Bethink you what is read this day concerning the Lord Jesus, that “He died for our sakes, to the end that whether we wake or whether we sleep, we may live with Him.”780    Ps. cx. 3.    1 Thess. v. 10. He Whose Death is Life, is not His Godhead Life, seeing that the Godhead is Life eternal?

121. But is His Life truly in the Father’s power? Why, He showed that even His bodily life was not in the power of any other, as we have it on record: “I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and again I have power to take it. This commandment have I received of My Father.”781    Ps. xc. 2.    S. John x. 17 ff.

122. Is His divine Life then to be regarded as depending upon the power of another, when His bodily life was subject to no other power but His own? For it would have been the power of another, but for the Unity of power. But just as He gives us to understand that His laying down His life was done of His own power, and of His free Will, so also He teaches us, in laying it down in obedience to His Father’s command, the unity of His own with the Father’s Will.

123. If, then, there has neither been a time when the Life of the Son took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us consider what His meaning was when He said: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father”? Let us expound His meaning as best we can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.

124. Take notice, then, what He said in an earlier part of His discourse. “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” He first teaches thee how thou oughtest to listen. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you.”782    S. Mark ii. 28.    S. John vi. 54. He first premised that He was speaking as Son of Man; dost thou then think that what He hath said, as Son of Man, concerning His Flesh and His Blood, is to be applied to His Godhead?

125. Then He added: “For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].”783    Gal. iv. 4.    S. John vi. 56. Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death,784    S. John vi. 52. and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones.”785    S. Luke xxiv. 39. Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.”786    1 Cor. xi. 26. St. Ambrose’s term for “are transformed” is “transfigurantur.”

126. Then, after calling on us to take notice that He speaks as Son of Man, and frequent repeated mention of His Flesh and His Blood, He adds: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, he also liveth by Me.” How then do they suppose that we are to understand these words?—for the comparison can be shown as a double one. The first comparison being after the following manner: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, I live by the Father;” the second: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so also he that eateth Me, he too liveth by Me.”

127. If our adversaries choose the former, the meaning is this, that, “as I am sent by the Father and am come down from the Father, so (in accordance therewith) I live by the Father.” But in what character was He sent, and came down, save as Son of Man, even as He Himself said before: “No man hath ascended into heaven, save He that hath come down from heaven as Son of Man.”787    S. John iii. 13. Then, just as He was sent and came down as Son of Man, so as Son of Man He lives by the Father. Furthermore, he that eateth Him, as eating the Son of Man, doth himself also live by the Son of Man. Thus, He has compared the effect of His Incarnation to His coming.

128. But if they choose the second method, do we not infer both the equality of the Son with the Father, and His likeness to men, together, though in clear mutual distinction? For what is the meaning of the words, “Even as He Himself liveth by the Father, so we also live by Him,” but that the Son so quickeneth a man, as the Father hath in the Son quickened human nature?788    Or “flesh.” “For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will,”789    S. John v. 21. as the Lord Himself hath already said.

129. Thus the equality of the Son to the Father is established simply upon unity in the action of quickening, since the Son so quickeneth as the Father doth. Acknowledge therefore the eternity of His Life and Sovereignty. Again, our likeness with the Son is discovered, and a certain unity with Him in the flesh,790    Or “is discovered to be a certain unity, etc.” because that, like as the Son of God was quickened in the flesh791    i.e. in respect of His Body of flesh and blood. by the Father, so also is man quickened; for thus it is written, that as God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, so we also, as men, are quickened by the Son of God.792    Rom. iv. 24.

130. According to this interpretation, then, immortality is not only applied to our condition by grace of bounty, but is also proclaimed as the property of Godhead—the latter, because it is the Godhead which quickeneth; the former, because manhood is quickened in Christ.

131. But if any would apply the force of either comparison to Christ’s Godhead, then the Son of God is put on one footing with men, so that the Son of God lives by the Father just as we live by the Son of God. But the Son of God bestows eternal life by free gift, we cannot so do. If then He be placed on a level with us, He too does not bestow this gift. Let Arius’ disciples then have the due reward of their faith—which is, not to obtain eternal life of the Son.

132. I would now go further. If our opponents are pleased to apply the teaching of this passage to the principle of the eternity of the Divine Substance, let them hear a third exposition: Does not our Lord plainly appear to say that as the Father is a living Father, so too the Son also lives?—and who can but observe that here we must understand a reference to unity of Life, forasmuch as the same Life is the Life of the Father and the Life of the Son? “For as the Father hath Life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have Life in Himself.”793    S. John v. 26. He hath given—by reason of unity with Him. He hath given, not to take away, but that He may be glorified in the Son. He hath given, not that He, the Father, might keep guard over it, but that the Son might have it in possession.

133. But the Arians think that they must oppose hereto the fact that He had said, “I live by the Father.” Of a certainty (suppose that they conceive the words as referring to His Godhead) the Son lives by the Father, because He is the Son begotten of the Father,—by the Father, because He is of one Substance with the Father,—by the Father, because He is the Word given forth from the heart of the Father,794    Ps. xlv. 1. because He came forth from the Father, because He is begotten of the “bowels of the Father,”795    Ps. cx. 3. because the Father is the Fountain and Root of the Son’s being.

134. But peradventure they may urge: “If you hold that the Son, in saying, ‘And I live by the Father,’ spoke of the unity of life subsisting between the Father and the Son, does it not follow that He discovered the unity of life between the Son and mankind in saying that ‘he that eateth Me, the same liveth by Me’?”

135. Even so. Just as I confess the unity of celestial Life subsisting in Father and Son by reason of the unity of the substance of the Godhead, so too, save as concerns the prerogatives of the Divine Nature or those which are the effect of the Incarnation of our Lord, I affirm of the Son a participation of spiritual life with us by virtue of the unity of His Manhood with ours, for “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.”796    1 Cor. xv. 40. On this place H. observes: “As the Son, by reason of a nature numerically identical with the Father’s, lives together with Him the same Divine Life, so we by virtue of a manhood specifically the same as Christ’s have power to live the life which the Man Christ lives; which life indeed resides in its greatest fulness in Him as its Head and Fountain, and from His Person overflows into us, His members—yet not without a certain difference, for the comparison is incomplete, by reason, namely, of the reservation of prerogatives attaching to the Divine Nature or to the Lord’s Incarnation. The Godhead is numerically One, the Life of the Father and the Life of the Son is numerically one, but Christ’s Life and ours are not so. Moreover, this (Divine) Life subsistent in the Son is united to His Manhood in and by the unity of His Person, but is not communicated to us in so close an alliance, overflowing rather into us only by a certain participation.…But perhaps the sainted Doctor’s meaning here is that we live and abide in Christ by a corporal unity, because, Christ having Manhood specifically the same as ours, whatsoever is fittingly predicted of manhood as existing in Christ is applicable to all His fellow-men. The first construction, however, explains St. Ambrose’s analogy more fully.” Further, even as in Him we sit at the right hand of the Father, not in the sense that we share His throne, but that we rest in the Body of Christ—even as, I say, we have part in Christ’s session by reason of corporal unity, so too we live in Christ by reason of unity of our bodies with His Body.

136. Not only, then, have I no fears of the text, “I live by the Father,” but I should have none, even though Christ had said, “I live by help of the Father.”797    St. Ambrose quotes the words from St. John vi. 58, thus: “propter Patrem.” This seeming expression of dependence, he says, does not in the least disturb his belief in the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father; which belief would indeed remain unshaken even though Christ’s words had been still more expressive, to all appearance, of dependence and inferiority.

137. Now another objection commonly urged by them starts from the text: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, to the end that His Son may be glorified by Him.”798    S. John xi. 4. But not only is the Son glorified through the Father and by the Father, as it is written: “Glorify Me, Father;”799    S. John xvii. 5. and again: “Now hath the Son of Man been glorified, and God hath been glorified in Him, and God glorifieth Him,”800    S. John xiii. 31, 32. but the Father also is glorified through the Son and by the Son, for Truth hath said: “I have glorified Thee upon earth.”801    S. John xvii. 4.

138. Even as the Son, therefore, is glorified through the Father, so too He lives by the Father. There are some who have been led by consideration of these words to the supposition that [the Greek] “δόξα” means “opinion, belief,” rather than “glory,” and therefore have interpreted as follows: “I have given thee a δόξα upon earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do, and now, O Father, give me a δόξα;” that is to say: “I have taught men so to believe concerning Thee, as to know that Thou art the true God; do Thou also establish in them, concerning Me, the belief that I am Thy Son, and very God.”

CAPUT X.

Objicientibus Christum, Joanne teste, vivere propter Patrem, ac proinde ipsi aequalem non habendum, respondetur Filii vitam secundum divinitatem nec coepisse ex tempore, nec pendere ab aliquo: locum vero de humana ipsius vita intelligendum ex eo probari, 0640Aquod ibidem de corpore ac sanguine suo praemiserat. Tum duarum controversi loci expositionum primam referri ad humanitatem, et secunda Filii cum Patre aequalitatem, nec non cum homine similitudinem signari docet. Deinde perstricta quam Filio inurebant, injuria, quo pacto etiam secundum divinitatem propter Patrem vivat, aperit. Ac tandem exposito quae vitae nostrae cum divina unitas sit, aliam objectionem, qua Filius per Patrem clarificari opponitur, paucis absolvit.

117. [Alias cap. V.] Plerique etiam hinc faciunt quaestionem, quia scriptum est: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem: et qui manducat me, et ipse vivit propter me; dicentes: Quomodo aequalis est Patri Filius, qui dixit quia propter Patrem 0640B vivit?

118. Qui hoc proponunt, primum respondeant, cujusmodi vita sit Filii, utrum ea quam Pater largitus sit non habenti? Sed quomodo vitam aliquando potuit non habere, cum ipse sit vita, sicut ait: Ego sum via, veritas et vita (Luc. XIV, 6)? Vita utique sempiterna, sicut virtus est sempiterna (Rom. I, 20). Aliquando ergo, ut sic loquar, se vita non habuit?

119. Considerate quid lectum sit hodie de 543 Domino Jesu, quia mortuus est pro nobis; ut sive vigilemus, sive dormiamus, simul cum illo vivamus (I Thess. V, 10). Cujus mors vita est, hujus divinitas vita non est; cum divinitas vita sit sempiterna?

120. An vero vita ejus in Patris est potestate? Sed ne corporis quidem sui vitam in alterius fuisse potestate 0640C memoravit, sicut scriptum est: Ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam illam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a me ipso. Potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et iterum potestatem habeo sumendi eam: hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo (Joan. X, 17 et seq.).

121. Ejus ergo vita secundum divinitatem in alterius potestate posita judicatur, cujus vita secundum corpus alienae non erat subdita potestati? Aliena enim potestas erat, si non erat unitas potestatis. Sed sicut potestatis suae esse significat ponere animam, et liberae voluntatis: ita etiam quod secundum mandatum deposuit Patris, suae ac paternae voluntatis significat unitatem.

122. Ergo si vitam Filius neque aliquo accepit ex 0640D tempore, neque alienae habet potestati subditam, videamus qua ratione dixerit: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem (Joan. VI, 58). Exponamus ut possumus: imo ipse potius exponat.

123. Considera igitur quid ante praemiserit; ais enim: Amen, amen dico vobis. Ante instruit quemadmodum audire debeas: Vere, inquit, vere dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii homini, et biberitis 0641Asanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. VI, 54). Secundum Filium hominis se dicere ante praemisit, et tu quod secundum Filium hominis de carne est locutus et sanguine, ad divinitatem putas esse referendum?

124. Denique addidit: Caro enim mea vere est esca, et sanguis meus est potus (Ibid., 56). Carnem audis, sanguinem audis, mortis Dominicae sacramenta cognoscis; et divinitati calumniaris? Audi dicentem ipsum: Quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet (Luc. XXIV, 39). Nos autem quotiescumque sacramenta sumimus, quae per sacrae orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur et sanguinem, mortem Domini annuntiamus (I Cor. XI, 26).

125. Ergo posteaquam se loqui secundum hominis Filium declaravit, et carnem saepe repetivit et 0641B sanguinem, subdidit postea: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem; et qui manducat me, et ipse vivit propter me (Joan. VI, 58). Quomodo igitur hoc accipiendum putant? Potest enim duplex videri comparatio. Prima ita: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem. 544 Secunda ita: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem; ita et qui manducat me, ipse vivit propter me.

126. Si primam eligunt, hoc significat quia sicut missus sum a Patre, et descendi a Patre, ita vivo propter Patrem. Quasi quis autem missus est, atque descendit; nisi quasi Filius hominis sicut ipse supra dixit: Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui de coelo descendit Filius hominis (Joan. III, 13)? Ergo sicut quasi Filius hominis missus est, atque descendit; 0641C ita quasi Filius hominis vivit propter Patrem. Denique et qui manducat quasi filium hominis, et ipse vivit propter Filium hominis. Actum ergo incarnationis suae adventui comparavit.

127. Quod si secunda complacuit, nonne et aequalitatem Filii cum Patre, et similitudinem ejus cum homine manifesta distinctione colligimus? Nam quid est: Sicut ipse vivit propter Patrem, et nos vivimus propter ipsum; nisi quia sic vivificat Filius hominem, sicut Pater in Filio carnem vivificavit humanam? Sicut enim Pater suscitat mortuos, et vivificat; 0642Asic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat, ut ipse Dominus supra dixit (Joan. V, 21).

128. Aequalitas ergo filii ad Patrem per unitatem quoque vivificationis astruitur; quando sic vivificat Filius ut Pater. Agnosce ergo ejus vitam et potentiam sempiternam. Similitudo etiam nostra ad filium, et quaedam secundum carnem unitas declaratur; quoniam quemadmodum Dei Filius a Patre, sic homo est vivificatus in carne. Sic enim scriptum est (Rom. IV, 24), quia sicut Deus Jesum Christum a mortuis suscitavit, ita etiam nos quasi homines vivificamur a Dei Filio.

129. Secundum hanc ergo expositionem non solum ad conditionem humanam derivatur gratia largitatis, sed etiam divinitatis aeternitas praedicatur; divinitatis, quia ipsa vivificat: humanae autem conditionis, 0642B quia vivificata est et in Christo.

130. Quod si quis utrumque ad Christi refert divinitatem: ergo Filius Dei hominibus comparatur; ut ita Filius propter Patrem vivat, sicut nos propter Filium Dei vivimus. Sed Filius Dei vitam largitur aeternam, nos autem largiri nequimus; ergo nostri comparatione nec ille largitur. Habeant igitur Ariani fidei suae praemium, ne vitam aeternam adipiscantur a Filio.

131. Libet jam ulterius progredi; nam si illis placet hunc locum ad divinae perpetuitatem referre substantiae, accipiant etiam tertiam expositionem. 545 Nonne evidenter videtur dicere quod sicut vivus Pater est, ita vivit et Filius? Quod utique quis non advertat ad unitatem vitae, quod eadem Patris et Filii vita sit, esse referendum? Sicut enim Pater 0642Cvitam habet in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso (Joan. V, 26). Dedit per unitatem: dedit, non ut auferat, sed ut clarificetur in Filio: dedit, ut complaceat: dedit non ut Pater custodiret, sed ut Filius possideret.

132. Sed objiciendum putant quia dixerat: Ego vivo propter Patrem (Joan. VI, 58). Utique si ad divinitatem referunt, propter Patrem vivit Filius; quia ex Patre Filius est: propter Patrem; quia unius substantiae cum Patre: propter Patrem; quia eructatum est Verbum ex Patris corde (Psal. XLIV, 1), 0643A quia a Patre processit, quia ex paterno generatus est utero (Psal. CIX, 3), quia fons Pater Filii est, quia radix Pater Filii est.

133. Sed dicunt fortasse: Si unitatem putas Patris ac Filii vitae esse, cum Filius dixerit: Et ego vivo propter Patrem (Joan. VI, 58), numquid unitas est Filii vitae atque hominum: cum dixerit Filius quia Qui manducat me, et ipse vivit propter me?

134. Immo plane, sicut unitatem fateor esse vitae coelestis in Patre et Filio per divinae unitatem substantiae, ita vel divinae naturae vel Dominicae incarnationis excepto privilegium, societatem nobiscum vitae spiritalis in Filio esse profiteor per humanae unitatem naturae: Qualis enim coelestis tales et coelestes (I Cor. XV, 18). Denique sicut in illo sedemus 0643B ad dextram Patris, non quia cum ipso sedemus, sed quia sedemus in Christi corpore, de quo postea dicemus plenius (Infr. lib. V): sicut, inquam, sedemus in Christo per corporis unitatem: ita et in Christo vivimus per corporis unitatem.

135. Non solum autem non vereor quia scriptum est: Et ego vivo propter Patrem; sed etiam si per Patrem dixisset, non vererer.

136. [Alias cap. VI.] Solent enim etiam illud objicere quia dixit: Haec infirmitas non est ad mortem,sed pro claritate Dei; ut clarificetur Filius ejus per ipsum (Joan XI, 4). Non solum enim per Patrem, et a Patre Filius clarificatur, quia scriptum est: Clarifica me, Pater (Joan. XVII, 5); et alibi: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in 0643Ceo, et Deus clarificavit eum (Joan. XIII, 31, 32): sed etiam per Filium et a Filio clarificatur Pater, quia veritas dixit: Ego te clarificavi super terram (Joan. XVII, 4).

137. Sicut ergo clarificatur per Patrem, ita etiam propter Patrem vivit. Unde et quidam δόξαν opinionem magis putaverunt esse, quam gloriam; et ideo sic interpretati sunt: Ego te clarificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi; et nunc clarifica me, Pater, hoc est, δόξασον, ut sit hic sensus: Ego opinionem de te hominibus hujusmodi infudi, ut cognoscant te Deum verum; et tu hanc de me confirma illis opinionem, ut credant me tuum Filium et Deum verum.