Chapter XI.

The particular distinction which the Arians endeavoured to prove upon the Apostle’s teaching that all things are “of” the Father and “through” the Son, is overthrown, it being shown that in the passage cited the same Omnipotence is ascribed both to Father and to Son, as is proved from various texts, especially from the words of St. Paul himself, in which heretics foolishly find a reference to the Father only, though indeed there is no diminution or inferiority of the Son’s sovereignty proved, even by such a reference. Finally, the three phrases, “of Whom,” “through Whom,” “in Whom,” are shown to suppose or imply no difference (of power), and each and all to hold true of the Three Persons.

139. Now we come to that laughable method, attempted by some, of showing a difference of Power to subsist between Father and Son, on the strength of apostolic testimony, it being written: “But for us there is One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.”802    1 Cor. viii. 6. It is urged that no small difference in degree of Divine Majesty is signified in the affirmation that all things are “of” the Father, and “through” the Son. Whereas nothing is clearer than that here a plain reason is given of the Omnipotence of the Son, inasmuch as whilst all things are “of” the Father, none the less are they all “through” the Son.803    Cf. Bk. I. iii. 26.

140. The Father is not “amongst” all things, for to Him it is confessed that “all things serve Thee.”804    Ps. cxix. 91. Nor is the Son reckoned “amongst” all things, for “all things were made by Him,”805    S. John i. 3. and “all things exist together806    Or “consist;” Lat.—constant; Greek—τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῳ συνέστηκεν. in Him, and He is above all the heavens.”807    Col. i. 17. The Son, therefore, exists not “amongst” but above all things, being, indeed, after the flesh, of the people,808    Lat.—familia. Cf. the expression “house of Israel.”—Ps. cxv. 9. of the Jews, but yet at the same time God over all, blessed for ever,809    Rom. ix. 5; cf. i. 3. having a Name which is above every name,810    Phil. ii. 9. it being said of Him, “Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet.”811    Ps. viii. 6. But in making all things subject to Him, He left nothing that is not subject, even as the Apostle hath said.812    Heb. ii. 8. But suppose that the Apostle’s words were intended with reference to the Incarnate Lord; how then can we doubt the incomparable majesty of His Divine Generation?

141. Certain it is, then, that between Father and Son there can be no difference of Power. Nay, so far is such difference from being present, that the same Apostle has said that all things are “of” Him, by Whom are all things, as followeth: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”813    Rom. xi. 36.

142. Now if, as they suppose, it is the Father alone Who is spoken of, it cannot be that He is at once Omnipotent because all things are of Him, and not Omnipotent because all things are through Him.814    “You think, perhaps,” St. Ambrose might have said to his Arian opponents, “that this text speaks of God the Father only, as it begins with ‘of Him.’ Very good. But whilst, in dealing with 1 Cor. viii. 6, you acknowledge that the Father is Omnipotent because ‘all things are of Him,’ you deny that the Son is Omnipotent, on the strength of the statement that all things are ‘through’ Him. Now here (Rom. xi. 36) we find that all things are said to be ‘through’ as well as ‘of’ One and the same Person—the Father. On your own showing, then, you must conclude that the Father is both Omnipotent (all things being ‘of’ Him) and not Omnipotent (all things being only ‘through’ Him) at the same time and in the same respect. Which is absurd and impossible. Clearly, then, the inference you want to draw from the difference of the expressions ‘of Him’ and ‘by Him’ will not stand, if you make Rom. xi. 36 a declaration regarding the Father only. But if you make it a declaration concerning the Son, or even including the Son in its reference, you upset your own position.” On their own showing, then, they will declare the Father lacking in Power, and not Omnipotent, or at the least they will be confessing with their own mouth, all against their will though it be, the Omnipotence of the Son as well as of the Father.

143. Howbeit, let them decide whether they will understand this affirmation as made concerning the Father. If they do so decide then all things are “through” Him also. If they decide that it is the Son Who is spoken of, then all things are “of” Him as well as “of” the Father. But if all things are “through” the Father also, then surely there is no argument for diminishing from the honour due to the Son; and if all things are “of” the Son, the Son must be honoured in like manner as the Father is.

144. In case our opponents should suspect that we are taking advantage of some intrusion of a single spurious verse into the text, let us review the whole passage. “O depth of the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge!” exclaims the Apostle, “how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath been first to give unto Him, and shall be recompensed? For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things. To Him be glory for ever!”815    Rom. xi. 33–36. St. Ambrose’s quotation of the passage in extenso shows us how texts ought to be used in argument—namely, not rent from their context, not as unrelated apophthegms.

145. Who, then, think they, is here spoken of—the Father or the Son? If it be the Father—then we answer that the Father is not the Wisdom of God, for the Son is. But what is there that is impossible to Wisdom, of Whom it is written: “Seeing that she is almighty and abiding, she maketh all things new in herself”?816    Wisd. vii. 27. We read of Wisdom, then, not as approaching, but as abiding.817    “Approaching”—Lat. accedentem. An “accidentem” potius sit legendum?—ut Sapientia non sit accidens, sed proprium, Substantiæ Divinæ. Thus have you the authority of Solomon to teach you of the Omnipotence and Eternity of Wisdom, and of her Goodness as well, for it is written: “But malice overcometh not Wisdom.”818    Wisd. vii. 30.

146. But to purpose. “How unsearchable,” saith the Apostle, “are His judgments!” Now if “the Father hath given all judgment to the Son,”819    S. John v. 22. it seems that the Father820    Potest hic manus incuriose transcribentis deprehendi, cum “Pauli” pro “Patris” nomen potius legendum esse videatur. Nec tamen prohibemur quin sic verba intelligamus, ut Pater Ipse in hoc Epistolæ Romanæ loco, per calamum Apostoli sit locutus. points to the Son as Judge.

147. But now, to show us that He is speaking of the Son, not of the Father, St. Paul proceeds: “Who was first in giving to Him?” For “the Father hath given to the Son,” but it was as acknowledging the rights of Him Whom He has begotten, not by way of largess. Therefore, it being undeniable that the Son has received at the hands of the Father, as it is written, “All things have been given unto Me of My Father,”821    S. Matt. xi. 27. yet, in saying, “Who was first in giving to Him?” the Apostle has not denied that the Son has received gifts of the Father, by virtue of His Nature, but he has indeed shown that, of Father and Son, Neither can be said to be before the Other, forasmuch as, albeit the Father has given gifts unto the Son, yet He has not so bestowed them as upon one that began to be after Him; because the uncreate and incomprehensible Trinity, Which is of One Eternity and Glory, admits neither difference of time nor degree of precedence.

148. If, however, we hold ourselves more bound to observe those Greek manuscripts which show “τίς προσέδωχεν αὐτῳ;” it is clear that He to Whom nothing can be added is not unequal to Him Who is perfect and complete. Therefore, if this passage from the Apostle, in its entirety, is better understood with reference to the Son, we see that we must also believe concerning the Son, that all things are of Him, even as it is written: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”

149. Be it so, nevertheless, that they suppose the passage to be intended of the Father, then let us call to mind that even as we read of all things being of Him, so too we read of all things being through Him, that is to say, the authority of the Father and of the Son is extended over the whole created universe. And, though we have already proved the Omnipotence of the Son by the Omnipotence of the Father,822    See § 140, and comparison of Ps. cxix. 91, with St. John i. 3; Col. i. 17, and Ps. viii. 8, with Heb. ii. 8. still—forasmuch as they are ever bent upon disparagement—let them consider that they disparage the Father as well as the Son. For if the Son be limited in might, because all things are through Him, do we say further, that the Father likewise is limited, because all things are through Him also?

150. But to bring them to understand that these phrases involve no difference, I will once again show that it is the same person, “of” whom anything is, and “through” whom anything is, and that we read of things being related in both these ways to the Father. For we find: “Faithful is God, through Whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son.”823    Or “into fellowship with His Son.” “Fellowship” in the orig. is communio (κοινωνία). 1 Cor. i. 9. Let our adversaries weigh the meaning of the Apostle’s words. We are called “through” the Father—they raise no controversy: we are created “through” the Son—and this they have set down as a mark of inferiority.824    Or “as an inferior work.” The Father has called us into fellowship with His Son, and this truth we, as in duty bound, devoutly receive. The Son has created all things, and Arius’ followers imagine that here they have not the decree of a free Will, but a forced service, slavishly performed!

151. Again, to obtain fuller understanding that, forasmuch as we are called through the Father into fellowship with His Son, there is no difference of Power in the Father and the Son, [note that] the fellowship itself has its beginning of the Son, as it is written: “For from His fulness have we all received,” though, if we follow the Greek text of the Gospel, we ought to render “of His fulness.”825    S. John i. 16.

152. See, then, how there is fellowship both through the Father and of the Son, and yet not a different fellowship, but one and the same. “And that our fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.”826    1 John i. 3.

153. Observe, further, that Scripture speaks of our having one fellowship not only “of” the Father and the Son, but also “of” the Holy Spirit. “The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” saith the Apostle, “and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”827    2 Cor. xiii. 13. “Fellowship” in the Latin of St. Ambrose is (in this citation and that of 1 John i. 3, in § 152) communicatio; Greek κοινωνία.

154. Now, I ask, wherein does He, through Whom are all things, appear less than He, of Whom are all things? Is it because He is declared to be the Worker? But the Father also works, for He is true who said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”828    S. John v. 17. Therefore, even as the Father worketh, so worketh the Son also; and so He Who worketh is not limitary in power nor abject, for the Father also worketh; which being so, that which is common to the Son with the Father, or even which the Son has by the Father, ought not to be the less esteemed, lest heretics further dishonour the Father in the Person of the Son.

155. Not to be passed over for silencing the disputings of Arian misbelief are those words of the same Saint John, which he set down in another Scripture: “If ye know that He is just, know that he which doeth righteousness is born of Him.”829    1 John ii. 29. But who is righteous, save the Lord, Who loveth righteousness?830    Ps. xi. 8. Or whom—as the foregoing texts warn us—have we to assure us of everlasting life, if we have not the Son? If, therefore, the Son of God hath promised us everlasting life, and He is righteous, surely we are born “of” Him. Else, if our adversaries deny that we are born of the Son by grace, they likewise deny His righteousness.

156. Thou must therefore believe that all things are of the Son of God [even as of God the Father, for even as God is the Father of all, so likewise is the Son the Author and Creator of all. We see, then, the vanity of this their questioning, forasmuch as it holds good of the Son [as of the Father], that “of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”

157. We have shown how all things are “of” Him, and likewise how all things are also “through” Him. Who then doubts that all things are “in” Him, when another Scripture saith: “For in Him are all things founded, that are in the heavens, and in Him they were created, and He is before all things, and all things consist in Him”? (Col. i. 16). Of Him, then, thou hast grace; Himself thou hast for thy Creator; in Him thou findest the foundation of all things.

546 CAPUT XI.

0643DDiscrimen quod conflare Ariani moliebantur e verbis Apostoli ex Patre omnia, et per Filium omnia esse docentis, irridetur. Ostenditur enim illic eamdem Patris ac Filii omnipotentiam exprimi: quod cum ex aliis locis, tum ex ipsius Pauli textu confirmatur. Hunc absurde ad Patrem referri ab haereticis, ac pertinere ad Filium ex ejusdem serie demonstrari: nec tamen quidquam Filii derogari potentiae, si de 0644APatre intelligatur. Postremo in istis, ex quo, per quem, et in quo aliquid, nullam intercedere differentiam, et haec omnia de tribus personis dici, evincit.

138. Jam illud ridiculum est, quod quidam ex illo Apostolico discretionem inter Patrem et Filium faciunt potestatis, quia scriptum est: Nobis tamen unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor. VIII, 6). Aiunt enim non mediocrem divinae majestatis esse distantiam, quia dictum est: Ex illo omnia, et per hunc omnia. Nihil autem expressius, quam quod hoc loco omnipotens Filius evidenti ratione signatur; nam ut ex illo omnia, ita per hunc omnia.

139. Inter omnia Pater non est, cui dictum est: 0644BQuia universa serviunt tibi (Psal. CXVIII, 91). Inter omnia Filius non est, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt (Joan. I, 3), et omnia in ipso constant, et ipse est super omnes coelos (Coloss. I, 17). Non ergo inter omnia Filius, sed super omnia: qui secundum carnem quidem est ex familia Judaeorum; idem tamen super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula (Rom. IX, 5), cujus est nomen super omne nomen, et de quo dicitur: Omnia subjecisti sub pedibus ejus (Psal. VIII, 8). Subjiciendo autem omnia, nihil reliquit ei non subjectum, sicut Apostolus dixit (Hebr. II, 8). Quod si hoc etiam secundum incarnationis locutus est sacramentum, quemadmodum possumus de supernae generationis incomparabili majestate dubitare?

140. Nihil igitur potestatis inter Patrem et Filium 0644C certum est interesse. Denique eo usque nihil interest potestatis, ut idem Apostolus ex ipso dixerit esse omnia, per quem omnia sicut habes: Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia (Rom. XI, 33).

141. Si igitur Pater, sicut putant, tantummodo significatur, non potest idem et omnipotens esse, quia ex ipso omnia: et omnipotens non esse, quia per ipsum omnia. Aut igitur invalidum, nec omnipotentem Patrem sua assertione memorabunt, aut certe omnipotentem etiam Filium vel inviti voce propria fatebuntur.

142. Eligant tamen utrum hic Patrem declaratum putent. Si Patrem, ergo et per ipsum omnia: si Filium, ergo et ex ipso omnia. Si autem et per Patrem omnia, nihil utique Filio derogandum: et si ex 0644D Filio omnia, similiter et Filio deferendum.

143. Ac ne insidiari nos unius arbitrentur obreptione versiculi, totum caput recenseamus: O altitudo, inquit, divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae 547 Dei: quam inscrutabilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini? aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit? aut quis prior dedit illi, et retribuetur ei? Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in 0645Aipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula (Ibid., 33 et seq.)

144. De quo igitur dictum putant, de Patre, an de Filio? Si de Patre: sed non est Sapientia Dei Pater; quia Sapientia Dei Filius est. Quid est autem quod non possit Sapientia, de qua scriptum est: Cum sit una omnipotens et permanens, in se omnia innovat (Sap. VII, 27)? Non ergo accedentem legimus, sed permanentem. Habes ergo juxta Salomonem, omnipotentem et permanentem Sapientiam. Habes etiam bonam, quia scriptum est: Sapientiam autem non vincit malitia (Ibid., 30).

145. Sed ad propositum revertamur. Quam inscrutabilia sunt, inquit, judicia ejus! Si igitur omne judicium Pater dedit Filio, Filium Pater videtur declarare, qui judicat (Joan. V, 22).

0645B 146. Denique ut scias quia non de Patre, sed de Filio dicit, addidit: Quis prior, inquit, dedit illi? Dedit enim Pater Filio: sed dedit jure generationis, non munere largitatis. Et ideo quia negari non potest a Patre accepisse Filium, secundum quod scriptum est: Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo (Matth. XI, 27): dicendo tamen: Quis prior dedit illi? non accepisse per naturam a Patre Filium denegavit, sed priorem non posse dici inter Patrem et Filium declaravit; quia etsi Pater dedit Filio, non tamen quasi posteriori dedit: quia increata et inaestimabilis Trinitas, quae unius est aeternitatis et gloriae, nec tempus, nec gradum, vel posterioris recipit, vel prioris.

147. Quod si Graecos magis codices sequendos 0645C putamus, qui habent τὶς προσέδωκεν αὐτῷ vides quoniam cui nihil addi potest, non dispar a pleno est. Ergo si Filio magis convenit hoc totum Apostolicum caput, videmus et de Filio esse credendum, quia ex ipso omnia, sicut scriptum est: Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia.

148. Esto tamen de Patre dictum putent. Itaque meminerimus quia sicut ex ipso legimus omnia, ita etiam per ipsum omnia: in universitatem quippe totius creaturae Patris et Filii profertur auctoritas. Ac licet superius omnipotentem Filium paterno probaverimus exemplo, tamen quia illis derogare studium est, considerent quia et Patri derogant. Si enim infirmus Filius, quia per ipsum omnia, numquid infirmus et Pater, quia et per Patrem omnia?

0645D 149. Sed ut agnoscant nullam discretionem inter haec esse, iterum demonstrabo ejusdem esse, ex quo aliquid, et per quem aliquid; et ostendam utrumque de Patre lectum. Sic enim habemus: Fidelis Deus per quem vocati estis in communionem Filii ejus (I Cor. 0646A I, 9). Quid Apostolus dixerit, considerent. Per Patrem vocamur, et nihil est quaestionis: 548 per Filium creamur, et hoc vilius aestimarunt? Pater in communionem Filii vocavit, et religiose hoc sicut debemus, accipimus: Filius omnia creavit, et putant non liberae fuisse voluntatis arbitrium, sed coactae atque servilis operationis obsequium?

150. Ut autem agnoscas plenius nihil distare inter Patris et Filii potestatem, cum per Patrem in communionem Filii ejus vocemur; ex Filio est ipsa communio, sicut scriptum est: Quoniam de plenitudine ejus nos omnes accepimus (Joan. I, 16); licet secundum Graecum Evangelium, ex plenitudine ejus intelligere debeamus.

151. Ecce et per Patrem communio, et ex Filio 0646B communio: sed non discrepans, sed una communio; sicut idem Joannes in epistola sua dixit: Et communicatio nostra sit cum Patre, et cum Filio ejus Jesu Christo (I Joan. I, 3).

152. Accipe etiam quia non solum ex Patre et Filio, sed etiam ex Spiritu sancto unam nobis communionem Scriptura commemoravit: Gratia, inquit, Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et charitas Dei, et communicatio sancti Spiritus cum omnibus vobis (II Cor. XXIII, 13).

153. Quaero autem in quo minor videatur is per quem omnia, quam is ex quo omnia? An quia operator asseritur? Sed operatur et Pater; quia verus est, qui dixit: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor (Joan. V, 17). Sicut igitur Pater operatur, operatur et Filius. Non ergo operator infirmus 0646C aut vilis est; quoniam operatur et Pater: et ideo quod commune est Filio cum Patre, vel propter Patrem inferiore loco accipi non oportet; ne Patri potius in Filio ab haereticis derogetur.

154. Nec mediocre illud, quod alibi etiam idem sanctus Joannes ad refellendas Arianae perfidiae quaestiones, ait: Si scitis quoniam justus est, scitote quoniamqui facit justitiam, ex ipso natus est (Joan. II, 29). Justus autem quis nisi Dominus, qui justitias dilexit (Psal. X, 8)? Aut quem, sicut superiora indicant, repromissorem vitae habemus aeternae, si Filium non habemus? Si igitur Filius Dei vitam nobis promisit aeternam, et ipse justus est, ex ipso utique nati sumus. Aut si ex Filio nos per gratiam natos negant, nec justum Filium confitentur.

0646D 155. Credas igitur necesse est etiam ex Dei Filio omnia; quia omnium sicut Deus Pater, ita et Filius et auctor est et creator. Videmus ergo inanem esse hanc quaestionem, cum et de Filio credi conveniat, quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia.

0647A 156. Diximus quomodo ex ipso, quomodo etiam per ipsum. In ipso autem omnia esse quis dubitet, cum alibi scriptum sit: Quoniam in ipso condita sunt omnia in coelis, et in ipso creata sunt: et ipse est ante omnes, et omnia in ipso constant (Coloss. I, 16)? Habes ergo ex ipso gratiam, ipsum operatorem, in ipso omnium firmamentum.