Chapter I.

How impious the Arians are, in attacking that on which human happiness depends. John ever unites the Son with the Father, especially where he says: “That they may know Thee, the only true God, etc.” In that place, then, we must understand the words “true God” also of the Son; for it cannot be denied that He is God, and it cannot be said He is a false god, and least of all that He is God by appellation only. This last point being proved from the Apostle’s words, we rightly confess that Christ is true God.

16. Wherefore let the Arians observe, how impious they are in calling in question our hope and the object of our desires. And since they are wont to cry out on this point above all others, saying that Christ is distinct from the only and true God, let us confute their impious ideas so far as lies in our power.

17. For on this point they ought rather to understand, that this is the benefit, this the reward of perfect virtue, namely, this divine and incomparable gift, that we may know Christ together with the Father, and not separate the Son from the Father; as also the Scriptures do not separate them. For the following tells rather for the unity than for the diversity of the Divine Majesty, namely, that the knowledge of the Father and of the Son gives us the same recompense, and one and the same honour; which reward no man will have but he that has known both the Father and the Son. For as the knowledge of the Father procures eternal life, so also does the knowledge of the Son.

18. Therefore as the Evangelist forthwith at the outset joined the Word with God the Father in his devout confession of faith, saying: “And the Word was with God;”873    1 Cor. xi. 3.    S. John i. 1. and here too, in writing the words of the Lord: “That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent,”874    “After” somewhat as in “Neither reward us after our iniquities”—i.e. (1) according to, and so (2) “by virtue of.” Here the second stage of the metaphorical usage seems to be arrived at.    S. John xvii. 3. he has undoubtedly, by thus connecting Them, bound together the Father and the Son, so that no one may separate Christ as true God from the majesty of the Father, for union does not dissever.

19. Therefore in saying, “That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent,” he put an end to the Sabellians, and has also put the Jews out of court,—those at any rate who heard him speak; so that the former might not suppose the Same to be the Father as the Son, which they might have done if he had not added also Christ, and that the latter might not sever the Son from the Father.

20. But, I ask, why do they not think we ought to gather and understand this from what has been already said; that as he has declared the Father to be only, true God, so we may understand Jesus Christ also to be only, true God? For it could not be expressed in any other way, for fear he might seem to be speaking of two Gods. For neither do we speak of two Gods; and yet we confess the Son to be of the same Godhead with the Father.

21. May we ask, therefore, on what grounds they think a distinction is made in the Godhead, and whether they deny Christ to be God? But they cannot deny it. Do they deny Him to be true God? But if they deny Him to be true God, let them say whether they declare Him to be a false God, or God by appellation only. For according to the Scriptures the word “God” is used either of the true God, or by appellation only, or of a false god. True God as the Father; God by appellation as the saints; a false god like the demons and idols. Let them say then how they will acknowledge and describe the Son of God. Do they suppose the name of God to have been falsely assumed; or was there in truth merely an indwelling of God within Him, as it were by appellation only?

22. I do not think they can say the name was falsely assumed, and so involve themselves in the open wickedness of blasphemy; lest they should betray themselves on the one hand to the demons and idols, and on the other to Christ, by insinuating that the name of God was falsely given to Him. But if they think He is called God because He had an indwelling of the Godhead within Him,—as many holy men were (for the Scripture calls them Gods to whom the word of God came),875    Referring to Christ’s sinlessness.    S. John x. 35.—they do not place Him before other men, but think He is to be compared with them; so that they consider Him to be the same as He has granted other men to be, even as He says to Moses: “I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh.”876    Eph. v. 23.    Ex. vii. 1. Wherefore it is also said in the Psalms: “I have said, ye are gods.”877    Eph. v. 25.    Ps. lxxxii. 6.

23. This idea of these blasphemers Paul puts aside; for he said: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”878    S. John xvii. 11.    1 Cor. viii. 5. He said not: “There be gods,” but “There be that are called gods.” But “Christ,” as it is written, “is the same yesterday and to-day.”879    The citation is from 1 Cor. iii. 8. Paul and Apollos are ὁμοούσιοι, “of one substance, nature, essence,” in so far as the definition of man can be applied to each. But the presence of Paul does not carry with it the presence of Apollos, and the existence of Paul is not bound up, save accidentally, with that of Apollos. Paul could not say, “He that hath seen me hath seen Apollos.” No human being can say that of another, even though the other be a twin and closely resembling him in appearance. The root of the difference is in the difference between the Creator and the creature, the Eternal, knowing neither beginning of life nor end of days, existing from everlasting to everlasting, and that which lives under conditions and limits of time and space.    Heb. xiii. 8. “He is,” it says; that is, not only in name but also in truth.

24. And well is it written: “He is the same yesterday and to-day,” so that the impiety of Arius might find no room to pile up its profanity. For he, in reading in the second psalm of the Father saying to the Son, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,”880    S. John xvii. 21.    Ps. ii. 7. noted the word “to-day,” not “yesterday,” referring this which was spoken of the assumption of our flesh to the eternity of the divine generation; of which Paul also says in the Acts of the Apostles: “And we declare unto you the promise which was made to our fathers: for God has fulfilled the same to our children, in that He hath raised up the Lord Jesus Christ again, as it is written in the second psalm: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.”881    Acts xiii. 32, 33. Thus the Apostle, filled with the Holy Ghost, in order that he might destroy that fierce madness of his, said: “The same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” “Yesterday” on account of His eternity; “to-day” on account of His taking to Himself a human body.

25. Christ therefore is, and always is; for He, Who is, always is. And Christ always is, of Whom Moses says: “He that is hath sent me.”882    Ex. iii. 14. Gabriel indeed was, Raphael was, the angels were; but they who sometime have not been are by no means with equal reason said always to be. But Christ, as we read, “was not it is, and, it is not, but, it is was in Him.”883    2 Cor. i. 19. Wherefore it is the property of God alone to be, Who ever is.

26. Therefore if they dare not say He is God by appellation, and it is a mark of deep impiety to say He is a false god, it remains that He is true God, not unlike to the true Father, but equal to Him. And as He sanctifies and justifies whom He will,884    Rom. ix. 18. not by assuming that power from without Himself, but having within Himself the power of sanctification, how is He not true God? For the Apostle called Him indeed true God, Who according to His nature was God, as it is written: “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them, who by nature were not gods;”885    Gal. iv. 8. that is, who could not be true gods, for this title by no means belonged to them by nature.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Quam impii sint Ariani, dum illud in quo humana felicitas constat, impugnant. Joannem semper cum Patre Filium conjungere, maxime ubi ait: Ut cognoscant te solum verum, etc. Illic igitur verum Deum etiam intelligendum de Filio, quando is nec Deus negari possit, nec falsus dici; immo nec etiam nuncupativus. Quod ultimum ubi ex Apostolo demonstratum est, Christum verum Deum esse rite conficitur.

0652C

16. Unde advertant Ariani quam impii sint, qui de spe nostra et voto nobis faciunt quaestiones. Et quoniam hinc prae caeteris vociferari solent, dicentes separatum a solo 554 et vero Deo Christum, intellectus impios pro nostris viribus confutemus.

17. Hoc enim loco magis intelligere debent quia haec utilitas, haec merces est perfectae virtutis, hoc divinum et incomparabile munus, ut cognoscamus cum Patre Christum, nec separemus a Patre Filium, sicut 0652D Scriptura non separat. Namque hoc magis ad unitatem, quam ad distantiam divinae proficit potestatis, quod idem praemium unum honorem nobis dat Patris, Filiique cognitio: quam mercedem habere non poterit, nisi qui et Patrem cognoverit et Filium; sicut enim Patris, ita Filii cognitio vitam acquirit aeternam.

0653A 18. Itaque sicut in principio statim Verbum cum Deo Patre pia confessione junxit Evangelista dicens: Et Verbum erat apud Deum (Joan. I, 1), ita et hic scribendo verba Domini: Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. XVII, 3); conjunctione illa Patrem utique copulavit, et Filium, ut Christum verum Deum a majestate Patris nemo secernat: numquam enim conjunctio separat.

19. Et ideo dicendo: Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum, et Sabellianos interficit, et Judaeos exclusit eos utique qui audirent loquentem; ne aut illi eumdem Patrem putarent esse quem Filium, si non addidisset et Christum: aut isti a Patre Filium separarent.

0653B 20 et 21. Quaero autem cur non putent subaudiendum, et ex superioribus colligendum; ut quia praemisit solum verum Deum Patrem, subaudiamus etiam Jesum Christum solum verum Deum? Exprimendum enim aliter non fuit, ne duos deos dicere videretur; nam neque duos dicimus deos, et ejusdem cum Patre divinitatis Filium confitemur.

22. Itaque quaeramus qua ratione divinitatis hic putent factam esse distantiam, utrum Deum negent Christum? Sed negare non possunt. An verum Deum negent? Sed dicant, si verum negant, utrum falsum, an nuncupativum Deum judicent? Nam secundum Scripturas aut verus Deus est, aut tantummodo nuncupativus, aut falsus. Verus ut Pater, nuncupativus ut sancti, falsus ut daemones atque simulacra. Dicant igitur 0653C qua Filium Dei confessione designent, utrum falso praesumptum Dei nomen, an vero quasi nuncupativo inspirationem tantum divinitatis inesse arbitrantur.

23. Falso praesumptum nomen non puto quod dicant, ut apertiore se crimine impietatis involvant; ne ut daemoniis et simulacris, ita etiam Christo falsum Dei inditum nomen insinuando se prodant. Sin autem ideo dictum putant Deum, quia inspirationem divinitatis habuit, sicut et multi sancti viri (eos enim Scriptura deos dixit (Joan. X, 35), ad quos sermo fiebat Dei) ergo non ultra homines eum praeferunt, sed comparandum hominibus arbitrantur; ut hoc eum putent esse quod hominibus ipse donavit, dicens ad Moysen: Posuit te in Deum Pharaoni (Exod. VII, 1). Unde et in psalmo dictum est: Ego dixi, dii 0653D estis (Psal LXXXI, 6).

555 24. Et hanc tamen sacrilegorum opinionem Paulus excludit, qui ait: Nam et si sunt qui dicantur dii, sive in coelo, sive in terra (I Cor. VIII, 5). Non dixit, sunt dii, sed sunt qui dicantur. Christus autem, sicut scriptum est, heri et hodie ipse est (Hebr. XXIII, 8). Est, inquit, hoc est, non solum nomine, sed etiam veritate.

0654A 25. Et bene scriptum est: Heri et hodie ipse est; ut Arii impietas astruendi sacrilegii locum invenire non posset. Qui cum legeret in psalmo secundo dicentem Filio Patrem: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te (Psal. II, 7); annotavit hodie non heri, ad aeternitatem divinae generationis referens, quod de carnis assumptione memoratum est, sicut Paulus in Actibus apostolorum ait: Et nos vobis annuntiamus, quae ad patres nostros repromissio facta est; quoniam hanc Deus adimplevit filiis nostris, resuscitans Dominum Jesum Christum, sicut scriptum est in psalmo secundo: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te (Act. XIII, 32 et seq.). Sancto igitur Spiritu repletus Apostolus, ut illam elideret saevitatem, ait: Heri et hodie ipse est, et in saecula: heri, propter aeternitatem: 0654B hodie, propter corporis susceptionem.

26. Est ergo Christus, et est semper; qui enim est, semper est. Christus autem semper est, de quo dicit Moyses: Qui est, misit me (Exod. III, 14). Erat utique Gabriel, erat Raphael, erant Angeli: sed semper esse, qui aliquando non fuerint, nequaquam pari ratione dicuntur. Christus autem, sicut legimus, non fuit, est, et non: sed est in illo fuit (II Cor. I, 19); unde vere Dei solius est esse, qui semper est.

27. Ergo si et nuncupativum Deum non audent dicere, et falsum cum dicere majoris est impietatis, restat ut Deus verus sit, veri Patris non dissimilis, sed aequalis. Qui cum et justificet et sanctificet quos velit, non foris assumens; sed in se habens sanctificandi potestatem, quomodo non est verus Deus? 0654C Nam Apostolus eum utique verum Deum dixit, qui naturaliter Deus esset, sicut habes: Quia tunc, inquit, nescientes Deum, servistis his qui natura non erant dii (Galat. IV, 8); hoc est, qui veri dii esse non poterant, quibus hoc naturaliter minime suppetebat.