75. Although general conviction and divine authority sanction no difference between likeness and equality, since both Moses and John would lead us to believe the Son is like the Father and also His equal, yet let us consider whether the Lord, when the Jews were angry with Him for calling God His Father and thus making Himself equal with God, did Himself teach that He was equal with God. He says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do45    John v. 19.. He shewed that the Father originates by saying Can do nothing of Himself, He calls attention to His own obedience by adding, but what He seeth the Father do. There is no difference of might, He says He can do nothing that He does not see because it is His nature and not His sight that gives Him power. But His obedience consists in His being able only when He sees. And so by the fact that He has power when He sees, He shews that He does not gain power by seeing but claims power on the authority of seeing. The natural might does not differ in Father and Son, the Son’s equality of power with the Father not being due to any increase or advance of the Son’s nature but to the Father’s example. In short that honour which the Son’s subjection retained for the Father belongs equally to the Son on the strength of His nature. He has Himself added, What things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise46    Ib.. Surely then the likeness implies equality. Certainly it does, even though we deny it: for these also doeth the Son likewise. Are not things done likewise the same? Or do not the same things admit equality? Is there any other difference between likeness and equality, when things that are done likewise are understood to be made the same? Unless perchance any one will deny that the same things are equal, or deny that similar things are equal, for things that are done in like manner are not only declared to be equal but to be the same things.

75. Filii et Patris eadem virtus.---Quamquam vero et communi sensu, et divinis auctoritatibus, inter 0529B similitudinem et aequalitatem nihil differre intelligatur; quippe cum secundum Moysen et Joannem Patri Filius et similis sit, et aequalis: tamen videamus an Dominus, Judaeis irascentibus quod Patrem sibi Deum dicendo Deo se coaequasset, se esse docuerit Deo aequalem. Ait enim, Non potest Filius ab se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem (Joan. V, 19). Auctorem discrevit cum ait, Non potest ab se facere: obedientiam significat cum addit, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem. Non enim virtutis differentia est, non posse nisi videat; quia virtutem magis praestat natura, quam visus: at vero obsequela est, tunc posse cum videat. Atque ita per id, quod tunc potest cum videt, significat non ex visu se accipere virtutem, sed auctoritate visus praesumere 0529C potestatem. Non ergo differt naturae virtus in Patre et Filio: cui hoc posse quod Pater possit, non ex incremento aliquo naturae profectus tribuat, sed auctoris exemplum. Denique honorem, quem subjectio conservavit, naturae virtus aequavit. Subjecit enim: Quaecumque enim ille facit, eadem et Filius similiter facit (Ibidem). Numquid similitudo non aequa est? Aequa plane est etiamsi negemus: eadem enim similiter facit. Numquid similiter facta non eadem sunt? aut eadem non recipiunt aequalitatem? 0530A aut aliud aliquid inter simile differt, et aequale; cum quae similiter fiunt, eadem fieri intelligantur? Nisi forte quisquam quae eadem sunt, negabit aequalia; ut quae similia sunt, non dicantur aequalia: cum quae similiter fiunt, non modo aequalia fieri, sed eadem praedicentur.