Chapter III.

The words, “The head of every man is Christ…and the head of Christ is God” misused by the Arians, are now turned back against them, to their confutation. Next, another passage of Scripture, commonly taken by the same heretics as a ground of objection, is called in to show that God is the Head of Christ, in so far as Christ is human, in regard of His Manhood, and the unwisdom of their opposition upon the text, “He who planteth and He who watereth are one,” is displayed. After which explanations, the meaning of the doctrine that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and that the faithful are in Both, is expounded.

28. Now let us examine some other objections raised by the Arians. It is written, say they, that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”692    1 Cor. xi. 3.    S. John i. 1. Let them, if they please, tell me what they mean by this objection—whether to join together, or to dissociate, these four terms. Suppose they mean to join them, and say that God is the Head of Christ in the same sense and manner as man is the head of woman. Mark what a conclusion they fall into. For if this comparison proceeds on the supposed equality of the terms of it, and these four—woman, man, Christ, and God—are viewed together as in virtue of a likeness resulting from their being of one and the same nature, then woman and God will begin to come under one definition.

29. But if this conclusion be not satisfactory, by reason of its impiety, let them divide, on what principle they will. Thus, if they will have it that Christ stands to God the Father in the same relation as woman to man, then surely they pronounce Christ and God to be of one substance, inasmuch as woman and man are of one nature in respect of the flesh, for their difference is in respect of sex. But, seeing that there is no difference of sex between Christ and His Father, they will acknowledge then that which is one, and common to the Son and the Father, in respect of nature, whereas they will deny the difference lying in sex.

30. Does this conclusion content them? Or will they have woman, man, and Christ to be of one substance, and distinguish the Father from them? Will this, then, serve their turn? Suppose that it will, then observe what they are brought to. They must either confess themselves not merely Arians, but very Photinians, because they acknowledge only the Manhood of Christ, Whom they judge fit only to be placed on the same scale with human beings. Or else they must, however contrary to their leanings, subscribe to our belief, by which we dutifully and in godly fashion maintain that which they have come at by an impious course of thought, that Christ is indeed, after His divine generation,693    “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. the power of God, whilst after His putting on of the flesh, He is of one substance with all men in regard of His flesh, excepting indeed the proper glory of His Incarnation,694    Referring to Christ’s sinlessness.    S. John x. 35. because He took upon Himself the reality, not a phantom likeness, of flesh.

31. Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty.

32. But the saying, that in respect of the Incarnation God is the Head of Christ, leads on to the principle that Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head of man, as the Apostle has clearly expressed in another passage, where he says: “Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church;”695    Eph. v. 23.    Ex. vii. 1. whilst in the words following he has added: “Who gave Himself for her.”696    Eph. v. 25.    Ps. lxxxii. 6. After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for His self-surrender issued from His Incarnation.

33. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered. But it is nothing against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him.

34. But who can with a good conscience deny the one Godhead of the Father and the Son, when our Lord, to complete His teaching for His disciples, said: “That they may be one, even as we also are one.”697    S. John xvii. 11.    1 Cor. viii. 5. The record stands for witness to the Faith, though Arians turn it aside to suit their heresy; for, inasmuch as they cannot deny the Unity so often spoken of, they endeavour to diminish it, in order that the Unity of Godhead subsisting between the Father and the Son may seem to be such as is unity of devotion and faith amongst men, though even amongst men themselves community of nature makes unity thereof.

35. Thus with abundant clearness we disprove the objection commonly raised by Arians, in order to loosen the Divine Unity, on the ground that it is written: “But he who planteth and he who watereth are one.” This passage the Arians, if they were wise, would not quote against us; for how can they deny that the Father and the Son are One, if Paul and Apollos are one, both in nature and in faith? At the same time, we do grant that these cannot be one throughout, in all relations, because things human cannot bear comparison with things divine.698    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.

36. No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father, no separation in power, no separation in wisdom, by reason of the Unity of the Divine Substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we ofttimes find it written, yet [He dwells in the Son] not as sanctifying one who lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. We, contrariwise, shall be One in Christ through Power received [from another] and dwelling in us.

37. The letter [of the unity] is common, but the Substance of God and the substance of man are different. We shall be, the Father and the Son [already] are, one; we shall be one by grace, the Son is so by substance. Again, unity by conjunction is one thing, unity by nature another. Finally, observe what it is that Scripture hath already recorded: “That they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee.”699    S. John xvii. 21.    Ps. ii. 7.

38. Mark now that He said not “Thou in us, and we in Thee,” but “Thou in Me, and I in Thee,” to place Himself apart from His creatures. Further He added: “that they also may be in Us,” in order to separate here His dignity and His Father’s from us, that our union in the Father and the Son may appear the issue, not of nature, but of grace, whilst with regard to the unity of the Father and the Son it may be believed that the Son has not received this by grace, but possesses by natural right of His Sonship.

526 CAPUT III.

Verba illa: Omnis viri caput Christus. . . . caput autem Christi Deus, primo in Arianos ipsos retorquet: deinde Christi tantum secundum naturam humanam considerati Deum caput esse ex alio Scripturae loco, quem objicere solebant iidem haeretici, probat: nec prudentius quoque oppositum ab ipsis 0622B textum illum: Qui autem plantat, et qui rigat, unum sunt. Quibus explicatis, quo pacto Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre, nec non in utroque fideles esse dicantur, aperitur.

27. [Alias cap. II.] Itaque discutiamus eorum alias quaestiones. Scriptum est, inquiunt: Omnis viri caput Christus est, caput autem mulieris vir, caput autem Christi Deus (I Cor. XI, 3). Qua in quaestione dicant mihi, velim, utrum conjungere, an dividere haec quatuor velint. Si enim conjungere, atque ita dicunt Deum caput esse Christi, sicut vir est mulieris caput, videte quid incidant. Nam si haec tamquam ex paribus sumpta est comparatio, et haec quatuor, id est, mulier, vir, Christus, et Deus, quasi ex unius atque ejusdem naturae similitudine comparantur, ergo 0622C mulier et Deus unius incipient esse naturae.

28. Quod si hoc displicet, quia sacrilegum est dicere, ut volunt dividant. Itaque si Christum apud Deum Patrem ita volunt esse, sicut est mulier apud virum; unius utique Christum et Deum dicunt esse substantiae, quoniam mulier et vir unius sunt in carne naturae (Gen. II, 24): nam quod distat, in sexu est. Cum vero inter Christum et Patrem sexus non interveniat, quod unum inter Filium et Patrem in natura est, fatebuntur: quod diversum in sexu est, denegabunt.

29. Placetne ista divisio? An mulierem, virum et Christum unius volunt esse substantiae, et Patrem separant? Raeccine igitur divisio placet? Si ita est, videte quid incidant. Aut enim non solum Arianos, 0622D sed etiam Photinianos se necesse est confiteantur; quia Christum hominem tantum fatentur, quem humanae tantummodo naturae aestimant copulandum: aut vel invitos acquiescere par est nostrae sententiae, per quam id quod impie cogitarunt, pie religioseque defendimus; ut sit Christus quidem secundum generationem divinam Dei virtus, secundum assumptionem autem carnis, unius cum omnibus hominibus in carne substantiae: salva tamen incarnationis suae gloriae; quia veritatem suscepit, non imaginem carnis.

0623A 30. Sit ergo juxta humanam conditionem caput Christi Deus; non enim dixit caput Christi Pater, sed caput Christi Deus; quia divinitas, ut pote creatrix, caput est creaturae. Et bene dixit: Caput Christi Deus; ut et divinitatem Christi significaret, et carnem, hoc est, incarnationem in Christi nomine: in Deo autem unitatem divinitatis, et magnitudinem potestatis.

31. Eousque autem caput Christi Deus secundum incarnationem dictum est, ut et caput viri 527 Christus secundum incarnationem Verbi dictum sit. Quod alibi Apostolus evidenter exposuit dicens: Quoniam vir caput est mulieris, sicut et Christus caput Ecclesiae (Ephes. V, 23). Et in consequentibus addidit: Qui se tradidit pro ea (Ibid., 25). Secundum incarnationem 0623B igitur caput viri Christus, quia secundum incarnationem facta traditio est.

32. Est ergo caput Christi Deus; ubi servi, hoc est, hominis, non Dei, forma tractatur. Sed nihil praejudicat Dei Filio, si secundum carnis veritatem similis sit hominibus, qui in divinitate cum Patre unum est (Joan. X, 30); non enim potestas hac interpretatione minuitur, sed misericordia praedicatur.

33. Quis autem unam divinitatem Patris et Filii pie abneget; cum ipse Dominus consummaturus praecepta, discipulis suis dixerit: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus (Joan. XVII, 11)? Pro testimonio enim fidei positum est, licet ab Arianis ad argumentum perfidiae derivetur. Etenim quoniam toties lectam negare non queunt unitatem, extenuare 0623C conantur; ut talis videatur divinitatis unitas inter Patrem et Filium, qualis est inter homines unitas devotionis et fidei: licet etiam inter ipsos homines unitas naturae sit ex communitate naturae.

34. Unde et illud apertissime solvitur, quod ad extenuationem Dominicae unitatis objicere consuerunt, quia scriptum est: Qui autem plantat, et qui rigat, unum sunt (I. Cor. III, 8). Hoc Ariani, si saperent, non objicerent. Quomodo enim negare conantur quia Pater et Filius unum sunt, cum Paulus et Apollo et natura unum sint et fide? Sed tamen per omnia unum esse non possunt, quia nequeunt comparari humana divinis.

35. Inseparabilis ergo Deus Pater Verbo, inseparabilis virtute, inseparabilis sapientia per divinae unitatem 0623D substantiae; et est in Filio, sicut frequenter est scriptum: est vero non ut egentem sanctificans, nec ut vacuum implens; quia non vacua Dei virtus. Nec enim virtus virtute augetur; quia non duae virtutes, 0624A sed una virtus: nec divinitas divinitatem accipit; quia non duae divinitates, sed una divinitas: nos autem per acceptam et inhabitantem in nobis virtutem unum erimus in Christo.

36. Communis ergo littera, sed discrepans divina, humanaque substantia. Nos unum erimus, Pater et Filius unum sunt: nos secundum gratiam, Filius secundum substantiam. Alia autem per conjunctionem, alia per naturam unitas. Denique vide quid ante praemiserit: Ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu, Pater, in me, et ego in te (Joan. XVII, 21).

37. Considera ergo quia non dixit: Tu in nobis, et nos in te: sed tu in me, et ego in te; ut se a creaturis separaret. Et addidit: Et isti in nobis (Ibid.), ut etiam hic suam potentiam et Patris a nobis 528 0624B secerneret, ut quod nos in Patre et Filio unum sumus, non naturae videatur esse, sed gratiae: quod autem Filius et Pater unum sunt, non hoc Filius accepisse per gratiam, sed naturaliter ut Filius possidere credatur.