Chapter VI.

The fourth kind of impossibility (§49) is now taken into consideration, and it is shown that the Son does nothing that the Father approves not, there being between Them perfect unity of will and power.

64. The Son, moreover,—to consider now our fourth premiss,—is not self-assertive, for He, the Divine Assessor,731    Lat. “consiliarius.” Cf. Prov. viii. 29, 30. hath done nought that is not in agreement with His Father’s Will. Further, the Father hath seen the things that the Son made, and pronounced them very good; for so it is written in Genesis: “And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good.”732    Gen. i. 3, 4.

65. Now, did the Father say on that occasion, “Let there be such light as I Myself have made,” or “Let there be light”—light having as yet not existed; or did the Son ask what sort of light the Father made?733    Or “what sort of thing He made it to be.” How could the Son ask such a question, being Himself the true Light? S. John i. 9. Nay, the Son made light, according to His own Will, and so far in accordance with the Father’s good pleasure, that He approved. It is of new, original work by the Son that the place speaks.

66. Again, if, as Arian, expositions of the Scriptures make out, it is a discredit to the Son to have made what He saw, whereas the Scriptures present Him as having made what He [before] saw not, and to have given being to things which as yet were not, what should they say of the Father, Who praised that He had seen, as though He could not have foreseen the things that were to be made?

67. The Son, therefore, sees the Father’s work in like manner as the Father sees the Son’s, and the Father praises not the work as one would praise work of another’s doing, but recognizes it as His own, for “whatsoever things the Father hath done, the same doeth the Son, in like manner.” [So was it written, that] you might understand one and the same work to be the work both of the Father and of the Son. And thus the Son does nothing save what is approved of by the Father, praised by the Father, willed by the Father, because His whole Being is of the Father; and He is not as the created being, which commits many faults, ofttimes offending the Will of its Creator, in lusting after and falling into sin. Nought, then, is of the Son’s doing, save what is pleasing to the Father, forasmuch as one Will, one Purpose, is Theirs, one true Love, one effect of action.

68. Furthermore, to prove to you that it comes of Love, that the Son can do nothing of Himself save what He hath seen the Father doing, the Apostle has added to the words, “Whatsoever the Father hath done, the same things doeth the Son also, in like manner,” this reason: “For the Father loveth the Son,” and thus Scripture refers the Son’s inability to do, whereof it testifies, to unity in Love that suffers no separation or disagreement.

69. But if the inseparableness of the Persons in Love rest, as it truly does, upon [identity of] nature, then surely they are also inseparable, for the same reason, in action, and it is impossible that the work of the Son should not be in agreement with the Father’s Will, when what the Son works, the Father works also, and what the Father works, the Son works also, and what the Son speaks, the Father speaks also, as it is written: “My Father, Who dwelleth in Me, He it is that speaketh, and the works that I do He Himself doeth.”734    S. John xiv. 10. For the Father appointed nought save by the exercise of His Power and Wisdom, forasmuch as He made all things wisely, as it is written: “In wisdom hast Thou made them all;”735    Ps. civ. 24. and likewise, God the Word made nought without the Father’s participation.

70. Not without the Father does He work; not without His Father’s Will did He offer Himself for that most holy Passion, the Victim slain for the salvation of the whole world;736    Heb. x. 10–12; S. John iii. 16, 17; i. 29. not without His Father’s Will concurring did He raise the dead to life. For example, when He was at the point to raise Lazarus to life, He lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank Thee, for that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou dost always hear Me, but for the sake of the multitude that standeth round I spake, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me,”737    S. John xi. 40. in order that, though speaking agreeably to His assumed character of man, in the flesh,738    Lat. “ex personæ hominis incarnati susceptione.” St. Ambrose does not mean that there were two Persons in Christ—the Divine Logos or Word and the man Jesus. “Persona” is here used in its dramatic rather than its strict theological sense. He might still express His oneness with the Father in will and operation, in that the Father hears all and sees all that the Son wills, and therefore also the Father sees the Son’s doings, hears the utterances of His Will, for the Son made no request, and yet said that He had been heard.

71. Again, we cannot suppose that the Father hears not all, whatsoever the Son’s will resolves; and to show that He is always heard by the Father, not as a servant, not as a prophet, but as Son, He said: “And I knew that Thou dost always hear Me, but for the sake of the multitude which standeth round I spake, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me.”

72. It is for our sakes, therefore, that He renders thanks, lest we should suppose that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person, when we hear of one and the same work being wrought by the Father and the Son. Further, to show us that His rendering of thanks had not been the tribute due from one wanting in power, that, on the contrary, He, as Son of God, ever claimed for Himself the possession of divine authority, He cried, “Lazarus, come forth.” Here, surely, is the voice of command, not of prayer.

CAPUT VI.

Accedit ad quartam e rationibus supra memoratis; et Filium nihil facere quod non probetur a Patre, cum sit utriusque perfecta voluntatis atque potestatis unitas, liquido probans, nonnullas difficultates subinde tollit.

63. Ergo nec contumax Filius, ut etiam de quarta propositione dicamus; nihil enim consiliarius Filius fecit, quod cum Patris non conveniat voluntate. Denique vidit Pater quae fecit Filius, et probavit quia bona valde. Sic enim habes in Genesi: Et dixit Deus: 0629C Fiat lux, et facta est lux; et vidit Deus lucem, quia bona est (Gen. I, 3, 4).

64. Numquid hic dixit Pater: Fiat talis lux, qualem ipse feci: aut fiat lux, quae ante non fuerat: aut Filius qualem faceret, interrogavit? Sed fecit, ut voluit, qualem Pater usque eo voluit, ut probaret. Ergo novum opus Filii est.

65. Deinde si reprehenditur in Filio secundum interpretationes Arianorum quia quod viderit, fecit, qui utique secundum Scripturas quod non vidit, et fecit, et dedit esse quae non erant: quid dicunt de Patre, qui quod viderat 533 praedicavit, quasi ea quae facienda forent, non potuerit praevidere?

66. Similiter ergo videt Filius Patris opus, sicut Pater opus Filii: nec quasi alienum laudat, sed quasi 0629D proprium recognoscit: Quaecumque enim Pater fecerit, eadem Filius facit similiter (Joan. V, 19); ut idem opus Patris Filiique sentires. Nihil ergo facit Filius, 0630A nisi quod Pater probet, Pater laudet, Pater velit; quia ex Patre totus est: non ut creatura, quae multa committit, dum studio lapsuque peccati, voluntatem frequenter offendit auctoris. Nihil ergo Filius facit, nisi quod placeat Patri; quia una voluntas, una sententia est, una est vera charitas, unius operationis effectus.

67. Denique ut scias charitatis esse quod non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit facientem Patrem, cum praemisisset: Quaecumque ille fecerit, eadem et Filius facit similiter, subjecit: Pater enim diligit Filium. Ergo quod dixit Scriptura quia non potest, ad inseparabilis et individuae charitatis retulit unitatem.

68. Quod si naturaliter est, ut vere est, inseparabilis charitas; inseparabilis utique est etiam operatio 0630B naturaliter: et impossibile ut opus Filii cum Patris non conveniat voluntate (Joan. XII, 50); quando id quod Filius operatur, operatur et Pater: et quod Pater operatur, operatur et Filius: et quod loquitur Filius, loquitur et Pater, sicut scriptum est (Joan. XIV, 10): Pater meus qui in me manet, ipse loquitur; et opera quae ego facio, ipse facit. Nihil enim Pater sine virtute atque sapientia sua condidit; quia omnia in sapientia fecit, sicut scriptum est: Omnia in sapientia fecisti (Psal. CIII, 24). Nihil etiam Deus Verbum sine Patre fecit.

69. Non operatur sine Patre, non sine patria voluntate sacrosanctae illi se obtulit salutaris mundi totius hostia passioni, non sine patria voluntate mortuos suscitavit (Hebr. X, 10). Denique Lazarum 0630C suscitaturus levavit oculos sursum, et dixit: Pater, gratias ago tibi, quia audisti me: et ego sciebam quia semper me audis: sed propter turbam quae circumstat, dixi; ut credant quia tu me misisti (Joan. XI, 41, 42): ut quamvis ex personae hominis incarnati susceptione loqueretur, unitatem tamen paternae voluntatis et operationis exprimeret; quia Pater omnia audit, omnia videt quae vult Filius. Videt ergo et Pater facientem Filium, audit volentem. Denique non rogavit, et exauditum se esse dixit.

70. Nec existimari potest quia non audit Pater, quod velit Filius: et ut scias quia semper auditur a Patre, non quasi servus, nec quasi propheta, sed quasi Filius: Et ego, inquit, sciebam quia semper me audis: sed propter turbam quae circumstat, dixi; ut 0630D credant quia tu me misisti.

534 71. Propter nos igitur gratias agit; ne eumdem Patrem, eumdemque Filium esse credamus, 0631A cum idem opus Patris audimus et Filii. Nam ut cognosceres non quasi infirmum gratias egisse, sed quasi Dei Filium semper sibi divinam potentiam vindicare, clamavit: Lazare, veni foras. Imperantis utique vox ista est, non precantis.