Prologue #

¹ “Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master has put in charge of his household to provide them with food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master finds doing so when he returns.” This servant is not insignificant; he must be someone important. Let’s consider who he might be.

² It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself to tend His flock, who is worthy to hear three times the words, “Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep.” Thus, by faithfully feeding Christ’s flock with the nourishment of faith, he erased the guilt of his previous fall. For this reason, he is three times urged to feed the flock, and three times he is asked if he loves the Lord, so that he might confess three times the One whom he had denied three times before the Crucifixion.

³ Blessed too is the servant who can say, “I have fed you with milk, not solid food, for you weren’t yet ready to handle it.” For he understood how to nourish them. Who among us can do this? Who can truly say, “To the weak, I became as weak, so that I might win the weak”?

⁴ Yet, even being a great man chosen by Christ to care for His flock, to strengthen the weak, and to heal the sick, he immediately rejects a heretic from the fold entrusted to him after just one warning, so that the error of one misguided sheep does not spread like disease through the entire flock. He also advises that foolish debates and arguments be avoided.

⁵ How, then, should we act, being but unlearned people among these new weeds in the established harvest field? If we stay silent, it might seem like we’re giving in; yet if we argue, we risk being seen as worldly. For it is written concerning such things, which lead to quarrels: “The servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, patient, correcting opponents with kindness.” And elsewhere it says, “If anyone is argumentative, we have no such custom, nor does the Church of God.” For this reason, we intended to write a bit, so our words might quietly respond to the heretics’ impiety on our behalf.

⁶ And so we prepare to begin this, our Fifth Book, O Emperor Augustus. It was fitting that the Fourth Book concluded with our discussion on the Vine, to avoid overwhelming that book with a chaotic array of topics, and instead fill it with the fruit of the spiritual vineyard. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to leave the harvest of faith incomplete while there remains an abundance of important matters still to be discussed.

⁷ In the Fifth Book, then, we discuss the indivisible unity of God in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (though without going into full detail on the Holy Spirit), motivated by the teaching of the Gospel to lend with interest to human minds the five talents of faith entrusted to these five books, as if these books were the principal investment. This way, when the Lord returns, He will not find His wealth buried in the ground and say to me, “You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered; you should have put My money with the bankers, so that at My coming I would have received what is Mine,” or as another text says, “and I, at My coming, might have received it with interest.”

⁸ I ask for forgiveness from those who may be displeased by the boldness of such a lengthy message. My responsibility urges me to pass on to others what I have been given. “We are stewards of the heavenly mysteries.” We are ministers, though not all in the same way. “But,” as it is written, “each person has received from the Lord what they are to do; I have planted, Apollos has watered, but God made it grow.” Let each one then strive to be worthy of a reward for their labor. “For we are co-workers with God,” as the Apostle said, “we are God’s field, God’s building.” Blessed, therefore, is the one who sees such return on his investment; blessed also is the one who witnesses the fruits of his work; and blessed again is the one “who builds upon the foundation of faith with gold, silver, and precious stones.”

⁹ You who hear or read these words are everything to us. You are the interest of the money-lender—interest not on money, but on speech. You are the return given to the farmer; you are the gold, the silver, the precious stones of the builder. In your merits lie the chief results of the labors of the priest; in your souls shines the fruit of a bishop’s work; in your progress glitters the gold of the Lord. The silver is increased if you hold fast to the divine words. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver tried in the fire, refined on the earth, purified seven times. You, therefore, will make the lender rich, cause the farmer to abound in produce, and prove the master-builder to be skillful. I do not speak boastfully; for I do not desire so much my own advantage as yours.

¹⁰ I wish that, at that time, I might be able to say confidently about you: “Lord, You gave me five talents, and look, I have gained five more;” and that I might present the valuable talents of your virtues! “For we have this treasure in jars of clay.” These are the talents the Lord calls us to trade spiritually, or the two coins of the New and Old Testaments, which the Samaritan in the Gospel left for the man attacked by robbers, to help heal his wounds.

¹¹ Nor do I, my brothers, with any selfish desire, long for this so that I may have authority over many things; the reward I gain from your progress is enough for me. Oh, that I may not be found unworthy of what I have received! Let those responsibilities that are too great for me be given to better men. I do not ask for them! Yet, Lord, may You say, “I will give to this last one, even as to you.” Let the man who deserves it be given authority over ten cities.

¹² Let him be like Moses, who inscribed the Ten Commandments. Let him be like Joshua, the son of Nun, who defeated five kings and subdued the Gibeonites, foreshadowing the coming Man of the same name, by whose power all fleshly desires would be conquered, and the Gentiles would be converted to follow the faith of Jesus Christ instead of their former ways. Let him be like David, whom the young maidens greeted with songs, saying: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”

¹³ It is enough for me if I am not cast into the outer darkness, like the one who buried the talent entrusted to him in the ground, symbolically his own flesh. This is what the synagogue ruler and the other Jewish leaders did; they used the words of the Lord, which had been entrusted to them, in a carnal and earthly sense, indulging the pleasures of the flesh and burying the heavenly trust in the depths of a prideful heart.

¹⁴ Let us, therefore, not keep the Lord’s money buried and hidden within ourselves, nor hide our single talent in a cloth. Instead, like skilled money-changers, let us constantly invest it with effort of both mind and body, with a steady and willing heart, so that the word may be close, even on your lips and in your heart.

¹⁵ This is the word of the Lord, the precious talent by which you are redeemed. This treasure must often appear on the tables of our souls, so that through constant investment, the sound of these good coins can spread to every land, bringing with it the means to obtain eternal life. “This is eternal life,” which You, Almighty Father, give freely, so that we may know “You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.”

Chapter 1 #

¹ Let the Arians consider how wrong they are to question our hope and what we desire most. They often argue, especially on this point, that Christ is separate from the only true God. It’s our duty to refute their misguided views as best we can.

² They should understand instead that this is the benefit, the reward of living a virtuous life—this incredible gift—that we may know Christ alongside the Father, not separating the Son from the Father. This unity is emphasized in Scripture as well. Understanding the Father and the Son leads to the same reward and honor, highlighting the unity of the Divine Majesty rather than diversity. This reward is only attainable by those who know both the Father and the Son. Just as knowing the Father brings eternal life, so does knowing the Son.

³ Therefore, just as the Evangelist immediately joins the Word with God the Father in his devout confession of faith, saying, “And the Word was with God,” he similarly binds together the Father and the Son in writing the words of the Lord: “That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent.” By connecting them in this way, he unequivocally links the Father and the Son so that no one can separate Christ, who is true God, from the majesty of the Father. This union does not cause division.

⁴ Thus, in saying, “That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent,” he refutes the Sabellians and also dismisses any doubts the Jews may have had—especially those who heard him speak. This prevents the Sabellians from thinking the Father and the Son are the same, which they might have assumed if he had not also mentioned Christ. Likewise, it ensures that the Jews do not separate the Son from the Father.

⁵ But I must ask, why don’t they understand from what has already been said that just as the Father is declared to be the only true God, so we should recognize Jesus Christ also as the only true God? There is no other way to express it without implying there are two Gods. We do not speak of two Gods, yet we confess that the Son shares the same divine nature with the Father.

⁶ So, may we ask on what basis they think there is a distinction within the Godhead and whether they deny that Christ is God? But they cannot deny it. Do they deny that He is the true God? If they deny He is the true God, let them say whether they consider Him a false god or merely call Him God by name. For according to Scripture, the term “God” applies either to the true God, or by title alone, or to a false god. True God is the Father; God by title applies to the saints; and a false god refers to demons and idols. So, let them say how they acknowledge and describe the Son of God. Do they think the title of God was falsely taken up, or do they claim that God was merely present within Him in name only?

⁷ I do not think they can claim the name was falsely taken and thereby involve themselves in the outright wickedness of blasphemy, lest they reveal their allegiance either to demons and idols or to Christ by suggesting that the title of God was falsely given to Him. But if they believe He is called God because of an indwelling of the divine nature within Him—similar to the many holy people called “gods” in Scripture, where it says the word of God came to them—they do not place Him above other people but instead view Him as comparable to them. They believe He is simply what He has enabled others to be, as He said to Moses: “I have made you a god to Pharaoh.” For this reason, it is also written in the Psalms: “I have said, you are gods.”

⁸ Paul dismisses this idea of these blasphemers, for he said, “For though there be those that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.” He didn’t say, “There are gods,” but rather, “There are those that are called gods.” But “Christ,” as it is written, “is the same yesterday and today.” It says “He is”—meaning, not only in name but also in truth.

⁹ It is well written, “He is the same yesterday and today,” to leave no room for the impiety of Arius to pile up its profane ideas. For when Arius read in the second Psalm, where the Father says to the Son, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You,” he focused on the word “today” rather than “yesterday,” applying this phrase about the assumption of our human nature to the eternity of divine generation. Paul also addresses this in Acts, saying, “And we declare to you the promise made to our fathers; for God has fulfilled it to us, their children, by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm: You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” Thus, the Apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit, counters Arius’s intense error, affirming that Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” “Yesterday” speaks to His eternal existence, while “today” refers to His taking on a human body.

¹⁰ Christ, therefore, exists and always exists, for He, Who is, always exists. And Christ always exists, as Moses says: “He that is has sent me.” Gabriel existed, Raphael existed, and the angels existed; but they, who at one time did not exist, cannot be said to exist eternally in the same way. But concerning Christ, as we read, “it was not a matter of is or is not with Him, but of was within Him.” Therefore, it is uniquely God’s nature to exist, as He always exists.

¹¹ Therefore, since they do not dare to say that Christ is God merely by name, and since it is deeply impious to claim He is a false god, the conclusion remains that He is true God. He is not different from the true Father but equal to Him. Moreover, considering that Christ sanctifies and justifies whom He chooses, not by receiving this power externally but by possessing within Himself the power of sanctification, how can He not be true God? The Apostle indeed called Him true God, for He was God by His very nature, as written: “However, then, when you did not know God, you served those who by nature are not gods,” meaning they could not truly be gods because this title did not belong to them by nature.

Chapter 2 #

¹ We have clearly shown from passages of Scripture in earlier texts that Christ is indeed God, and truly so. Therefore, if Christ is acknowledged as true God, as has been taught, we should inquire why some wish to separate the Son from the Father, especially when they read that the Father alone is referred to as the true God.

² If they assert that only the Father is the true God, they cannot deny that the Son, who is Christ, is the Truth Himself; for Christ is the Truth. Is the Truth then inferior to the one who is true? In our understanding, just as a person is called “true” because of truth, and “wise” because of wisdom, and “just” because of justice, we do not see any inequality between the Father and the Son in this regard. The Father lacks nothing in truth, for He is full of truth; and the Son, being the Truth Himself, is therefore equal to the Father who is true.

³ To ensure that when people see the word “alone,” they don’t mistakenly think the Son is separate from the Father, they should remember what God said through the Prophets: “I stretched forth the heavens alone.” Clearly, the Father didn’t stretch them out without the Son. The Son Himself, who is God’s Wisdom, says, “When He prepared the heavens, I was there with Him.” Paul also affirms that this was said about the Son: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Therefore, whether we understand that the Son made the heavens—as the Apostle suggests—while not doing so without the Father, or, as Proverbs states, “The Lord in wisdom founded the earth; in understanding He prepared the heavens,” it’s clear that neither the Father created the heavens alone without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. And yet, the One who spread out the heavens is described as being “alone.”

⁴ To clearly understand how the term “alone” applies to the Son (even though we would never believe He did anything without the Father’s knowledge), there’s another passage that says: “He alone stretches out the heavens and walks as if on a pavement over the sea.” The Gospel of the Lord shows us that it was not the Father but the Son who walked on the sea, when Peter said to Him, “Lord, command me to come to You.” Prophecy also confirms this, as holy Job foretold the coming of the Lord. Job spoke truly of Him, saying He would conquer the great Leviathan—and indeed, He did. This terrifying Leviathan, representing the devil, was defeated, struck down, and humbled in the final days by the Lord’s own Passion and sacrifice in His Body.

⁵ Therefore, the Son is only and truly God, for this also is assigned to the Son as His sole right. No created being can rightly claim to be alone. How can one who shares in creation be isolated from others as if alone? Consider that while man is a rational being among earthly creatures, he is not the only rational being; we acknowledge that heavenly beings, such as angels and archangels, are also rational. If angels are rational beings, then man cannot be considered the only rational being.

⁶ They say the sun can be considered alone, since there’s no second sun. But the sun shares many things with the stars: it moves across the heavens, it’s made of that ethereal, heavenly substance, it’s a created being, and it’s counted among all of God’s works. It serves God alongside everything else, blessing and praising Him together with them all. So, it can’t truly be said to be alone, because it isn’t separate from the rest.

⁷ Therefore, since no created being can be compared to the divine nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are alone not just among all but over all (with our discussion on the Spirit being held back for now), just as the Father is called the only true God because He shares nothing with others, so also the Son alone is the Image of the true God. He alone is the Hand of the Father, He alone is the Power and Wisdom of God.

⁸ Therefore, the Son alone does what the Father does, as it is written: “Whatever things I do, He does also.” Since the Father and the Son’s work is unified, it is rightly said that God worked alone, encompassing both the Father and the Son. Thus, when we refer to the Creator, we acknowledge both the Father and the Son. Indeed, when Paul asked, “Who served the creature more than the Creator,” he did not deny that the Father is the Creator, from whom all things come, nor did he deny the Son, through whom all things exist.

⁹ This doesn’t seem to contradict the statement, “Who alone has immortality.” For how could He not have immortality, given that He has life within Himself? He possesses life by His nature, by His essential being—not as a temporary gift, but through His eternal Godhead. He doesn’t have it as a gift granted to a servant, but as His unique right through His divine generation as the co-eternal Son. He has it just as the Father does, for “as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself.” It says He has given it as the Father has it, so that you understand this isn’t a gift of grace but a mystery of His generation. Since there’s no difference in the life of the Father and the Son, how could we imagine that only the Father has immortality while the Son does not?

¹⁰ Therefore, let them understand that in this passage, the Son should not be separated from the Father, who is the only true God. They cannot prove that the Son is not also the only true God, especially since, as I’ve mentioned, it can be inferred here that Christ, too, is true and only God. Alternatively, this passage can be understood as referring partly to the Godhead of both the Father and the Son, and partly to the Incarnation of Christ; for knowledge is incomplete unless it acknowledges that Jesus Christ has been the only-begotten God, the true Son of God, from eternity, and, according to the flesh, was born of a Virgin. This very truth has been taught to us elsewhere by this same Evangelist, who says, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.”

¹¹ This passage teaches us that it is appropriate to see a reference to the sacrament of the Incarnation in this verse. It is written, “Father, the hour has come, glorify Your Son.” When He says that the hour has come and asks to be glorified, how else could He be speaking except in light of His taking on human flesh? The divine nature does not operate within set moments of time, nor does eternal light need to be glorified. Thus, in the only true God, who is the Father, we also recognize the only true Son of God as part of the unity of the Godhead. And in the name of Jesus Christ, which He took when He was born of the Virgin, we acknowledge the sacrament of the Incarnation.

¹² But if they want to separate the Son when they read that the Father is the only true God, then I suppose that when they read about the Incarnation of the Son—“This is the stone which you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone”—and also, “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” they would then have to assume the Father is excluded from granting us salvation. However, there is no salvation without the Father, and there is no eternal life without the Son.

Chapter 3 #

¹ The Arians argue as follows: If you claim that the Father is the only true God and also say the same of the Son, and if you confess that the Father and the Son share the same substance, you are suggesting not one God, but two. According to them, beings of the same substance are not one God but two Gods. They illustrate this by saying that when there are two beings of the same kind, like two men or two sheep, they are considered two, whereas a man and a sheep are not referred to as two men or two sheep, but as one man and one sheep.

² This is the argument of the Arians, who try to ensnare those who are less knowledgeable with their clever reasoning. However, if we turn to the divine Scriptures, we discover that plurality is actually found among things of diverse and different substances, known as ἑτερούσια. This concept is exemplified in the writings of Solomon, where he states: “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yes, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden.” Here, an eagle, a ship, and a serpent are not of the same family or nature; they belong to distinct and different categories of creatures, yet they are counted as three. Therefore, according to the testimony of Scripture itself, the Arians inadvertently refute their own arguments.

³ Therefore, when the Arians claim that the substance of the Father and the Son is diverse and their divinity distinguishable, they effectively argue for the existence of two Gods. In contrast, when we confess the Father and the Son as being of one Godhead, we affirm that there is not a duality of Gods, but rather one God. This assertion aligns with the teachings of the Lord Himself. In situations where there are multiple entities, there exists a distinction either in nature, will, or actions. To further refute them using their own example, consider the case of two men: although they share the same human nature by birthright, they remain distinct in terms of time, thoughts, actions, and physical location. Therefore, it is incorrect to refer to one man using the terms and number that apply to two, because unity cannot coexist with diversity in such a context. In contrast, God is said to be one, and the glory and completeness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is affirmed in this way.

⁴ Indeed, the concept of unity is such that when we refer merely to the nature of human birth or human flesh, the term “man” is used collectively for many individuals, as seen in the scripture: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man can do unto me.” Here, “man” signifies not just one person, but the shared humanity, the common frailty of human existence. Similarly, it states: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man,” where again it refers to a universal condition rather than a specific individual. Immediately following, it contrasts with: “It is better to put confidence in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.” In this case, “princes” denotes a distinction among different powers. When “man” is mentioned, it signifies the unity of human nature that all share. However, when “princes” are mentioned, it signifies a distinction between their various authorities and roles.

⁵ Among human beings, there may exist unity in certain aspects such as love, desire, flesh, devotion, or faith, but a universal unity that encompasses all things in accordance with divine glory belongs uniquely to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

⁶ Therefore, the Lord, in highlighting the differences among people, who lack anything that could lead to the unity of an indivisible essence, says, “In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true.” But although He said, “The testimony of two men is true,” when He spoke of the testimony of Himself and His Father, He didn’t say, “Our testimony is true, for it is the testimony of two Gods.” Instead, He said, “I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” Earlier, He also says, “If I judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me.” In both cases, He mentions both the Father and the Son, yet He neither implies a plurality of gods nor divides the unity of their divine essence.

⁷ It is clear, then, that whatever is of one substance cannot be divided, even if it is not single but united as one. By “single,” I mean what the Greeks call μονοτής. Singleness relates to a person, while unity relates to a nature. That things of a different substance are called “many,” rather than “one alone,” was already proven through the prophet’s testimony, and the Apostle himself confirms it, saying, “For even if there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.” Do you see, then, that those who are of different substances and not of the true unity of one nature are called “gods”? But the Father and the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods but “One God, the Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things come.” He says, “One God,” and “one Lord Jesus,” and earlier, “One God, not two Gods,” and then, “One Lord, not two Lords.”

⁸ Plurality, therefore, is ruled out, but unity remains intact. On one hand, when we read about the Lord Jesus, we do not separate the Father from the authority of ruling, as I have already mentioned, because this authority is shared with the Son. On the other hand, when we read about the only true God, the Father, we cannot exclude the Son from the authority of the only true God, for He shares this with the Father.

⁹ Let them say what they truly feel or think when we read, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” Do they believe that Christ should not be worshipped or served? If the Canaanite woman who worshipped Him was granted what she asked for, and the Apostle Paul, who identified himself as a servant of Christ at the beginning of his letters, was made an Apostle “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ,” let them consider what should follow. Would they prefer to align themselves with Arius in a pact of betrayal, denying that Christ is the only true God and therefore not deserving of worship or service? Or would they rather stand with Paul, who, in serving and worshipping Christ, remained fully devoted to the only true God, whom he acknowledged with heartfelt service?

Chapter 4 #

¹ If anyone claims that the Son worships God the Father because it is written, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know,” let them consider when this was said, to whom it was directed, and whose expectations it was meant to address.

² Earlier in this chapter, it was noted, with good reason, that Jesus, being tired from the journey, sat down and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink. He spoke as a human, for as God, He could neither grow weary nor thirst.

³ So when this woman addressed Him as a Jew and thought of Him as a prophet, He responded to her as a Jew who was spiritually teaching the mysteries of the Law: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know.” He says “we” because He identified Himself with humanity. But how is He joined with humanity except through the flesh? To show that He was answering as one who was incarnate, He added, “for salvation is of the Jews.”

⁴ Immediately after this, however, He set aside His human perspective, saying, “But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father.” Notice He did not say, “We will worship.” He surely would have said that if He participated in our obedience.

⁵ And when we read that Mary worshipped Him, we should understand that it is impossible for Him, in the same nature, both to worship as a servant and to be worshipped as Lord. Rather, as a man, He is described as worshipping among men, and as Lord, He is worshipped by His servants.

⁶ There are many things, therefore, that we read and believe in light of the mystery of the Incarnation. Yet, even through the experiences of our human nature, we can perceive His Divine Majesty. Jesus grows weary from His journey so that He may give rest to the weary; He asks for a drink when He is about to give spiritual drink to the thirsty; He feels hunger when He is about to provide the food of salvation to the hungry; He dies, so that He may live again; He is buried, so that He may rise; He hangs upon the dreadful cross to give strength to those in fear; He covers the heavens with darkness so that He may bring light; He causes the earth to shake so that He may make it firm; He stirs the sea so that He may calm it; He opens the tombs of the dead to show that they are homes of the living; He is born of a Virgin so that people may believe He is begotten of God; He appears to not know so that He may enlighten the ignorant; and as a Jew, He is said to worship so that the Son may be worshipped as true God.

Chapter 5 #

¹ They say, “How can the Son of God be the one true God, equal to the Father, when He Himself said to the sons of Zebedee, ‘You will indeed drink from My cup; but to sit at My right hand or My left is not Mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father’?” This, then, as you see it, is your evidence of divine inequality. Yet in this, you should rather honor the Lord’s kindness and adore His grace—if only you could perceive the profound mysteries of God’s virtue and wisdom.

² Consider the mother who makes this request on behalf of her sons. She is a mother, driven by her deep desire for her sons’ honor. Though her wishes may be somewhat excessive, she may still be forgiven. She is a mother advanced in years, devoted in her faith, and lacking comfort; who, at a time when she could have received help and support from her strong, grown sons, chose instead to let them go. She prioritized the reward they would gain by following Christ over her own needs. For, as we read, when the Lord called them, they immediately left their nets and their father to follow Him.

³ Driven by a mother’s devoted zeal, she pleaded with the Savior, saying, “Grant that these, my two sons, may sit one at Your right hand and the other at Your left in Your kingdom.” Although it was misguided, it was the error of a mother’s love—a love that knows no patience. Her desire may have been intense, but it was forgivable, for she was not seeking wealth but grace. Her request was not brazen, for she did not think of herself but of her children. Consider this mother, and reflect upon her.

⁴ But it is no surprise if a parent’s love for their children seems insignificant to you, who consider the Almighty Father’s love for His only-begotten Son to be of little importance. The Lord of heaven and earth, speaking in terms fitting for human experience and the soul’s virtues, felt—yes, He even said He was troubled—at the thought of denying a mother’s request for her sons to share in His own seat. Sometimes you claim that the true Son of the eternal God stands to serve, and other times you say His shared seat with the Father is merely as an attendant, not because He shares in the same majesty, but simply because it is the Father’s order. And yet, you deny the Son of God, who is truly God, the very honor He was plainly unwilling to refuse to humans.

⁵ For He thought of the mother’s love, who found solace in her old age by contemplating the reward her sons would receive. Despite enduring the agonizing longing of a mother separated from her beloved children, she held fast.

⁶ Consider also the woman—the weaker sex—whom the Lord had not yet strengthened by His own Passion. Think, I say, of a descendant of Eve, the first woman, bearing the inherited tendency toward unchecked desires passed down to all; a woman whom the Lord had not yet redeemed with His Blood, nor cleansed of the deeply rooted human longing for excessive honor. Thus, the woman erred because of a natural inclination toward wrongful desires.

⁷ And is it any wonder that a mother would seek to secure advantage for her children (which is much nobler than if she had sought it for herself), especially when even the Apostles themselves, as recorded, contended among each other for precedence?

⁸ Therefore, the healer should not inflict wounds upon a mother who has lost everything, nor upon a troubled heart, with harsh rebukes. For if her request is made and then proudly denied, she might lament the rejection of her petition as unjust.

⁹ Finally, the Lord, who knew that a mother’s love deserves respect, didn’t respond to the woman directly but spoke to her sons instead, asking, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am going to drink from?” When they answered, “We are able,” Jesus replied, “You will indeed drink from My cup; but as for sitting at My right or left hand, it is not My place to grant this. Those places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by My Father.”

¹⁰ How patient and kind the Lord is; how deep His wisdom and how good His love! To show that the disciples were asking for something extraordinary, something beyond their reach, He chose to reserve His unique privileges for the honor of His Father, without fearing any loss of His own authority. “He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”; and, out of love for His disciples (for, as it is written, “He loved them to the end”), He didn’t want to appear to deny their request, even though it wasn’t something He could grant. He, the good and holy Lord, preferred to keep some aspects of His own authority hidden rather than to withhold anything from those He loved. “For love is patient and kind; it does not envy, and it does not seek its own.”

¹¹ Finally, so that you may understand that His words, “It is not Mine to give to you,” were not a sign of weakness but rather of compassion, notice that when the sons of Zebedee made the request themselves, without their mother, He didn’t mention the Father. As recorded in Mark, He said simply, “It is not Mine to give to you, but for those for whom it has been prepared.” However, when the mother made the request on behalf of her sons, as described in Matthew, He added, “of My Father,” saying, “It is not Mine to give to you, but to those for whom it has been prepared of My Father.” He included “of My Father” here, showing extra compassion in response to a mother’s heartfelt request.

¹² But if anyone thinks that by saying, “For whom it has been prepared by My Father,” Jesus was giving greater authority to His Father or diminishing His own, let them consider whether they believe there is any lessening of the Father’s power when the Son says in the Gospel, “The Father judges no one.”

¹³ If we think it’s irreverent to believe that the Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son in such a way that He no longer has it Himself—since the Father does, indeed, have it and cannot lose what belongs to the Divine Majesty by its very nature—then we should equally consider it irreverent to believe that the Son cannot give what either people may deserve or any creature may receive. Especially since He Himself has said: “I go to My Father, and whatever you ask of Him in My name, that will I do.” For if the Son cannot grant what the Father can give, then the Truth has lied, and He cannot fulfill what the Father has been asked for in His name. Therefore, He did not say, “For whom it has been prepared by My Father,” to imply that requests should be made only to the Father. For everything asked of the Father, He has stated that He will give. Finally, He did not say, “Whatever you ask of Me, that will I do,” but rather, “Whatever you ask of Him in My name, that will I do.”

Chapter 6 #

¹ I now inquire whether they believe the request made by the wife and sons of Zebedee could have been fulfilled within human or any created circumstances. If it could have been fulfilled, how is it that the One who created all things, even those that did not exist before, lacked the ability to grant a place to His apostles at His right hand and His left? Or how could it be that He, to whom the Father entrusted all judgment, was unable to assess the merits of men?

² We understand well the manner in which He gave it; for how could the Son, who created everything from nothing, receive it as if He were in need? Did He not already have authority over the judgment of those whose very natures He created? The Father entrusted all judgment to the Son “so that all people may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” Therefore, it is not the power of the Son that grows, but our awareness of it; and what we learn does not add anything to His being, but benefits us—so that by knowing the Son of God, we may have eternal life.

³ Therefore, in our understanding of the Son of God, it is our benefit, not His honor, that is at stake. If anyone believes that God’s power is increased by such honor, they would also have to believe that God the Father can be enhanced, for He is glorified through our knowledge of Him just as the Son is. As it is written in the Son’s own words: “I have glorified You on the earth.” Therefore, if what was requested was indeed possible, it certainly lay within the Son’s power to grant it.

⁴ Let them demonstrate, if they think it possible, who among humans or other created beings sits either at the right or the left hand of God. For the Father says to the Son, “Sit at My right hand.” Therefore, if anyone were to sit at the right hand of the Son, it would mean, in human terms, that the Son would be positioned between Himself and the Father.

⁵ Then something impossible for humans was asked of Him. But He was unwilling to say that people could not sit with Him, as He wanted His divine glory to remain concealed and not revealed before His resurrection. For previously, when He appeared in glory with His attendants Moses and Elijah, He instructed His disciples not to tell anyone what they had seen.

⁶ Therefore, if it was impossible for humans or other created beings to deserve this, the Son should not appear to have less power simply because He did not give to His apostles what the Father has not granted to any human or other created being. Otherwise, let them say to whom He has given it. Certainly not to the angels, for Scripture states that all the angels stood around the throne. As Gabriel himself said, “I am Gabriel, who stands before God.”

⁷ It is not to the angels that He has given this authority, nor to the elders who worship Him who sits on the throne; for they themselves do not sit on the seat of majesty, but, as Scripture says, they are positioned around the throne. There are twenty-four other seats, as we read in the Book of Revelation: “And upon the seats, twenty-four elders sitting.” In the Gospel, the Lord Himself also says: “When the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you too shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” He did not say that the apostles would share His throne, but that there were twelve other thrones for them. However, we should not interpret this as meaning literal sitting, but rather as signifying the joyful outcome of spiritual grace.

⁸ Finally, in the Book of Kings, the prophet Micaiah said: “I saw the Lord God of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing around Him, on His right hand and on His left.” So how, when the angels stand at the right and left of the Lord God, when the whole host of heaven stands, can men sit at God’s right or left, to whom likeness to the angels is promised as a reward for virtue? As the Lord says: “You will be like the angels in heaven.” He says, “like the angels,” not “more than the angels.”

⁹ Therefore, if the Father has not given anything more than the Son, then the Son certainly has not given anything less than the Father. Hence, the Son cannot in any way be inferior to the Father.

¹⁰ Consider, however, that if it had been possible for people to get what they desired, what does it mean when He says, “But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give to you”? What does “Mine” mean here? Earlier, He said, “You will indeed drink from Mine cup,” and again He added, “It is not Mine to give to you.” First, He said “Mine,” and then again, further down, He said “Mine.” He did not change His wording. Therefore, the earlier passages clarify why He said “Mine.”

¹¹ When asked by a woman to allow her sons to sit at his right hand and left, Jesus, responding as a man, also addressed his passion: “Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?”

¹² Therefore, because He spoke of the suffering of His Body in human terms, He wanted to show that, in His human nature, He left us an example and model of how to endure suffering. However, as a human, He could not grant them a place in the throne above. This is why He said, “It is not Mine,” just as He says elsewhere, “My teaching is not Mine.” He means that it is not spoken from His human nature; for words that are divine do not belong to the flesh.

¹³ How clearly He showed His tenderness for His beloved disciples when He first said, “Will you drink of My cup?” Since He couldn’t grant what they were asking for, He offered them something else instead, mentioning what He would give them before denying their request. This way, they would understand that the shortcoming was more in the fairness of their request than in their Lord’s desire to show kindness.

¹⁴ He says, “You shall indeed drink of My cup,” meaning, “I will not withhold from you the suffering that My flesh will endure. For everything I have taken upon Myself as a human, you are able to imitate. I have given you the victory through suffering and the inheritance of the cross. But ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give to you.’” He did not simply say, “It is not Mine to give,” but rather, “It is not Mine to give to you,” indicating not a lack of power, but that His creatures were lacking in merit.

¹⁵ Or consider it in another way: “It is not mine to give to you” means, “It is not mine, for I have come to teach humility; it is not mine, for I have come not to be served, but to serve; it is not mine, for I demonstrate justice, not favoritism.”

¹⁶ Then, speaking of the Father, He added, “For whom it has been prepared,” to show that the Father does not simply respond to requests, but to merit; for God does not show favoritism. This is why the Apostle says, “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.” God did not predestine them before knowing them; rather, He predestined the reward for those whose merits He already knew.

¹⁷ The woman is rightly corrected for demanding something impossible as a special privilege from the Lord, who freely granted not only to two apostles but to all His disciples the blessings He had determined for the saints—and that without anyone even asking for it, as it is written: “You will sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

¹⁸ Therefore, even if we think the request could have been possible, there is no room for unfounded criticism. But when I read that the seraphim stand, how could I assume that people might sit at the right or left of the Son of God? The Lord sits upon the cherubim, as it says, “You who sit upon the cherubim, reveal Yourself.” So how could the apostles sit upon the cherubim?

¹⁹ I don’t come to this conclusion by my own reasoning, but because of the very words spoken by our Lord. For later on, the Lord, in entrusting the apostles to the Father, says, “Father, I desire that they also whom You have given Me may be with Me where I am.” If He had thought that the Father would grant the divine throne to people, He would have said, “I desire that where I sit, they also may sit with Me.” But instead, He says, “I desire that they be with Me,” not “that they may sit with Me”; and “where I am,” not “as I am.”

²⁰ Then come the words: “That they may see My glory.” Here too, He did not say, “that they may have My glory,” but “that they may see it.” For the servant sees, while the Lord possesses—just as David also taught us, saying, “That I may see the delight of the Lord.” And the Lord Himself has revealed this in the Gospel, stating, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” He says, “They shall see,” not “They shall sit with God upon the cherubim.”

²¹ Let them, therefore, stop diminishing the Son of God in His divinity, so that they do not also diminish the Father. For anyone who holds a wrong belief about the Son cannot think rightly of the Father; and anyone who holds a wrong belief about the Spirit cannot think rightly of the Son. Since there is one dignity, one glory, one love, and one majesty, anything you attempt to take away from one of the Three Persons is taken from all of them equally. For that which can be separated and divided into various parts can never have true completeness.

Chapter 7 #

¹ Some, O Emperor Augustus, attempt to deny the unity of God’s divine essence by diminishing the love between the Father and the Son. They argue using the scripture: “You have loved them as You have loved Me.” But in doing so, aren’t they trying to compare the Son of God to humans?

² Can humans truly be loved by God in the same way as the Son, in whom the Father is well-pleased? The Son is inherently pleasing to the Father; we are made pleasing through Him. Those in whom God sees His Son, fashioned after His likeness, are embraced by God as His children through His Son. Thus, just as we progress from likeness to likeness, through the Son’s generation we are called to adoption. The eternal love within God’s nature is distinct from the love bestowed through grace.

³ If they try to argue over the words, “And You have loved them as You have loved Me,” and interpret it as making a comparison, they should also consider the following words as a comparison: “Be merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful,” and elsewhere, “Be perfect, as My Father who is in heaven is perfect.” But if God is perfect in the fullness of His glory, we are only perfect according to the growth of virtue within us. The Son is also loved by the Father in the fullness of a love that is eternal, but for us, growth in grace earns the love of God.

⁴ Do you now see how God has graciously bestowed His favor upon humanity? Do you wish to separate the natural and inseparable love between the Father and the Son? Will you persist in diminishing the significance of words that clearly indicate the unity of their majesty?

⁵ Consider this passage in its entirety and notice the perspective from which He speaks, as you hear Him say, “Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed.” Observe how He speaks from the perspective of the first man. In this request, He asks on our behalf for the things that, as a human, He remembers were granted in paradise before the Fall. He also referred to this when speaking to the thief during His Passion: “Truly, truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise.” This is the glory that existed before the world. However, He uses the term “world” instead of “men,” as you also see in the phrase, “Look, the whole world has gone after Him,” and again, “That the world may know that You have sent Me.”

⁶ But so that you may recognize the greatness of God—the life-giving and Almighty Son of God—He has given proof of His majesty by saying, “And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine.” He possesses all things, and would you dismiss the fact that He was sent, as if to dishonor Him?

⁷ If you refuse to acknowledge His mission in the flesh, as the Apostle spoke of it, and instead twist a single word to argue against it, suggesting that inferiors are typically sent by superiors, what will you say about the fact that the Son was sent to humanity? If you believe that the one sent is inferior to the sender, then consider that an inferior sent a superior, and that superiors have been sent to inferiors before. For example, Tobias sent the archangel Raphael, an angel was sent to Balaam, and the Son of God was sent to the Jews.

⁸ Or was the Son of God somehow inferior to the Jews to whom He was sent? For it is written of Him: “Last of all He sent unto them His only Son, saying, ‘They will reverence My Son.’” Notice that He first mentioned the servants, then the Son, so that you may understand that God’s only-begotten Son, by the power of His divine nature, shares neither name nor status with servants. He is sent to be revered, not to be placed on the same level as the household.

⁹ He appropriately added “My” to indicate that He came not as one among many, nor as someone of lesser nature or power, but as truly from the One who is true, as the perfect Image of the Father’s essence.

¹⁰ Suppose, however, that one who is sent is indeed inferior to the one who sends him. By that logic, Christ would be inferior to Pilate, for Pilate sent Him to Herod. Yet, such reasoning does not diminish His power. Scripture, which states that He was sent from the Father, also tells us that He was sent from a ruler.

¹¹ Therefore, if we wisely hold to ideas worthy of the Son of God, we should understand His being “sent” to mean that the Word of God, out of the profound and indescribable mystery of His majesty, made Himself accessible to our understanding as much as we could grasp—not only when He “emptied” Himself, but also when He came to dwell in us, as it is written: “I will dwell in them.” Scripture also says, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language.” God, of course, does not physically descend from any place, for He says, “I fill heaven and earth.” But He is described as descending when the Word of God enters our hearts, as the prophet has said: “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” We are to do this, so that, as He Himself promised, He may come with the Father and make His home with us. It is evident, then, how He comes to us.

Chapter 8 #

¹ Thus, it is clear how He refers to Him as Lord, even though He recognized Him as Father. For He says: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” First, Wisdom acknowledges His own Father and then declares Him to be Lord over all creation. Therefore, in His Gospel, the Lord demonstrates that true lordship is not exercised where there is a genuine offspring, saying: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?” They reply, “The son of David.” Jesus asks them, “Then how does David, in the Spirit, call Him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand’?” Then He adds, “If David calls Him Lord, how can He be his son?” At this, no one could answer Him a word.

² The Lord took great care in providing this testimony to strengthen faith, especially against the Arians. He didn’t simply say, “The Spirit calls Him Lord,” but specifically stated that David spoke in the Spirit. This distinction was made so that people might believe that just as Jesus is David’s son according to His human nature, He is also David’s Lord and God according to His divine nature. Therefore, we see a clear distinction between the titles used to denote relationship and lordship.

³ And rightly did the Lord speak of His own Father as the Lord of heaven and earth, so that when you read of the Father and the Lord, you may understand that it refers to the Father of the Son and the Lord of all creation. One title reflects His nature, while the other signifies His authority to rule. By taking on the form of a servant, He calls Him Lord because He has chosen to submit to service—though He is equal to Him in the form of God, He is a servant in the form of His body. Service is fitting for the flesh, but lordship belongs to the Godhead. Therefore, the Apostle says: “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” meaning that He is God in the sense of humanity’s adoption but the Father in the sense of divine glory. Did God have two Sons—Christ and Glory? Certainly not. If there is only one Son of God, who is Christ, then Christ Himself is Glory. Why do you attempt to diminish Him who is the glory of the Father?

⁴ If the Son is glory and the Father is also glory (for the Father of glory can be nothing other than glory), then there is no division between glories; rather, glory is one. Thus, glory pertains to its own divine nature, while lordship relates to the service of the body that was assumed. For if the flesh is subject to the soul of a righteous person, as it is written: “I discipline my body and bring it into subjection,” how much more is it subject to the Godhead, of which it is said: “For all things serve You”?

⁵ With one question, the Lord has refuted the Sabellians, Photinians, and Arians. When He said that the Lord spoke to the Lord, Sabellius is rejected, as he claims that the Father and the Son are the same Person. Photinus is disproved, as he views Christ merely as a man; for no one could be the Lord of King David except God Himself, as it is written: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” Would the prophet, who lived under the Law, act contrary to the Law? Arius is also set aside, for he hears that the Son sits at the right hand of the Father. If he tries to argue using human analogies, he undermines his own position, turning the poison of his blasphemous arguments back on himself. By interpreting the supposed inequality between the Father and the Son through flawed human analogies, he contradicts himself, acknowledging the Son as first while hearing that the Son is at the right hand of the Father. The Manichæan is also refuted, for he does not deny that Christ is the Son of David according to the flesh. This is evident when the blind men cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us,” and He, pleased with their faith, stopped and healed them. However, the Manichæan denies that this title refers to Christ’s eternal nature, claiming that if He is called the Son of David alone, such a statement comes only from those who are false.

⁶ The title “Son of God” counters Ebionites, while “Son of David” opposes the Manichees. “Son of God” challenges Photinus, whereas “Son of David” challenges Marcion. “Son of God” disputes Paul of Samosata, while “Son of David” confronts Valentinus. “Son of God” opposes Arius and Sabellius, inheritors of pagan errors. And “Lord of David” refutes the Jews, who in their misguided view saw the Son of God in human form and believed Him to be merely human.

⁷ In the faith of the Church, Jesus is both the Son of God the Father and the Son of David. The mystery of God’s Incarnation is the salvation of all creation, fulfilling the scriptural promise that “He should taste death for every man,” meaning that every creature could be redeemed without the need for their suffering by the blood of the Lord’s Divinity. As it is also written, “Every creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption.” This underscores the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive work, encompassing all creation through His divine sacrifice.

⁸ Being called the Son in relation to God’s essence is different from being called so in connection to taking on human form. As the Son in His divine nature, He is equal to God the Father. Yet, in adopting a human body, He serves God the Father. Scripture affirms He assumed the form of a servant. Despite this duality, He remains one and the same Son. In terms of His glory, He is acknowledged as Lord by the revered ancestor David, yet is also considered his descendant, fully embracing His own identity while embracing humanity’s rights through adoption into our lineage.

⁹ Not only does He take on the role of a servant as a man through His descent from David, but also through His name, as it is written: “I have found David My Servant,” and in another place: “Behold, I will send to you My Servant; the Orient is His name.” The Son Himself declares: “Thus says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His servant and said to Me: It is a great thing for You to be called My Servant. Behold, I have made You a witness to My people, a light to the Gentiles, that You may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” To whom is this spoken if not to Christ? He, being in the form of God, emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. But what could exist in the form of God except that which fully possesses the divine nature?

¹⁰ Learn, then, what it means when it says, “He took upon Him the form of a servant.” It means that He took on the fullness of humanity in its perfection and complete obedience. Thus, it is written in Psalm 30: “You have set my feet in a spacious place. I have become a reproach to all my enemies. Let Your face shine upon Your servant.” The term “servant” refers to the Man in whom He was sanctified, the Man in whom He was anointed, the Man who was born under the law, born of the Virgin. In short, it refers to the Man in whose person He has a mother, as it is written: “O Lord, I am Your Servant, I am Your Servant, the Son of Your maidservant,” and again: “I am cast down and deeply humbled.”

¹¹ Who was deeply humbled but Christ, who came to liberate all through His obedience? Just as through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one many will be made righteous. Who drank from the cup of salvation? Was it Christ the High Priest, or David, who never held the priesthood or endured such suffering? Who offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving?

¹² Yet, consider this: “Preserve my soul, for I am holy.” Did David speak these words of himself? No, it is He who also said, “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.” It is the Same who uttered both these declarations.

¹³ He goes on to say: “Save Your servant,” and also: “Give strength to Your servant, and to the son of Your maidservant.” Moreover, in Ezekiel it is written: “I will appoint one shepherd over them, and he will feed them—My servant David. He will feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be a prince among them.” David, the son of Jesse, had already passed away. Therefore, these words speak of Christ, who, for our sake, was born as the son of a maidservant in human form. In His divine nature, He has no mother but only a Father. He is not the result of earthly desire but the eternal power of God.

¹⁴ Similarly, when we read that the Lord said, “My time has not yet fully come,” and “Yet a little while I am with you,” and “I am going to Him who sent Me,” and “Now the Son of Man is glorified,” we should understand all this in relation to the mystery of the Incarnation. However, when we read, “And God is glorified in Him, and God will glorify Him,” what doubt can there be? Here, the Son is glorified by the Father, and the Father is glorified by the Son.

¹⁵ Furthermore, to clarify the doctrine of the Unity and the Union of the Trinity, Jesus also said that He would be glorified by the Spirit, as it is written: “He will take what is Mine and declare it to you.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son of God. So why did Jesus say, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing”? Does this mean the Son’s glory is nothing? Such a statement would be blasphemous unless we understand it in reference to His humanity. When Jesus spoke these words, He did so in His human role, where compared to His divinity, the glory of His humanity holds no significance.

¹⁶ Let those who persist in their misguided objections refrain from twisting the truth to suit their falsehoods. They argue, “It is written: ‘Now is the Son of Man glorified.’” I do not dispute that it is indeed written: “The Son of Man is glorified.” However, they should consider what follows: “And God is glorified in Him.” I may offer some defense for the Son of Man, but there is no defense needed for His Father, for the Father did not take on flesh Himself. I might have an excuse, but I refrain from using it. The Father has no excuse and is wrongly criticized. I can either take these statements at face value, or I can interpret them in relation to the humanity of Christ. A devout mind distinguishes between what pertains to the flesh and what pertains to the divine nature. An impious mind distorts these distinctions, dishonoring the divine nature by focusing only on the limitations of the flesh.

Chapter 9 #

¹ Why do the Arians, in a manner reminiscent of the Jews, distort and shamelessly misinterpret the divine words? They go as far as claiming there is one power of the Father, another of the Son, and yet another of the Holy Spirit, all because it is written: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Why do they insist on distinguishing divine power based solely on the order of words?

² Although I have previously asserted in my earlier writings the unity of majesty and name of this very witness, if this becomes a point of contention, I can argue from Scripture that the Son is often mentioned first in many instances, with the Father following. Should they suggest that the mere order of words, as the Arians claim, implies the Father is subordinate to the Son because His name appears second, I emphatically reject such a notion. Far from it, I say, far from it. True faith recognizes no such hierarchy; it acknowledges no divided honor between the Father and the Son. Nowhere have I read, heard, or found any hint of varying degrees within God. Never have I encountered a second God, nor a third. I know of only one, the first and only God.

³ If we insist excessively on order, then logically the Son should not sit at the right hand of the Father, nor should He refer to Himself as the First and the Beginning. The Evangelist would have erred by starting with the Word rather than with God, saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” because by human convention, he should have mentioned the Father first. Similarly, the Apostle would have been mistaken in his ordering, calling himself “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God,” and elsewhere saying, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost.” In this latter instance, he placed the Son before the Father according to the sequence of words. However, word order often varies, and thus we should not scrutinize order or hierarchy in the case of God the Father and His Son, for there is no division of unity within the Godhead.

Chapter 10 #

¹ Finally, to prove they are not truly Christians, they deny the need to believe in Christ, claiming it is written: “He that believes in Me believes not in Me, but in Him who sent Me.” I was expecting such a statement; why did you try to mislead me with your arguments? I knew I was dealing with opponents akin to heathens. Yet even the heathens are converted, while you remain unrepentant. If they believe, the sacrament of Baptism remains secure; but you have received it and destroyed it—or perhaps you never truly received it, and it was never genuine from the start.

² They say, “It is written: ‘He that believes in Me, believes not in Me, but in Him who sent Me.’” But look at what follows and see how the Son of God desires to be seen: “And he that sees Me, sees Him who sent Me.” For the Father is revealed in the Son. In this way, He clarifies what He said earlier: that one who confesses the Father also believes in the Son. For anyone who does not know the Son does not know the Father either. As it is written, “Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has both the Father and the Son.”

³ What, then, does “Believes not in Me” mean? It means not merely believing in what you perceive in physical form or simply in the man you see. Instead, it means believing that Jesus Christ is both God and Man. For this reason, He says, “I came not from Myself,” and again, “I am the beginning, of which also I speak to you.” As a man, He did not come of Himself; as the Son of God, His origin is not from humanity. Rather, He declares, “I Myself am the beginning of which I speak to you.” Furthermore, the words He speaks are not merely human but divine.

⁴ It is not right to think He denied that we should believe in Him, for He Himself said, “That whoever believes in Me should not remain in darkness,” and again in another place, “For this is the will of My Father who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life.” Furthermore, He said, “You believe in God; believe also in Me.”

⁵ Therefore, let no one accept the Son without the Father, since we read about the Son. The Son possesses the Father, not in a temporal sense, nor due to His suffering, nor through His conception, nor by grace. I have read about His begetting, but I have not read about His conception. The Father says, “I have begotten,” not “I have created.” And the Son does not refer to God as His Creator in the eternity of His divine generation, but as His Father.

⁶ He presents Himself at times as a man and at other times in the majesty of God; sometimes claiming unity with the Father in divine nature, and other times taking on the frailty of human flesh. At one moment, He says His teaching is not His own, and at another, that He does not seek His own will. He points out that His testimony is not true at one point, and later that it is true. For He Himself said, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.” Yet later, He declares, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true.”

⁷ And how, Lord Jesus, is Your testimony not true? Did not the one who believed it, even while hanging on the cross and bearing the penalty for the crime he confessed, cast aside the punishment of a thief and receive the reward of the righteous?

⁸ Did Paul, who regained his sight because he believed, suffer deception? He had lost his sight before he believed.

⁹ And did Joshua, the son of Nun, make a mistake in recognizing the leader of the heavenly host? On the contrary, after he believed, he immediately triumphed, proving himself worthy to win the battle of faith. Furthermore, he did not lead his armed forces into the fight, nor did he destroy the enemy’s walls with battering rams or other siege engines, but with the sound of the seven trumpets blown by the priests. In this way, the blast of the trumpet and the authority of the priest brought a brutal war to an end.

¹⁰ A harlot witnessed this; and though the destruction of the city left her without hope of any means of safety, her faith prevailed. She tied a scarlet thread in her window, raising it as both a sign of her faith and a symbol of the Lord’s Passion. In this way, the image of the mystical blood that would redeem the world was brought to remembrance. Thus, outside the city, the name of Joshua was a symbol of victory for the warriors, while inside, the symbol of the Lord’s Passion became a sign of salvation for those in peril. Therefore, because Rahab understood this heavenly mystery, the Lord says in the Psalm, “I will be mindful of Rahab and Babylon that know Me.”

¹¹ How, then, is Your testimony not true, O Lord, except when it is given in consideration of human frailty? For “every man is a liar.”

¹² Lastly, to show that He spoke as a man, He says: “The Father that sent Me, He bears witness of Me.” Yet His testimony as God is true, as He declares: “My record is true, for I know where I come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh.” Therefore, those who judge not according to His divine nature but only His humanity are the ones who believe that Christ lacked the power to bear witness.

¹³ Therefore, when you hear: “He who believes, does not believe in Me,” or, “The Father who sent Me gave Me a command,” you now understand where you should direct those words. Finally, He explains what the command is, saying: “I lay down My life so that I may take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own will.” You see, then, that these words demonstrate He had complete authority to lay down His life or take it up again, as He also said: “I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it up again. This command I received from My Father.”

¹⁴ Whether it is referred to as a “command” or, as some Latin manuscripts phrase it, a “direction”, it was certainly not given to Him as God, but rather as the incarnate man, with regard to the triumph He would achieve through His suffering in the Passion.

Chapter 11 #

¹ Are we truly to lower the Son of God to such a level that He cannot act or speak unless directed, and are we to believe that His actions and words are strictly dictated to Him simply because it is written: “I speak not of Myself,” and later, “As the Father has commanded Me, so I speak”? These words either refer to the obedience of His human nature or to the perfect unity between the Father and the Son. Many learned individuals acknowledge that the Son “hears” and that the Father “speaks” to the Son through the unity of their divine nature. For what the Son, in the unity of their will, understands the Father desires, He is said to have “heard.”

² This refers not to a personal obligation but to an inseparable cooperation between the Father and the Son. It does not imply a literal hearing of words but instead reflects the unity of will and power shared by the Father and the Son. This same unity is also present in the Holy Spirit, as shown in another passage: “He will not speak on his own; He will speak only what he hears.” This teaches us that whatever the Spirit says, the Son also says, and whatever the Son says, the Father says as well, for there is one will and one way of working within the Trinity. Just as the Father is revealed in the Son—not in a physical form but in the unity of their divine essence—so too does the Father speak in the Son, not with a human voice or sound but in the unity of their actions. Thus, when Jesus said, “The Father who dwells in Me speaks, and the works that I do, He does,” He added, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or else believe Me because of the works themselves.”

³ This is how we interpret the entirety of the holy Scriptures. However, the Arians, who refuse to acknowledge the truth about God, can be rebuked by an example that suits their own behavior. They should not believe everything in a literal sense, especially since they themselves do not physically witness the deeds of their spiritual father, the devil. Just as the Lord rebuked the Jews, saying, “You are doing what you have seen your father do,” their condemnation lies not in seeing the devil’s work but in aligning themselves with his evil deeds, which the devil invisibly instigates within them according to their own wickedness. We write this to expose the folly of these betrayers, much like the Apostle did.

⁴ We have substantiated from scriptural examples that it is characteristic of the unity of divine majesty for the Father to dwell within the Son, and for the Son to communicate what He speaks as though He had received it from the Father. How else can we comprehend the unity of majesty except by recognizing that equal reverence is given to both the Father and the Son? Indeed, what can express this more perfectly than the Apostle’s affirmation that the Lord of glory was crucified?

⁵ Therefore, the Son is indeed the God of glory and the Lord of glory. However, glory is not subject to created beings; hence, the Son Himself is not a creature.

⁶ The Son is the perfect Image of the Father’s Substance. Every creature is unlike the divine Substance, but the Son, being the Image of the Father, is not unlike God. Therefore, the Son is not a creature.

⁷ The Son did not see equality with God as something to be grasped at or stolen. No creature can be equal with God, yet the Son is equal with God. Therefore, the Son is not a creature.

⁸ Every creature is subject to change, but the Son of God is unchangeable. Therefore, the Son of God is not a creature.

⁹ Every creature experiences uncertainties of good and evil according to its nature, and undergoes change and decay. However, nothing can add to or diminish from the Son of God in His divine nature. Therefore, the Son of God is not a creature.

¹⁰ Every work of God will come under judgment, but the Son of God Himself is not subjected to judgment; rather, He is the one who judges. Therefore, the Son of God is not a creature.

¹¹ Finally, so that you may understand the unity, the Savior spoke of His sheep, saying, “No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

¹² Therefore, the Son gives life just as the Father does. Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He wills. Likewise, the Son raises up just as the Father does, and He preserves just as the Father does. He who is not inferior in grace, how can He be inferior in power? Similarly, the Son does not destroy, just as the Father does not destroy. Therefore, to prevent anyone from believing there are two Gods or from imagining a difference in power, He declared Himself to be one with the Father. How could a creature claim such a unity? Therefore, the Son of God is not a creature.

¹³ It is distinct to rule compared to serving. Christ fulfills both roles as King and as the Son of a King. Therefore, the Son of God is not a servant. Every creature serves, but the Son of God, who transforms servants into sons of God, does not serve in the same way. Thus, the Son of God is not a servant.

Chapter 12 #

¹ In a divine manner, He has illustrated the parable of the rich man, who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom and return, thus describing Himself in both His divine nature and His humanity. For, being rich in the fullness of His Godhead, He became poor for our sake, though He was rich and the eternal King, the Son of an eternal King. He, I say, went to a foreign land by taking on a body, for He entered upon the ways of men as if embarking on a strange journey, coming into this world to prepare for Himself a kingdom from among us.

² Jesus came to this earth to receive a kingdom from us, to whom He says, “The kingdom of God is within you.” This is the kingdom that Christ has received, the one He has handed over to the Father. But how did He receive a kingdom, He who is the eternal King? “The Son of Man came to receive a kingdom and to return.” The Jews refused to acknowledge Him, of whom He says, “Those who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them.”

³ Let us follow the teachings of Scripture. He who came will hand over the kingdom to God the Father; and when He has given the kingdom back, He will also submit to Him who put everything under His authority, so that God may be all in all. If the Son of God has received the kingdom as the Son of Man, then as the Son of Man, He will surely give back what He has received. When He gives it up as the Son of Man, He acknowledges His submission under the conditions of the flesh, not in the glory of His divine nature.

⁴ And do you object and scorn Him because God has placed everything under His authority, when you hear that the Son of Man will give the kingdom back to God, and remember, as we’ve discussed in previous writings: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day”? If we take this literally, notice the mutual honor that each gives to the other: The Father has placed everything under the Son, and the Son hands the kingdom back to the Father. Now, which is greater: to give up, or to raise to life? Don’t we often speak of the act of giving up as a service and the power to raise to life as something greater? But both the Son gives to the Father, and the Father gives to the Son. The Son raises to life, and the Father also raises to life. Let them create the false idea of a blasphemous division, when in reality there is a unity of power.

⁵ Let the Son then give His kingdom back to the Father. The kingdom He gives up is not lost to Christ, but instead grows. We are the kingdom, for it was said to us, “The kingdom of God is within you.” We are the kingdom, first of Christ, and then of the Father; as it is written, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” While I am on the way, I belong to Christ; but once I have passed through, I belong to the Father; yet in all things, I am through Christ, and in all things, I am under Him.

⁶ It is a good thing to be in the kingdom of Christ, so that Christ may be with us, as He Himself says, “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” But it is even better to be with Christ: “For to depart and be with Christ is far better.” Although we are still under sin in this world, Christ is with us, so that “by the obedience of one man, many may be made just.” And if I escape the sin of this world, I will begin to be with Christ. Therefore, He says, “I will come again and take you to Myself;” and later, “I desire that where I am, there you may be also with Me.”

⁷ Therefore, we are now under Christ’s rule while we are in the body, and have not yet been stripped of the form of a servant that He took upon Himself when He “emptied Himself.” But when we see His glory, which He had before the world began, we shall be in the kingdom of God, where the patriarchs and prophets are, of whom it is written, “When you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God.” In this way, we will come to a deeper understanding of God.

⁸ But in the kingdom of the Son, the Father also reigns; and in the kingdom of the Father, the Son also reigns. This is because the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. And in anyone in whom the Son dwells, the Father also dwells; and in anyone in whom the Father dwells, the Son also dwells, as it is written: “Both I and My Father will come to him, and make Our home with him.” Therefore, since there is only one dwelling, there is also only one kingdom. In fact, the kingdom of the Father and the Son is so united that the Father accepts what the Son gives, and the Son does not lose what the Father accepts. Thus, in the one kingdom, there is unity of power. Let no one separate the divine nature of the Father and the Son.

Chapter 13 #

¹ But if the one name and authority of God belong to both the Father and the Son, since the Son of God is also truly God and an eternal King, then the Son of God is not made subject in His divinity. Let us, then, Emperor Augustus, consider how we should understand His subjection.

² How is the Son of God made subject? As a creature to emptiness? But it is blasphemous to entertain any such thought about the Essence of the Godhead.

³ Or as every creature is subject to the Son of God, for it is rightly written: “You have put all things in subjection under His feet.” But Christ is not made subject to Himself.

⁴ Or as a woman is to a man, as we read: “Let wives be subject to their husbands,” and again: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But it is blasphemous to compare a man to the Father, or a woman to the Son of God.

⁵ Or as Peter said: “Submit yourselves to every human creature.” But Christ was certainly not subject in that way.

⁶ Or as Paul wrote: “Submitting yourselves mutually to God and the Father in the fear of Christ.” But Christ was not subject, either in His own fear, nor in the fear of another Christ. For Christ is but one. But take note of the meaning of these words: we are subject to the Father, even as we also fear Christ.

⁷ How, then, do we understand His subjection? Shall we review the entire chapter that the Apostle wrote, so as not to give the impression of having falsely withheld anything, or of having weakened its meaning to deceive? “If in this life only,” he says, “we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But if Christ is risen from the dead, He is the firstfruits of those who have died.” You see how he addresses the question of Christ’s Resurrection.

⁸ “For since death came through one man,” he says, “the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. For just as all die in Adam, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in their own order: Christ the firstfruits; then those who belong to Christ, who have believed in His coming. Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has destroyed all rule, authority, and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘He has put all things under His feet.’ But when it says that ‘all things are put under Him,’ it is clear that this does not include the One who put everything under Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.” Likewise, the same Apostle said to the Hebrews: “But now we do not yet see everything subjected to Him.” We have heard the full discourse of the Apostle.

⁹ How, then, do we understand Christ’s subjection? The Sabellians and Marcionites claim that this subjection of Christ to God the Father means the Son will be reabsorbed into the Father. If, then, the subjection of the Word implies that God the Word will be absorbed into the Father, it would follow that whatever is made subject to the Father and the Son would also be absorbed into the Father and the Son, so that God might be all in all His creatures. But such an idea is absurd. Therefore, subjection does not occur through reabsorption. For there are created things that are subjected, and there is Another to whom this subjection is made. Let those who promote the harsh notion of reabsorption remain silent.

¹⁰ Would that those people also kept silent who, unable to prove that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God can be reabsorbed, instead attribute the weakness of subjection to His divine nature. They claim it is written: “But when all things are subdued under Him, then the Son will also Himself be subject unto Him.”

¹¹ We see, then, that Scripture states He is not yet made subject, but that this will happen in the future. Therefore, at present, the Son is not subject to God the Father. In what sense, then, do you claim the Son will be made subject? If you say it is in His divine nature, this cannot be, for He is not disobedient, nor is He at odds with the Father. Neither is He made subject as a servant, for He is the only Son of His own true Father. Indeed, when He created the heavens and formed the earth, He demonstrated both power and love. Thus, there is no subjection in the Godhead of Christ as though He were a servant. And if there is no such subjection, then His will is free.

¹² If they interpret the subjection of the Son to mean that the Father accomplishes all things in harmony with His will, let them understand that this is actually evidence of Their inseparable power. The unity of Their will is not something that began in time; it has always existed. Where there is an eternal unity of will, there can be no weakness associated with temporal subjection. For if the Son were made subject by His nature, He would remain so perpetually. However, since Scripture speaks of His being made subject in time, this subjection must pertain to an assumed role or office, not to any inherent or eternal weakness. Moreover, the eternal power of God cannot undergo a temporary change, nor can the Father’s authority over the Son arise within time. If the Son were ever to be changed so as to become subject in His divine nature, then by the same reasoning, the Father—if He were to gain more power and have the Son subject to Him in His divinity—must be considered inferior in the present moment, according to their flawed interpretation.

¹³ What fault has the Son committed that would lead us to believe His divine nature could later be subjected? Has He, as a man, taken for Himself the right to sit at the Father’s side, or claimed the authority of the Father’s throne against the Father’s will? Yet He Himself declares, “For I always do the things that please Him.” So, if the Son pleases the Father in all things, why would He now be subjected, when He was never subjected before?

¹⁴ Let us understand, then, that it is not the Godhead that becomes subject, but rather we are made subject in reverence to Christ—a truth filled with grace and profound mystery. Therefore, let us carefully consider the Apostle’s words: “But when all things are subdued under Him, then the Son will also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him: that God may be all in all.” What, then, do you say? Are not all things already subject to Him? Are not the choirs of saints subject to Him? Are not the angels, who ministered to Him during His time on earth? Are not the archangels, who were sent to Mary to announce the coming of the Lord? Are not all the heavenly hosts? Are not the cherubim and seraphim, thrones, dominions, and powers—those who worship and praise Him?

¹⁵ How, then, will they be brought into subjection? In the way the Lord Himself has said: “Take My yoke upon you.” It is not the proud or defiant who bear the yoke, but the humble and gentle. Clearly, this is not a degrading subjection for humanity but a glorious one: “That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The reason all things were not subjected before is that they had not yet received the wisdom of God, nor had they taken upon themselves the easy yoke of the Word, placed, as it were, upon the neck of their minds. But, as it is written, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God.”

¹⁶ Can anyone say that Christ is now made subject because many have believed? Certainly not. For Christ’s subjection does not depend on a few, but on all. Just as I would not be truly brought into subjection if the flesh in me still lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh—though I am partially subdued—so too, because the entire Church is the body of Christ, we divide Christ as long as the human race disagrees. Therefore, Christ is not yet made subject, for His members have not yet been brought into subjection. But when we become, not many members, but one spirit, then He will also become subject, so that through His subjection “God may be all in all.”

¹⁷ Just as Christ is not yet made subject, so the work of God is not yet perfected; for the Son of God said, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.” What reason is there to doubt that the subjection of the Son within me is still in the future, since the work of the Father is unfinished in me, because I am not yet perfect? I, who make the work of God incomplete, do I also make the Son of God subject? But this is not a matter of wrongdoing; it is a matter of grace. For in as much as we are made subject, it is for our benefit, not for the Godhead’s. We are made subject to the law, made subject to grace. For, as the Apostle has said, the wisdom of the flesh was at enmity with God, because “it was not subject to the law,” but now it is made subject through the Passion of Christ.

Chapter 14 #

¹ However, in case anyone might argue, notice the careful way Scripture handles this under divine inspiration. It shows us how Christ is subject to God, while also teaching us how He made the entire universe subject to Himself. As it says: “Now we do not yet see all things put under Him. For we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, because of His suffering and death”. This shows that He was humbled by taking on our flesh. So, what prevents Him from openly demonstrating His submission by taking on our flesh, through which He subjects all things to Himself, while He Himself is still subject to God the Father in it?

² Let’s consider His submission then. He says, “Father, if You are willing, take this cup away from Me; yet not My will but Yours be done.” Therefore, this submission corresponds to His taking on human nature, as we read: “Being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.” This submission, therefore, is characterized by obedience; the obedience leads to death; and the death pertains to the assumed human nature. Hence, this submission is the submission of the assumed human nature. In this way, there is absolutely no weakness in the divine nature, but rather a devout fulfillment of duty like this.

³ Observe how I do not fear their arguments. They claim that He must be subject to God the Father, but I respond that He was also subject to Mary, His mother. For it is written about Joseph and Mary: “He was subject to them.” If they believe this, then let them explain how the divine nature was made subject to humans.

⁴ Do not let the fact that He is said to have been made subject undermine Him. He suffers no harm from being called a servant, from being crucified, or from being spoken of as dead. For when He died, He lived; when He was made subject, He reigned; when He was buried, He rose again. He submitted to human authority, yet at other times declared Himself the Lord of eternal glory. He stood before a judge but claimed a throne at the right hand of God as Judge forever. As it is written: “Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” He was scourged by the Jews, yet commanded angels; He was born of Mary under the law, yet existed before Abraham, above the law. On the cross, He was revered by nature: the sun darkened, the earth trembled, the angels were silent. Could the elements witness the Generation of Him whose Passion they feared to see? Will they then maintain that His divine nature was subjected when even His bodily subjection caused them such awe?

⁵ Since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one Nature, the Father certainly cannot be subject to Himself. Therefore, the Son will not be in subjection in His divine nature, which is one with the Father. Otherwise, it might imply that the Father is also subject to the Son due to their unity in the Godhead. Just as on the cross, it was not the fullness of the Godhead but our human weakness that was subjected, the Son will similarly be subject to the Father in His human nature. This subjection aims to bring the desires of the flesh into submission so that the heart may not be preoccupied with riches, ambition, or pleasures. Instead, God will be everything to us if we live according to His image and likeness, as much as we are able.

⁶ The benefit has extended from the individual to the community; for in His flesh, He has subdued the nature of all human flesh. As the Apostle says: “As we have borne the image of the earthly, so also shall we bear the image of the heavenly.” This transformation certainly cannot occur except in the inner person. Therefore, we must lay aside all these things—anger, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication—as it is also written: “Let us, having put off the old self with its deeds, put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator.”

⁷ To understand that when he says, “that God may be all in all,” he does not separate Christ from God the Father, he also says to the Colossians: “There is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” Similarly, in saying to the Corinthians: “That God may be all in all,” he includes the unity and equality of Christ with God the Father, for the Son is not separate from the Father. Just as the Father works all in all, so also does Christ. If Christ works all in all, He is not made subject in the glory of the Godhead, but in us. How is He made subject in us? In the same way that He was made lower than the angels, that is, in the sacrament of His body. For from the beginning, all things served their Creator, yet they did not seem to be fully subjected to Him in that form.

⁸ If you wonder how He became subject to us, He explains it Himself: “I was in prison, and you visited Me; I was sick, and you took care of Me. Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for Me.” You hear about Him being sick and weak, but you aren’t affected. You hear about Him being subject, and you are moved, even though He is sick and weak in the one He is subject to, the one He became sin and a curse for us in.

⁹ Just as He became sin and a curse not for Himself but for us, He also became subject in us not for His own sake but for ours. In His eternal nature, He is neither subject nor cursed. For “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” He was cursed because He bore our curses; He was subject because He took on our subjection. This was done in the form of a servant, not in the glory of God. By sharing in our weakness in the flesh, He allows us to share in the divine nature through His power. However, we do not share in the heavenly nature of Christ by our own nature, nor is there any subjection of the Godhead in Christ. As the Apostle said, through His flesh, which is the promise of our salvation, we are seated in heavenly places, though we are not literally sitting there ourselves. Similarly, He is said to be subject in us through taking on our nature.

¹⁰ Who would be so foolish as to think that a seat of honor at the right hand of God the Father is not deserved by Him? As we’ve said, this honor is given to Christ in the flesh by the Father, granting Him a seat of heavenly and equal power. The angels worship Him, yet you dare to challenge the throne of God with such arrogant presumption?

¹¹ You say it is written that when we were dead in sins, He made us alive in Christ. By His grace, we are saved, raised up together, and made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. I agree that this is what is written. However, it is not written that God allows men to sit at His right hand; rather, we sit there in the person of Christ. He is the foundation of all and the head of the Church. In Him, our human nature has earned the right to the heavenly throne. The flesh is honored because it shares in Christ, who is God, and the entire human race is honored because it shares in His flesh.

¹² As we then sit in Him through our shared human nature, He, having taken on our flesh and become a curse for us (since a curse could not fall on the blessed Son of God), will also become subject in us through the obedience of all. This will happen when the Gentile believes, the Jew acknowledges Him whom they crucified, the Manichaean worships Him whom they did not believe came in the flesh, and the Arian confesses Him as Almighty, whom they denied. When the wisdom, justice, peace, love, and resurrection of God are present in everyone, Christ will be in us, subject to the Father through His works and the many virtues. When vice is renounced, crime ends, and one spirit unites the hearts of all people to God in everything, then God will be all in all.

Chapter 15 #

¹ Let’s summarize our conclusion briefly. Unity of power dismisses any notion of demeaning subjection. Christ’s voluntary surrender of power and His victorious conquest over death have not diminished His power. It is through obedience that subjection is achieved. Christ willingly took on obedience, even to the extent of taking on our flesh and enduring the cross for our salvation. Thus, wherever the work is, the Author of the work is also present. Therefore, when all things have been subjected to Christ through His obedience, and every knee bows in His name, then He Himself will be everything to everyone. Currently, not everyone believes, so not everyone appears to be in subjection. However, when all have believed and obeyed God’s will, then Christ will truly be everything to everyone. And when Christ is everything to everyone, then God will be everything to everyone as well, because the Father always remains in the Son. So, how can anyone claim Christ is weak, when He redeemed the weak?

² And to prevent any misunderstanding that might attribute the subjection of all things to the weakness of the Son, consider this: it is written that God has subjected all things under Him. Indeed, He Himself has brought all things into subjection to Himself. As it is written: “Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” Therefore, you understand that He is able to subject all things to Himself by the working of His divine power.

³ Understand now how He receives all things under His authority in His humanity, as it is written: “Who worked in Christ, raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, power, might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come; and has put all things under His feet.” In His humanity, therefore, all things are subjected to Him; it is in this nature that He was raised from the dead, encompassing both His human soul and His rational submission.

⁴ Many interpret the Scriptures where it is written: “Truly, my soul will be subject to God.” The prophet specifically said “soul,” not “Godhead,” and “soul,” not “glory.” To emphasize that the prophet was speaking of the Lord’s adoption of human nature, he added: “How long will you cast yourselves upon a man?” This aligns with what the Lord also said in the Gospel: “Why do you seek to kill Me, a man?” The prophet further added: “Nevertheless, they desired to refuse My price; they ran in thirst, they blessed with their mouth, and cursed with their heart.” When Judas returned the price, the Jews refused to accept it, consumed by their insatiable thirst and rejecting the grace of the spiritual drink.

⁵ This is the reverent understanding of subjection: since it is tied to the purpose of the Lord’s Passion, He will be subject in us through the very nature in which He suffered. Do we ask why this is so? It is so that “neither angels, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature may separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus.” From this, we clearly see that no creature is excluded; every kind of being is included among those mentioned above.

⁶ At the same time, we must reflect on the words that follow after the question, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Paul continues by saying, “Neither death, nor life, nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus.” From this, we understand that the love of God is the same as the love of Christ. It is not without purpose that he specifies the love of God as “which is in Christ Jesus,” to prevent anyone from thinking that the love of God and the love of Christ are separate. Love does not divide; there is nothing beyond the power of the eternal Godhead, nothing hidden from the Truth, nothing that deceives Justice, and nothing that escapes the notice of Wisdom.

Chapter 16 #

¹ We should recognize that those who make such statements are cursed and condemned by the Holy Spirit. Who else but the chief Arians does the prophet condemn, given that they assert that the Son of God does not know times or seasons? There is nothing that God is unaware of, and Christ—yes, the exalted Christ—is God, for He is God over all.

² Look at how deeply troubled holy David is by those who limit the Son of God’s knowledge. This is what he wrote: “They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore, their pride has laid hold of them; they are covered with their wickedness and blasphemy. Their sins continue in abundance, they fulfil the thoughts of their hearts”. David truly condemns those who reduce divine matters to mere human thoughts. For God is not subject to human schemes or rules. We often see even common occurrences among people happen unexpectedly and mysteriously, not according to any set order or rule.

³ “They have thought,” he says, “and have spoken wickedness. They have spoken wickedness against the Most High. They have set their mouth against heaven.” Here, we see that he condemns as guilty of blasphemy those who presume to interpret the mysteries of heaven according to the likeness of human nature.

⁴ They have said: “How can God know everything? Does the Most High truly have all knowledge?” Aren’t these doubts echoed by modern skeptics, like those who claim that Christ couldn’t possess all knowledge because He said He didn’t know the day or hour? They argue, “How could He know anything beyond what He directly experienced?” Such interpretations, which undermine His divine unity, disrespect His authority.

⁵ They quote: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Firstly, ancient Greek manuscripts do not include the words “nor the Son.” It’s not surprising that those who’ve tampered with sacred Scriptures might have altered this passage too. The motive for its insertion becomes clear when used to support such blasphemous claims.

⁶ Suppose the Evangelist wrote it like this: The title “Son” encompasses both divine and human natures. As the Son of Man, associated with our human nature, it might appear that He did not know the day of judgment. How could the Son of God be unaware, though, when He holds the treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge within Him?

⁷ I ask, then, did He possess this knowledge by His very essence, or did it come to Him by chance? All knowledge is acquired either through inherent ability or through learning. Inherent ability is seen in animals like horses that can run or fish that can swim without being taught. On the other hand, humans learn to swim through instruction; they cannot do so naturally. Since nature grants dumb animals the ability to know and do things without learning, why would you speculate about the Son of God, debating whether His knowledge came from instruction or from His nature? If it came from instruction, then He was not begotten as Wisdom and did not always possess perfection, gradually acquiring it over time. But if His knowledge is innate, then He was perfect from the start, emerging fully perfect from the Father, and therefore had no need for foreknowledge of the future.

⁸ He was therefore fully aware of the times; for the Wisdom of God does not partially know and partially remain ignorant. How could He who created everything be unaware of any part, since it is easier to know something than to create it? We, on the other hand, know many things we cannot create, and we each have different ways of understanding. A farmer understands the wind’s force and the stars’ paths differently from a city dweller, who in turn knows them differently from a sailor. While not everyone knows everything completely, they are considered knowledgeable. Only He who made all things knows everything completely. The pilot knows how long Arcturus is visible and what kind of rising to expect from Orion, but he knows nothing about the patterns, numbers, or names of the Pleiades or other stars. This knowledge belongs to Him “who counts the multitude of stars and calls them all by their names”; nothing can escape the power of His work.

⁹ How then can you imagine the Son of God to have created these things, like a seal that does not feel the impression it makes? The Father created all things in wisdom, meaning He created all things through the Son, who embodies the power and wisdom of God. It is fitting for such Wisdom to understand both the capabilities and the reasons behind His own creations. Thus, the Creator of all things could not be unaware of His deeds—nor be lacking in knowledge of what He Himself has imparted. Therefore, He knew the day which He brought into being.

¹⁰ But you suggest that He knows the present but not the future. Though this idea is senseless, let me show you from Scripture: He made not only what is past but also what is to come, as written: “Who made things to come.” Scripture also states elsewhere: “By whom He also made the ages,” who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature. Now, ages encompass the past, present, and future. How then were future ages made unless His active power and knowledge encompass the entirety of all ages? Just as He speaks of things that do not exist as though they do, so He has made future things as though they already exist. It is impossible for them not to come to pass, for what He has ordained must necessarily happen. Therefore, He who made the future also knows them in the manner in which they will unfold.

¹¹ If we accept this about ages, we must certainly believe it regarding the day of judgment. This is because the Son of God has foreknowledge of it, having already ordained it. As it is written: “According to Your decree, the day will continue.” The Scripture doesn’t just say the day continues, but also that it will continue, indicating that future events are governed by His decree. Does He not know what He has ordained? The One who created the ear, can He not hear? The One who formed the eye, can He not see?

¹² Let’s consider whether there might be something great that could be beyond the knowledge of its Creator, or at least let people decide if they want to think about something great and superior, or something very insignificant. If it’s something very insignificant, it’s not a loss, so to speak, to know nothing about worthless and trivial matters. Knowing the greatest things signifies power, whereas focusing on less valuable things could indicate inferiority. Therefore, the Creator remains unconcerned with trivialities yet retains His power.

¹³ If they consider knowing the day of judgment to be a great and important matter, let them consider what could be greater or better than God the Father Himself. The Son knows the Father, as He Himself affirms: “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” If He knows the Father, does He not also know the day of judgment? Do you believe that He can reveal the Father but cannot reveal the day of judgment?

¹⁴ Furthermore, since you arrange certain ranks, placing the Father before the Son and the Son before the Holy Spirit, tell me: did the Holy Spirit know the day of judgment? Nothing specific is written about Him in this regard, but you deny it outright. What if I were to show you that He indeed knew it? Scripture says: “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” Therefore, because the Spirit searches the depths of God, and God knows the day of judgment, it follows that the Spirit also knows it. He knows everything that God knows, as the Apostle explains: “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” Be careful, then, not to deny that the Holy Spirit knows, lest you deny that the Father knows. For what the Spirit of God knows are the things of God. Or if you confess that the Spirit of God knows, but deny that the Son of God knows, you contradict your own assertion by placing the Spirit before the Son. Hesitating on this matter is not only blasphemous but also foolish.

¹⁵ Now, let’s consider how knowledge is demonstrated, and let’s prove that the Son Himself showed that He knew the day of judgment. We typically demonstrate what we know by mentioning the time, place, signs, persons involved, or by explaining the sequence of events. How then could He not know the day of judgment, when He described both the time and place of judgment, the signs, and the circumstances?

¹⁶ For instance, He said: “In that hour no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.” His knowledge of the future was to the point that he not only knew about impending dangers, but also provided instructions to keep them safe.

¹⁷ Could the Lord be ignorant of a specific day when He Himself proclaimed that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath?

¹⁸ Furthermore, He has pinpointed a particular place on another occasion. When His disciples were admiring the temple buildings, He said to them, “Do you see all these things? Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

¹⁹ When His disciples questioned Him about signs, He warned them: “Be careful that you are not deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He;’” and further on He says: “and there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines, and pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.” Thus, He detailed both the individuals and the signs that would precede significant events.

²⁰ He also foretold how armies would surround Jerusalem and how the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled, explaining the sequence of events, as recorded in the Gospel. Therefore, it is evident that He knew all things.

Chapter 17 #

¹ We wonder why He chose not to reveal the timing. If we inquire, we won’t find it’s because He doesn’t know, but because of His wisdom. It wasn’t beneficial for us to know the exact timing, so that we, remaining unaware of the specific moments of judgment to come, would always be vigilant and maintain a strong commitment to virtue. This way, we can avoid sinful habits and be prepared, lest the day of judgment catches us in the midst of wrongdoing. Knowing isn’t to our advantage; instead, it’s better to have a reverent fear of the future, as it is written: “Do not be haughty, but fear.”

² If He had clearly revealed the exact day, it would appear as if He established a guideline applicable only to the generation closest to the judgment. This could lead the righteous of earlier times to be less vigilant, and it might make sinners less concerned. An adulterer, for instance, wouldn’t curb the urge to commit adultery unless the fear of punishment loomed daily. Likewise, a thief wouldn’t abandon their hiding spots in the woods unless they knew they faced imminent punishment. In general, impurity tends to drive them forward, whereas fear is a constant burden.

³ So, I affirm that it was not beneficial for us to know the exact timing; indeed, it is advantageous for us to remain unaware. Through this lack of knowledge, we maintain a healthy fear and remain vigilant for correction, as He Himself taught: “Be ready, for you do not know at what hour the Son of Man comes.” Just as a soldier in camp cannot keep watch effectively unless aware that war could break out at any moment.

⁴ So, on another occasion, when His Apostles asked Him (for they did not misunderstand like Arius, but believed that the Son of God knew the future; if they hadn’t believed this, they wouldn’t have asked the question) — the Lord Himself, I mean, when asked when He would restore the kingdom to Israel, did not say that He didn’t know. Instead, He replied: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.” Note carefully what He said: “It is not for you to know!” He emphasized, “For you,” not for Me. In that moment, He spoke not from His own absolute knowledge, but in a way beneficial for human understanding and our souls. So He said, “For you,” not for Me.

⁵ Similarly, the Apostle also followed this example. He said, “But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.” Thus, even the Apostle himself, a servant of Christ, did not say that he did not know the seasons. Rather, he asserted that there was no necessity to teach the people about them. They should always be equipped with spiritual armor so that the virtue of Christ may be evident in each person. When the Lord says, “Of the times which the Father has put in His own authority,” it is certain that He cannot lack a share in His Father’s knowledge, since He shares completely in His Father’s authority. Power is derived from wisdom and virtue, both of which Christ possesses abundantly.

⁶ You might wonder why Jesus did not simply refuse to answer His disciples, implying He knew but chose not to disclose, and why He said that neither the angels nor the Son knew. Similarly, you might ask why God in Genesis says, “I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry that has come unto Me. And if not, that I may know.” Why does Scripture also say of God: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men built”, and the prophet in the Psalms states, “The Lord looked down upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and that did seek God.” It seems as though, in these instances, if God had not descended or looked down, He would have been ignorant of humanity’s actions or their worthiness.

⁷ In the Gospel of Luke, you encounter a similar expression where the Father says, “What shall I do? I will send My beloved Son; perhaps they will reverence Him.” In Matthew and Mark, it is stated differently: “But He sent His only Son, saying, ‘They will reverence My Son.’” In one account, the Father’s statement “perhaps they will reverence My Son” suggests a hint of uncertainty, as if He does not know for sure, which typically reflects the language of someone unsure or pondering. However, in the other accounts, the Father confidently asserts, “They will reverence My Son,” indicating His certainty that reverence will indeed be shown.

⁸ But God cannot be uncertain or deceived. Uncertainty arises from ignorance of the future, and deception occurs when a prediction fails. Yet Scripture clearly states that the Father declared one thing about the Son, while another actually happened. The Son was beaten, mocked, crucified, and died—suffering more than previous servants. Was the Father misled, ignorant, or unable to intervene? The faithful God cannot err, as Scripture says: “God is faithful and does not lie.” How could the all-knowing God be ignorant? What could He, who can do all things, be unable to accomplish?

⁹ Yet if either the Father was ignorant or lacked power (for you seem more inclined to suggest the Father did not know rather than admit the Son knows), it follows that the Son shares the same substance with the Father. According to your flawed reasoning, if the Son, like the Father, does not know all things and cannot do all things, then they must be of one essence. I am cautious and not hasty in praising the Son to the extent of claiming He can do more than the Father. I do not differentiate their power, for I acknowledge equality in power between the Father and the Son.

¹⁰ But perhaps you argue that it was not the Father who said so, but that the Son made an error concerning the Father. By this reasoning, you not only accuse the Son of weakness but also of blasphemy and falsehood. However, if you do not believe the Son regarding the Father, then you cannot believe Him regarding anything else either. If He intended to mislead us by suggesting that the Father was uncertain, as if He did not know what would happen, then He also intended to deceive us about Himself by claiming not to know the future. It would be more tolerable for Him to veil His own knowledge voluntarily than to appear mistaken about something contrary to what He had predicted concerning His Father.

¹¹ But neither is the Father deceived, nor does the Son deceive. The holy Scriptures often speak in this manner, as numerous examples demonstrate, where God appears not to know what He indeed knows. Thus, a unity of divinity and character is affirmed in both the Father and the Son. Just as God the Father sometimes conceals His knowledge, so too does the Son, who reflects God’s image, conceal what He knows.

Chapter 18 #

¹ We have learned, therefore, that the Son of God is not unaware of future events. If they acknowledge this, I too—so that I can now explain why He said that not even the angels, nor the Son, but only the Father knows—recall His consistent love for His disciples in this instance, and His grace, which due to its frequent occurrence should have been recognized by all. For the Lord, overflowing with deep affection for His disciples, when they sought from Him knowledge that He deemed unbeneficial for them to possess, chooses to appear ignorant of what He actually knows, rather than withhold an answer. He prefers to provide what is beneficial for us, showing His love, rather than displaying His own authority.

² However, there are those who are not as timid as I am. For I would rather reverence the profound mysteries of God than claim to be wise. Some confidently rely on the passage that says, “And Jesus increased in age and in wisdom and in favor with God and man.” They assert boldly that according to His divine nature, He could not be ignorant of the future, but in His assumption of our human condition, He declared Himself as the Son of Man to be ignorant before His crucifixion. When He speaks of the Son, He does not speak of another, for He Himself is our Lord, the Son of God and the Son of a Virgin. Through His word that encompasses both, He guides our understanding so that in His assumption of our ignorance and growth in knowledge as the Son of Man, He might be believed to have not yet fully known all things. For it is not for us to know the future. Therefore, in that state in which He progresses, He appears to be ignorant. But how does He progress according to His Godhead, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells? Or what could the Son of God not know, who said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” How could He not know, when Scripture says, “But Jesus knew their thoughts”?

³ Others may hold such views, but I— returning to my earlier argument where I mentioned the Father’s words: “It may be they will reverence My Son” — I believe this was written so that the Father, speaking as if among men, might also appear to express human sentiments. Moreover, I am inclined to think that the Son, who walked among humanity, lived a human life, and took on our flesh, also embraced our human emotions. Thus, after experiencing our ignorance, He could truthfully say He did not know, even though there was nothing He did not know. Although He appeared as a man in His physical form, He was Life itself, and Light, and from Him emanated virtue that healed the wounds of the afflicted through His divine power.

⁴ Therefore, you see that this issue has been resolved for you, as the statement of the Son pertains to His complete assumption of our human condition. Likewise, it was written about the Father in such a manner to prevent any objections against the Son.

⁵ Therefore, there was nothing that the Son of God was ignorant of, because there was nothing that the Father was ignorant of. Since we now understand that the Son was ignorant of nothing, let them explain in what way they want Him to appear inferior. If God has begotten a Son inferior to Himself, then He has given Him less. And if He has given Him less, it means either that He intended to give less, or that He could only give less. However, the Father is neither lacking in power nor begrudging, considering that there was neither will nor ability before the Son. In what way is He inferior, when He possesses all things just as the Father does? He has received everything from the Father by the right of His generation, and has fully revealed the Father through the splendor of His Majesty.

⁶ It is said: “For the Father is greater than I.” Also, it is written: “He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Furthermore, it is written that the Jews sought to kill Him because He claimed to be the Son of God, thus making Himself equal with God. It is also written: “I and the Father are one.” They interpret this as unity, not plurality. So, can He be both inferior and equal in the same essence? No, one statement refers to His divine nature, while the other pertains to His humanity.

⁷ They claim He is inferior. But who has measured it? Who presumes to place the Father and the Son on their judgment seat to decide which is greater? “My heart is not proud; my eyes are not haughty,” said David. King David feared pride in human matters, yet we dare to oppose divine mysteries. Who can pass judgment on the Son of God? Thrones, dominions, angels, powers? Even archangels serve Him, cherubim and seraphim minister to Him and praise Him. Who, then, can judge the Son of God? The Father Himself knows the Son, but will not judge Him. “No one knows the Son except the Father.” It says ‘knows,’ not ‘judges.’ Knowing is one thing, judging another. The Father has knowledge within Himself. The Son has no authority greater than His own. And again: “No one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”

⁸ You argue that He claimed to be inferior; yet He also likened Himself to a cornerstone. You say more, but your words impiously criticize Him. I say less, and with reverence, I add to His honor. You declare Him inferior, yet acknowledge Him to be above the angels. I say He is lower than the angels, yet this does not diminish His honor; for I do not deny His divinity, but I do proclaim His compassion.

Chapter 19 #

¹ To You now, Almighty Father, I direct my words with tears. I have called You unapproachable, incomprehensible, and beyond estimation. Yet, I have never dared to say that Your Son is inferior to You. When I read that He is the brightness of Your glory and the image of Your being, I fear that by calling the image of Your being inferior, I might imply that Your being itself is inferior, of which the Son is the image. For the fullness of Your divine nature resides completely in the Son. I have often read, and I sincerely believe, that You, Your Son, and the Holy Spirit are boundless, immeasurable, beyond estimation, and indescribable. Therefore, I cannot assess You in a way that would measure or weigh You.

² But suppose I had the audacity and recklessness to measure You—where would I begin? The prophet saw a measuring line of flax used by an angel to measure Jerusalem. It was an angel who measured, not Arius. And it was Jerusalem being measured, not God Himself. Perhaps even an angel could not fully measure Jerusalem, for it is a city of humanity. As it is written: “I looked up and saw a man with a measuring line in his hand made of flax.” He was a man, representing the form that would be assumed. He was the man of whom it was said: “There comes after me a man whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.” Thus, Christ symbolically measures Jerusalem, while Arius presumes to measure God Himself.

³ Just as Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, is it any surprise that Arius, following his example, arrogates to himself what is forbidden? Though even the devil, his father, did not do this in his own case, this man dares with intolerable blasphemy to claim knowledge of divine secrets and the mysteries of the heavenly generation. For the devil acknowledged the true Son of God, while Arius denies Him.

⁴ If I cannot measure You, Almighty Father, can I discuss the secrets of Your generation without blasphemy? Can I assert that there is anything more or less between You and Your Son, when He Himself, begotten of You, declares, “All things that the Father has are Mine”? Who has appointed Me a judge or a divider over human affairs? This is what the Son says. Are we then to presume to judge and divide between the Father and the Son? A sense of reverence avoids arbitrators even in the division of an inheritance. And yet shall we appoint ourselves as arbitrators, to divide between You and Your Son the glory of the uncreated essence?

⁵ “This generation”, it is said, “is an evil one. It looks for a sign, yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” A sign of the Godhead is not given, but only of the Incarnation. Thus, when the prophet prepares to speak of the Incarnation, he says: “Ask for a sign.” When the king refuses, saying, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord,” the response comes: “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive.” Therefore, we cannot see a sign of the Godhead. Do we then seek a proof of it? Alas! Woe is me! We presumptuously dare to discuss Him, to Whom we cannot pray with due reverence!

⁶ Let the Arians consider their actions. I have erred in comparing You, Father, to Your works by saying You are greater than all. If Arius is right in saying You are greater than Your Son, then my judgment has been sinful. Your judgment will be the first on this matter. We cannot make a choice without comparing, nor can we place one above another without making a decision about Himself.

⁷ We cannot swear by heaven, but we can discuss and judge about God. Yet You have granted Your Son alone authority over all judgment.

⁸ John hesitated to baptize the Lord in the flesh; he refused, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me?” Should I then pass judgment on Christ?

⁹ Moses excused himself from the priesthood, and Peter sought to avoid the obedience required in ministry; yet Arius dares to examine the deep things of God? Arius is not the Holy Spirit. It was said to Arius and to all: “Do not seek what is too deep for you.”

¹⁰ Moses was prevented from seeing the face of God; did Arius deserve to see it in secret? Moses and Aaron were among His priests. Moses, who appeared with the Lord in glory, only saw the back of God. Yet Arius claims to see God fully, face to face! But it is written: “No one can see My face and live.”

¹¹ Paul acknowledges our limited understanding: “We know in part and we prophesy in part.” Arius claims boldly: “I know God completely and not partially.” Thus, Paul is inferior to Arius; the chosen vessel knows only in part, while the vessel of condemnation knows fully! Paul recounts an experience: “I know a man, whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows, how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words.” Paul, caught up to the third heaven, did not fully comprehend; yet Arius, steeped in error, claims full knowledge of God. Paul says of himself: “God knows”; Arius says of God: “I know.”

¹² But Arius was not taken up to heaven. Instead, he followed the one who arrogantly presumed upon divine matters, saying: “I will set my throne above the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” Just as this one declared, “I will be like the Most High,” Arius similarly desires that the Son of God, the Most High, should appear like himself. Arius does not worship Him in the eternal glory of His divinity but measures Him by the limitations of human flesh.