Chapter 1 #

¹ Upon reflection, Your Majesty, when pondering why humanity has diverged so greatly, and why so many, regrettably, hold to various beliefs regarding the Son of God, it appears astonishing, not because human intellect has struggled to comprehend matters beyond our understanding, but rather because it has not yielded to the teachings of the Scriptures.

² Indeed, why should we be surprised if, through their worldly wisdom, people have failed to grasp the profound mystery of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom lie hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge? This mystery, which even angels cannot fully comprehend except through revelation, remains beyond the reach of mere human understanding.

³ Who indeed could, solely by the power of imagination and not by faith, comprehend the journey of the Lord Jesus—descending from the highest heaven to the depths of Hades, then rising again from there to heavenly realms? In an instant, He humbled Himself to dwell among us, yet He never diminished His essence; the Son always abiding in the Father, and the Father in the Son.

⁴ Even John the Baptist, though chosen to herald Christ’s coming, had doubts. Despite his role as the precursor to the Lord, he eventually sent messengers to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

⁵ Even angels themselves were awe-struck by the heavenly mystery. When the Lord rose from the dead, surpassing the confines of the grave where His flesh had been laid, even the celestial hosts were filled with doubt and amazement, unable to fully comprehend the glory of His resurrection.

⁶ A Conqueror appeared, adorned with marvelous spoils, as the Lord entered His holy Temple, with angels and archangels preceding Him, marveling at the victory won over death. Though they understood that nothing can enhance God’s essence through the flesh, as all things are inferior to God, yet beholding the triumph of the Cross, with its government resting on His shoulders and the spoils carried by the eternal Conqueror, they sought a wider and loftier passage for His return, as if the gates could not contain Him who had passed through them, though His greatness knows no bounds — so untouched was He by His self-emptying.

⁷ It was fitting that a new path be prepared before the presence of the new Conqueror, for a Conqueror always appears taller and greater than others. However, since the Gates of Righteousness, representing both the Old and the New Testament, through which heaven is opened, are eternal, they are not altered but elevated. For it was not just one individual, but the entire world that entered through them, embodied in the All-Redeemer.

⁸ Enoch was translated, and Elijah was caught up, yet the servant is not greater than his Master. For no one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven; and even concerning Moses, although his body was never seen on earth, there is no mention of him abiding in celestial glory unless it was after the Lord, through the earnest of His own Resurrection, broke the bonds of hell and elevated the souls of the righteous. Thus, Enoch was translated, and Elijah was caught up, both as servants, both in the body, but not after rising from the dead, nor accompanied by the spoils of death and the triumphant procession of the Cross, as they were not witnessed by angels.

⁹ Therefore, upon perceiving the arrival of the Lord of all, the ultimate Conqueror of Death, they commanded their leaders to raise the gates, proclaiming in reverence, “Lift up, O gates, your heads; grow higher, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall enter.”

¹⁰ Even among the heavenly hosts, there were those who remained astonished, overwhelmed by the unprecedented grandeur and glory they beheld. Thus, they inquired, “Who is this King of glory?” However, considering that angels, like us, acquire knowledge gradually and are capable of advancement, they undoubtedly exhibit variations in power and understanding. For only God stands beyond the constraints of gradual progression, possessing every perfection from eternity.

¹¹ Others, those who had witnessed His resurrection or already recognized Him, responded: “He is the Lord, mighty and victorious, the Lord, mighty in battle.”

¹² Once more, the multitude of angels sang in a triumphant chorus: “Lift up, O gates, your heads; grow higher, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall enter.”

¹³ And again, those who stood amazed challenged: “Who is this King of glory? For we saw Him without beauty or majesty; if it is not He, then who is this King of glory?”

¹⁴ Those who understand reply: “The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.” Therefore, the Lord of hosts, He is the Son. So, how do the Arians dare to call Him fallible, whom we acknowledge as the Lord of hosts, just as we do of the Father? How can they make distinctions between the supreme powers of each, when we have found the Son, as well as the Father, titled Lord of Sabaoth? Indeed, in this very passage, the reading in many manuscripts is: “The Lord of Sabaoth, He is the King of glory.” Now, the translators have rendered “the Lord of Sabaoth” as “the Lord of hosts” in some places, “the Lord the King” in others, and “the Lord Omnipotent” in yet others. Therefore, since the one who ascended is the Son, and moreover, the one who ascended is the Lord of Sabaoth, it inevitably follows that the Son of God is omnipotent!

Chapter 2 #

¹ What should we do, then? How do we get up to heaven? Up there, powers are ordered into position, guarding the gates, challenging those who ascend. Who’s going to let me through unless I declare that Christ is all-powerful? The gates are closed off—not just anyone can enter. You’ve got to believe the real deal to get in. Heaven’s got its security tight.

² But let’s say someone unworthy manages to sneak in, slipping past the guardians at heaven’s gates, and ends up at the Lord’s supper. When the host arrives and sees someone not wearing the proper attire of faith, they’ll toss them into the darkness outside, where there’s nothing but crying and grinding of teeth, if they’re not holding onto faith and peace.

³ So, let’s hold onto the wedding garment we’ve been given and not withhold from Christ what rightfully belongs to Him. Angels proclaim His omnipotence, prophets predict it, and apostles testify to it, just as we’ve discussed earlier.

⁴ Perhaps the prophet wasn’t just referring to the gates of the overarching heaven when speaking of His entry. There are other heavens too, where the Word of God travels. It’s said: “We have a great Priest, a High Priest, Who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.” What heavens are these if not those which the prophet mentions “the heavens declare the glory of God”?

⁵ Christ is right there, knocking at the door of your soul. Listen to His words: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man open to Me, I will come in to him, and I will eat with him, and he with Me.” And the Church adds, speaking of Him: “The voice of my brother sounds at the door.”

⁶ He stands there, but not alone, for angels precede Him, saying: “Lift up the gates, O you the princes.” What gates? The ones the Psalmist mentions elsewhere: “Open to me the gates of righteousness.” So, open your gates to Christ—open the gates of righteousness, of purity, of courage, and of wisdom. Let Him enter into you.

⁷ Believe what the angels proclaim: “Be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in, the Lord of Sabaoth.” Your gate is the resounding confession made with faithful voice; it is the entrance for the Lord, which the Apostle desires to have opened for him, as he says: “That a door of the word may be opened for me, to proclaim the mystery of Christ.”

⁸ So, let your gate be opened to Christ, and not just opened, but lifted up, if it’s truly eternal and not destined for destruction; for it is written: “And be lifted up, you everlasting doors.” The lintel was lifted up for Isaiah when the seraph touched his lips and he beheld the Lord of Sabaoth.

⁹ So, your gates shall indeed be lifted up if you believe the Son of God to be eternal, omnipotent, transcending all praise and comprehension, knowing all things past and future. But if you perceive Him as having limited power and knowledge, as subordinate, then you do not raise up the everlasting doors.

¹⁰ So, let your gates be lifted up, that Christ may enter unto you—not the Christ the Arians depict, small, feeble, and insignificant, but Christ in the form of God, Christ with the Father; that He may enter as He truly is, exalted above heaven and all things; and that He may send forth His Holy Spirit upon you. It is crucial for you to believe that He has ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father. For if you keep Him confined within the realm of created and earthly things with impious thoughts, if He does not depart for you, if He does not ascend for you, then the Comforter will not come to you, just as Christ Himself has told us: “For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you, but if I depart, I will send Him to you.”

¹¹ If you seek Him among earthly beings, like Mary of Magdala sought Him, be cautious, otherwise He’ll say to you, as He said to her: “Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto My Father.” For your gates are narrow—they provide me no passage—they cannot be lifted up, and thus I cannot enter.

¹² Go and speak to my brothers—to those eternal gates that lift up when they see Jesus. Peter is an everlasting door, against which the gates of hell cannot stand. John and James, the sons of thunder, are also everlasting door. The doors of the Church are everlasting, where the prophet, eager to proclaim Christ’s praises, says: “So I can declare all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.”

¹³ The mystery of Christ is indeed profound, causing even angels to stand amazed and bewildered. Therefore, it is your duty to worship Him, and as a servant, you should not detract from your Lord. Ignorance cannot be an excuse, for He descended precisely so that you may believe; if you do not believe, then He has not come down for you, has not suffered for you. As the Scripture says, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well.” So, who hates Christ if not the one who speaks dishonorably of Him? For it is the role of love to bestow honor, and hate’s role to withdraw it. Whoever hates, questions; whoever loves, reveres.

Chapter 3 #

¹ Let’s look at some other objections made by the Arians. They say it is written that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” If they wish, they can explain what they mean by this objection—whether they intend to connect or separate these four terms. Let’s assume they mean to connect them and argue that God is the Head of Christ in the same way that man is the head of woman. Notice the conclusion they reach. If this comparison is based on the supposed equality of the terms, and if we view woman, man, Christ, and God together as similar because they share the same nature, then woman and God would start to fall under the same definition.

² However, if this conclusion is unsatisfactory due to its impiety, let them divide the terms however they choose. If they argue that Christ relates to God the Father in the same way that woman relates to man, then they must acknowledge that Christ and God share the same substance, just as woman and man share the same nature in terms of their flesh, since their only difference is in sex. However, since there is no difference of sex between Christ and His Father, they should recognize what is one and common to both the Son and the Father in terms of nature, while denying any difference based on sex.

³ Does this conclusion satisfy them? Or do they claim that woman, man, and Christ are of one substance while distinguishing the Father from them? If this is their position, let’s see where it leads them. They must either admit that they are not just Arians but also very much like Photinians, since they acknowledge only the humanity of Christ, whom they consider to be on the same level as other human beings. Alternatively, they must, despite their inclinations, agree with our belief, which we uphold in a dutiful and godly manner. This belief maintains that, following His divine generation, Christ is indeed the power of God, while, after taking on flesh, He is of one substance with all men concerning His flesh—except for the unique glory of His Incarnation, as He took on the reality of flesh, not merely an illusion.

⁴ Let God be the Head of Christ in relation to the conditions of His humanity. Notice that Scripture does not say the Father is the Head of Christ; it states that God is the Head of Christ because the divine nature, as the creating power, is the Head of what has been created. The Apostle rightly said, “the Head of Christ is God,” highlighting both the divinity of Christ and His humanity. This implies the Incarnation when mentioning the name of Christ, and signifies the unity of the divine nature and the greatness of sovereignty when referring to the name of God.

⁵ However, the statement that God is the Head of Christ concerning the Incarnation leads to the understanding that Christ, in His Incarnation, is the Head of man. This is clearly expressed by the Apostle in another passage where he states, “Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church.” In the following words, he adds, “Who gave Himself for her.” Therefore, after His Incarnation, Christ becomes the head of man, as His self-sacrifice stems from His Incarnation.

⁶ Therefore, the Head of Christ is God, as long as we consider His form as a servant, that is, as a man, not as God. It does not detract from the Son of God that, in His true humanity, He is like men, while in terms of His divinity, He is one with the Father. By this understanding, we do not diminish His sovereignty; instead, we acknowledge His compassion.

⁷ But who can, in good conscience, deny the one Godhead of the Father and the Son, when our Lord said, to complete His teaching for His disciples: “That they may be one, even as we are one”? This statement supports the Faith, although Arians distort it to fit their heresy. They cannot deny the frequently mentioned Unity, so they try to diminish it, making the Unity of Godhead between the Father and the Son seem like the unity of devotion and faith among men. However, even among men, a shared nature creates true unity

⁸ Thus, we clearly disprove the common Arian objection that aims to weaken the Divine Unity by citing the passage: “But he who plants and he who waters are one.” The Arians, if they were wise, would not use this against us. How can they deny that the Father and the Son are One if Paul and Apollos are considered one, both in nature and in faith? However, we also acknowledge that Paul and Apollos cannot be one in all respects, as human matters cannot fully compare to divine matters.

⁹ Therefore, no separation should be made between the Word and God the Father—not in power, not in wisdom—due to the Unity of the Divine Substance. God the Father is in the Son, as Scripture often states, but not as one sanctifying someone who lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Additionally, the power of one is not increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does one Godhead contain another, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. In contrast, we shall be one in Christ through the Power received from another and dwelling in us.

¹⁰ The letter of the unity is shared, but the Substance of God and the substance of man are different. We shall be one; the Father and the Son already are one. We shall be one by grace; the Son is one with the Father by substance. Additionally, unity by conjunction is one thing, and unity by nature is another. Finally, observe what Scripture has recorded: “That they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You.”

¹¹ Notice that He did not say “You in us, and we in You,” but rather “You in Me, and I in You,” to distinguish Himself from His creatures. Furthermore, He added, “that they also may be in Us,” to highlight the separation of His and His Father’s dignity from us. This shows that our union with the Father and the Son is a result of grace, not nature. In contrast, the unity of the Father and the Son is understood to be natural, with the Son possessing this unity by inherent right of His Sonship, not by grace.

Chapter 4 #

¹ Another objection raised by the Arians is their denial that the power of the Father and the Son can be the same. They base this on the statement: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself but only what He sees the Father doing.” Therefore, they assert that the Son has done nothing on His own and can only do what He has seen the Father doing.

² O wise foreknowledge of the arguments of unbelievers, which provided additional means to answer questions by including the following words: “For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” This indeed is the conclusion. Why, then, is it written that the Son does the same things, and not similar things? It is so that you might understand that in the Son there is unity with the Father’s works, not merely an imitation of them.

³ Let’s put their proofs to the test: I want them to answer this question straightforwardly. Does the Son see the works of the Father, yes or no? If He does, then He also does them. And if He does them, then heretics should stop denying the omnipotence of Him whom they acknowledge as capable of doing all that He has seen the Father doing.

⁴ Now, what do we mean by “has seen”? Does the Son require physical eyes? If they claim this about the Son, they would imply that the Father also needs physical activity so that the Son can see what He Himself is supposed to do.

⁵ Let’s delve deeper into the meaning of the phrase “The Son can do nothing of Himself.” This question warrants discussion. Is there anything impossible for God’s Power and Wisdom? These, remember, are attributes of the Son of God. His Might isn’t a gift received from another; just as He is Life, not relying on another’s vitality but imparting life Himself because He is Life; similarly, He is Wisdom, not as one who lacks wisdom acquiring it, but making others wise from His own abundance; likewise, He is Power, not as one who gains strength through weakness but inherently possessing power and empowering the strong.

⁶ How does Power, then, solemnly affirm: “Truly, truly I say to you,” which essentially means: “Without a doubt, I tell you”? So, Lord Jesus, You speak truthfully and affirm, reiterating Your solemn declaration, that You can do nothing except what You have seen the Father doing. You created the universe. Did Your Father then create another universe for You to follow as a model? Must Your detractors then admit to the existence of two or even multiple universes, as some philosophers claim, thus entangling themselves in this pagan error? Or, if they choose to follow the truth, let them acknowledge that what You have created, You created without any blueprint.

⁷ Tell me, Lord, when did You witness Your Father incarnate, walking upon the sea? For I find it blasphemous to believe such a thing of the Father, knowing that only You have taken on our human flesh. When did You see the Father at a wedding, turning water into wine? No, I have learned that You alone are the unique Son, begotten of the Father. I have been taught that You alone, in the mystery of the Incarnation, were born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. So the deeds we have mentioned as Yours were not done by the Father, but by You alone. Without the guidance of any previous work by Your Father, You emerged immaculate from the Virgin’s womb to redeem the world with Your Blood.

⁸ When they claim, “The Son can do nothing of Himself,” they mean exactly that. One blasphemer has even dared to say, “He cannot even make a gnat,” mocking with such audacious profanity and insolence, disregarding the majesty of Supreme Power. However, perhaps they consider the mystery of Your Incarnate Life to be a necessary exception. But tell us, Lord Jesus, what did the Father create without You? For without You, He created neither heaven nor earth, as it is written: “By the Word of the Lord, the heavens were made.”

⁹ Indeed, the Father did not create the earth without You, for it is written: “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made.” If the Father made anything without You, God the Word, then not all things were made by the Word, and the Evangelist would be mistaken. But if all things were made by the Word, and if through You all things come into being, which previously did not exist, then surely You Yourself have created what You did not see made by the Father. Though our adversaries may resort to Plato’s theory and suggest the existence of ideas proposed by philosophers, which we know have been refuted even by philosophers themselves. On the contrary, if You Yourself have created all things, then the claims of the unbelievers, which attribute progress in learning to the Creator of all, are empty. For it is You who, of Your own accord, provide the teachings of Your craftsmanship.

¹⁰ If heretics deny that either the heavens or the earth were made by You, they should be mindful of the abyss into which their own madness is leading them. After all, it is written: “Let the gods who did not make heaven and earth perish.” Shall He then perish, O Arian, who has found and saved what was lost? But let’s return to the main point.

Chapter 5 #

¹ In what way can the Son not act independently? Let’s explore what limitations He faces. There are various types of impossibilities. Some things are inherently impossible, while others are within the realm of possibility but are hindered due to some form of limitation. Additionally, there are tasks made feasible by strength but hindered by lack of skill or physical and mental weaknesses. Moreover, there are circumstances that cannot be altered due to the steadfastness of an unchangeable plan, the perseverance of a resolute will, and the loyalty of friendship.

² To clarify, let’s look at some examples. A bird cannot engage in academic study or master any human art—it’s just not within their nature. Likewise, a stone cannot move on its own; it requires the force of another object to set it in motion. So, inherently, a stone cannot shift from its position independently. Similarly, an eagle cannot be educated in human knowledge and skills.

³ It is, to take another example, impossible for a sick man to do a strong man’s work; but in this case the reason of the impossibility is of a different kind, for the man is rendered unable, by sickness, to do what he is naturally capable of doing. In this case, then, the cause of the impossibility is sickness, and this kind of impossibility is different from the first, since the man is hindered by bodily weakness from the possibility of doing.

⁴ Once more, there’s a third reason for impossibility. A person might possess natural ability and be physically fit to perform a task, yet still be unable to do so due to lack of skill or because societal factors disqualify them. This could mean they lack the necessary knowledge or are restricted by their social status, such as being a slave.

⁵ Which of the three causes of impossibility we’ve discussed (setting aside the fourth) do you think applies to the case of the Son of God? Is He naturally unfeeling and unchangeable, like a stone? He is indeed a stumbling block for the wicked and a cornerstone for the faithful, but He is not unfeeling; the heartfelt devotion of sentient beings rests upon Him. He is not an unmoving rock, “for they drank of a Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Therefore, the work of the Father is not made impossible for Christ due to a difference in nature.

⁶ Perhaps we might assume that some things were made impossible for Him due to weakness. However, He was not weak; He could heal the weaknesses of others with His authoritative word. Did He seem weak when He told the paralytic to take up his bed and walk? He instructed the man to perform an action that required health, even while the patient was still asking for a remedy for his illness. The Lord of hosts was not weak when He gave sight to the blind, made the crooked stand upright, raised the dead to life, anticipated the effects of medicine at our prayers, and healed those who sought Him; merely touching the fringe of His robe brought purification.

⁷ Unless, perhaps, you thought it was weakness, you wretches, when you saw His wounds. Indeed, they were wounds that pierced His Body, but those wounds did not signify weakness; from them flowed the Life of all. That is why the prophet said, “By His stripes we are healed.” Was He, then, who was not weak in the moment He was wounded, weak in terms of His Sovereignty? How can that be? Was He weak when He commanded the demons or forgave the sins of sinners? Or when He prayed to the Father?

⁸ Our adversaries may indeed inquire: How can the Father and the Son be One if the Son sometimes commands and other times prays? It’s true, They are One; it’s also true that He both commands and prays. Yet, when He commands, He is not alone, and likewise, when He prays, He is not weak. He is not alone, because whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. He is not weak, for though He experienced weakness in the flesh for our sins, it was the punishment for our peace upon Him, not a lack of sovereign Power within Himself.

⁹ Furthermore, so you may understand that He appeals to us based on His humanity and commands us in the authority of His divinity, it is written in the Gospel that He said to Peter, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.” To the same Apostle, when he previously declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus responded, “You are Peter, and on this Rock, I will build My Church, and I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom He entrusted the kingdom, to whom He called the Rock, thus declaring him to be the foundation of the Church? Consider the way He appeals and the reasons behind His commands. He appeals when He is about to suffer; He commands when He is recognized as the Son of God.

¹⁰ We see, then, that two types of impossibility do not provide an explanation, since God’s Power can neither be indifferent nor weak. Will you then suggest a third type, that He can do nothing, much like an unskilled apprentice can do nothing without the guidance of his master, or a slave can do nothing without his lord? If that were true, then You, Lord Jesus, would have spoken falsely when You called Yourself Master and Lord, and You would have misled Your disciples with Your words: “You call Me Master and Lord, and you are right, for that is what I am.” No, You, O Truth, would never deceive people, especially not those whom You called friends.

¹¹ But even if our adversaries attempt to separate You from the Creator, likening You to an unskilled craftsman, they fail to see that they’re implying a lack of skill in You, the Divine Wisdom. Nonetheless, their efforts cannot sever the unity of substance that You share with the Father. The difference between a skilled craftsman and an unskilled one arises not from nature, but from ignorance. Yet, craftsmanship isn’t attributed to the Father, nor is ignorance attributed to You, for there is no such thing as wisdom lacking knowledge.

¹² Therefore, if insensitivity is not a characteristic of the Son, and if He lacks weakness, ignorance, or servility, let those who doubt reflect on this: both by nature and authority, the Son is one with the Father, and His power works in harmony with the Father. As it is said, “all things that the Father has done, the Son does likewise.” No one can perform the same work as another unless they share the same nature and are equal in their method of operation.

¹³ Still, I want to ask what the Son cannot do unless He sees the Father doing it. I will take a foolish approach and give some examples from the lower world. “I have become a fool; you have compelled me.” What could be more foolish than debating the majesty of God, which leads to questions rather than the godly instruction found in faith? But let arguments respond to arguments; let words answer each other, while love—the love that comes from God, stemming from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith—should guide us. So, I am not afraid to use even the ridiculous to refute such a foolish claim.

¹⁴ So, how does the Son see the Father? A horse may see a painting, but it is naturally unable to imitate it. The Son does not behold the Father in that way. A child can see the work of an adult, but he cannot reproduce it; again, this is not how the Son sees the Father.

¹⁵ If the Son, by virtue of a shared hidden power of the same nature as the Father, can both see and act in an invisible way, and by the fullness of His divinity carry out every decree of His Will, what remains for us but to believe that the Son, due to His indivisible unity of power, does nothing except what He has seen the Father doing? Because of His incomparable love, the Son does nothing on His own, as He does not desire anything that goes against His Father’s Will. This is not a sign of weakness, but rather a demonstration of unity.

Chapter 6 #

¹ The Son, moreover — considering now our fourth premise — is not self-assertive, as He, the Divine Assessor, has done nothing that is not in agreement with His Father’s Will. Furthermore, the Father has seen the things that the Son created and pronounced them very good; as it is written in Genesis: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light and saw that it was good.

² Did the Father say at that time, “Let there be light like the light I have already made,” or did He simply say, “Let there be light,” even though light didn’t yet exist? Or did the Son ask the Father what kind of light He made? No, the Son created light according to His own will, and the Father was pleased with it. The passage is talking about the new and original work created by the Son.

³ Again, if, as Arian interpretations of the Scriptures claim, it is a discredit to the Son to have created what He saw, whereas the Scriptures present Him as creating what He had not previously seen, and bringing into existence things that did not yet exist, what should they say of the Father, Who praised what He had seen, as though He could not have foreseen the things that were to be made?

⁴ The Son, therefore, sees the Father’s work just as the Father sees the Son’s work, and the Father does not praise the work as if it were done by another, but recognizes it as His own. For whatever the Father has done, the Son does in the same way. This was written so you might understand that the work is both the Father’s and the Son’s. Thus, the Son does nothing except what is approved, praised, and willed by the Father, because His whole Being comes from the Father. Unlike created beings, which often err and offend the Will of their Creator by falling into sin, everything the Son does is pleasing to the Father. For They share one Will, one Purpose, one true Love, and one unified action.

⁵ Furthermore, to prove that it is out of Love that the Son can do nothing by Himself except what He has seen the Father doing, the Apostle added these words: “Whatever the Father has done, the Son also does in the same manner.” The reason given is: “For the Father loves the Son.” Thus, Scripture attributes the Son’s inability to act independently to a unity in Love that allows no separation or disagreement.

⁶ If the inseparability of the Persons in Love is based on their identical nature, then they are also inseparable in action. It is impossible for the work of the Son to be out of alignment with the Father’s Will, because what the Son does, the Father also does, and what the Father does, the Son also does. Similarly, what the Son speaks, the Father speaks as well, as it is written: “My Father, who dwells in Me, He is the one who speaks, and the works that I do, He Himself does.” The Father accomplishes everything through His Power and Wisdom, for He made all things wisely, as it is written: “In wisdom You have made them all.” Likewise, God the Word does nothing without the Father’s participation.

⁷ The Son does not work without the Father; He did not offer Himself for the most holy Passion—the Victim slain for the salvation of the whole world—without His Father’s Will. Nor did He raise the dead to life without His Father’s Will. For example, when He was about to raise Lazarus, He lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but I said this for the sake of the multitude standing around, that they may believe that You have sent Me.” In speaking this way, assuming the character of a man in the flesh, He still expressed His oneness with the Father in will and action. The Father hears and sees all that the Son wills, and thus sees the Son’s actions and hears His words. The Son made no request, yet said He had been heard, showing their perfect unity.

⁸ Again, we cannot suppose that the Father does not hear everything that the Son wills. To show that He is always heard by the Father, not as a servant or a prophet, but as the Son, He said: “And I know that You always hear Me, but I spoke for the sake of the multitude standing around, that they may believe that You have sent Me.”

⁹ It is for our sake, therefore, that He gives thanks, so we do not mistakenly believe that the Father and the Son are the same Person when we hear of their unified work. Furthermore, to show that His act of giving thanks was not due to a lack of power, but rather to affirm His divine authority as the Son of God, He called out, “Lazarus, come forth.” This is surely the voice of command, not of prayer.

Chapter 7 #

¹ To return to our previous discussion and complete our task: the Son, as the Word, carries out His Father’s will. In our understanding, a word is an utterance, composed of syllables and sounds, which align with our thoughts. We express what we understand and feel internally through spoken words, which act on our behalf. However, our spoken words lack direct power. Only the Word of God, which is neither a mere utterance nor an internal concept, works effectively, is alive, and possesses healing power.

² The Scriptures illuminate the nature of the Word. “For the Word of God is alive and powerful, working effectively. It is sharper and more penetrating than any sword, capable of dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow.”

³ Listen, then, to the Word of God, and do not separate Him from the Will and Power of the Father. He is referred to as the living Word, the healing Word. Do not attempt to equate Him with the words we speak; for even though our spoken word lacks the ability to see or hear, it still communicates, drawing upon the hidden mysteries of human nature for its understanding. How can one avoid the accusation of blasphemy when they insist that the Word of God must be accompanied by some form of bodily vision and hearing, and believe that the Son can only act in accordance with what He has seen the Father do, when, as we have explained, there is the same Will and Power in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, due to their unity in the same essence?

⁴ If, despite the usual diversity in human thoughts and feelings, people generally agree on the meaning of a single statement, what should we conclude about the Father and the Son of God, given that within the Divine Essence there exists something akin to human love?

⁵ Let us entertain, as our adversaries suggest, the notion that the Son mirrors the actions of His Father. Yet, even this acknowledgment implies that He shares the same essence, for no one can perfectly replicate the actions of another unless they are united in the same nature.

Chapter 8 #

¹ There is a nonsensical objection, Your Majesty, that some individuals raise in an attempt to portray the Father and the Son as unequal, arguing that the Father is Almighty because He has begotten the Son, while the Son is not Almighty because He has not begotten.

² Look at the absurdity of their blasphemy, how their philosophical reasoning contradicts itself. By posing this question, they are compelled to admit either that the Son is co-eternal with the Father or, if they insist on assigning a beginning to the Son’s existence, they must also concede a beginning to the Father’s power. Therefore, when they deny that the Son is Almighty, they are essentially suggesting, which is blasphemous, that the Father became Almighty with the assistance of the Son.

³ If the Father is Almighty because He has begotten the Son, then either the Son is co-eternal with the Father—because if the Father is eternally Almighty, then so is the Son—or, if there was a time when there was no eternal Son, then there was a time when there was no Almighty Father. When they argue that there was a time when the Son began to exist, they inadvertently suggest that the Father’s Power also did not exist from eternity, but came into being as a result of the Son’s generation. Thus, in their attempt to discredit the Son of God, they unintentionally elevate His honor by implying that He, contrary to all proper belief, is the source of His Father’s Power, even though the Son Himself says, “All things that the Father has are Mine”—meaning, not the things that He has given to the Father, but the things He has received from the Father, rightfully as the Son begotten by the Father.

⁴ Therefore, we declare the Son to be Eternal Power; and if His Power and Godhead are eternal, surely His Sovereignty is eternal as well. Whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father and becomes an enemy and offender against duty and love. Let us honor the Son, in whom the Father is well pleased, for it is the Father’s will that praise be given to the Son, in whom He Himself is well pleased.

⁵ Let us, however, respond to the conclusion they are trying to establish. It may seem that in making a personal appeal, we have avoided addressing the core question. They argue that the Father has begotten a Son, while the Son has not. But how does this prove they are not equal? Begetting is the natural function of the Father, as a Father, and not necessarily the result of His Sovereign Power. Furthermore, respectful regard places persons on an equal footing and does not divide them. Even our own experience, in the realm of frail mortals, shows that weak men may have sons while stronger men do not, that slaves may have children while their masters are childless, and that the poor may have offspring while the wealthy remain without.

⁶ If our opponents argue that infertility might explain why some men can’t have children despite wanting them, let them realize that, while divine matters aren’t judged by human standards, the same principle applies to us. Whether someone has children or not isn’t about their authoritative power, but about their personal attributes as a father. The ability to conceive isn’t solely determined by our will; it’s influenced by our physical qualities. If it were about sovereign authority, then the more powerful ruler would have more sons. So, having children or being childless isn’t inherently linked to sovereign authority. Does nature operate in the same way, though?

⁷ If you, my Arian opponents, consider what you’re objecting to as a natural weakness and draw examples from human nature, remember that the Father’s nature is identical to the Son’s. So, by doing this, you’re either admitting that the Son is a genuine Son and disrespecting the Father through the Son’s unity with Him in the same nature (because just as the Father is God by nature, so is the Son, whereas the Apostle clarifies that there are many gods who are not so by nature but are simply called gods). Or, if you deny that the Son is a genuine Son, meaning he doesn’t possess the same nature, then he wasn’t begotten. And if the Son wasn’t begotten, then the Father didn’t beget Him.

⁸ So, following your line of argumentation, the conclusion we arrive at is that God the Father isn’t Almighty because if He couldn’t beget, then He didn’t beget the Son but created Him. However, since you maintain that the Father is Almighty, being the sole Author of Being, then surely He has begotten His Son, not created Him. However, we should trust His word over yours. He declares: “I have begotten,” and not just once, affirming Himself as the one who begets.

⁹ Therefore, it’s not an indication of weakness, either in nature or authority, in Christ that He hasn’t begotten. As we’ve repeated many times, begetting has nothing to do with supreme authority but is a personal characteristic of a nature. If the Father’s omnipotence depends on having a Son, then He could have been even more Almighty if He had begotten more Sons.

¹⁰ Is His power then exhausted in the begetting of One? No, I will show you that Christ also has sons whom He begets every day, but this generation, or rather regeneration, relates to personal authority rather than nature. Adoption is the exercise and granting of authority, while generation is the expression of a property, as Scripture teaches us: John says that “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God, to them which believe in His Name.”

¹¹ Therefore, we assert that it’s through the function and exercise of His Authority that He has made us sons of God. However, the divine revelations show that His generation is linked to a personal attribute. The Wisdom of God declares: “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High,” indicating a voluntary action, not compelled, but freely undertaken. This birth was not subject to the bondage of authority but originated from hidden depths, according to the personal powers of Supreme Sovereignty and the rightful exercise of authority. Moreover, concerning this same Wisdom, who is the Lord Jesus, the Father speaks in another passage: “Out of the womb I begot You, before the morning star.”

¹² He said this not to lead us to think of a physical womb, but to show that true generation is His proper activity. If we interpret these words as referring to generation from a body, we would imply that the Almighty Father conceived and brought forth in labor. But we should never make this fragile physical form the measure of God’s greatness. The word “womb” signifies the hidden mystery, the inner sanctuary of the Father’s essence, into which neither angels, archangels, powers, dominions, nor any created nature can enter. The Son is always with the Father and in the Father—with the Father, through the distinction that exists without division in the Eternal Trinity; in the Father, due to the essential unity of the Divine Nature.

¹³ Where’s the space for someone to judge the divine, questioning the nature of the Father and the Son—blaming one for begetting and the other for not? No one faults their servant or maid for having children, but these Arians fault Christ for not fathering. They do fault Him, as they secretly pass judgment on Him by diminishing His glory and honor. Asking why someone hasn’t fathered offspring doesn’t diminish the love between married partners or deny their worth to each other. Yet, the Arians, because Christ hasn’t fathered a son, undermine His authority.

¹⁴ Why do they ask why the Son isn’t a Father? Well, on the flip side, the Father isn’t a Son. Why hasn’t Christ fathered? Simply put, because the Father isn’t begotten. However, the Son isn’t diminished because He’s not a Father, nor is the Father diminished because He’s not a Son. As the Son said, ‘All things that the Father has are Mine’—generation is deeply intertwined with the Father’s personal attributes, not just a matter of sovereignty.

¹⁵ The Substance of the Trinity is, essentially, a shared Essence that exists in distinct forms—an incomprehensible and ineffable Substance. We acknowledge the distinction, not the confusion, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation or plurality. Thus, we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wondrous Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits. For “there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.” There is One born of the Father, the Lord Jesus, and thus He is the Only-begotten. “There is also One Holy Spirit,” as the same Apostle has said. This is what we believe, what we read, and what we hold. We recognize the fact of distinction, yet we know nothing of the hidden mysteries; we do not delve into the causes but adhere to the outward signs granted to us.

¹⁶ What a monstrous wickedness it is for those who have no control over their own procreation to claim the authority to inquire into the Divine Generation! Let them then deny that the Son is equal to the Father simply because He has not begotten; let them deny that the Son is equal to the Father because He has a Father! But if they were to speak in this manner about humans, who sometimes desire to have children but cannot, we would deem it an insult, just as we would if one man with children were deemed superior to another without. It seems equally monstrous, I say, even regarding humans, that one should be esteemed less because he has a father. Perhaps the Arians imagine Christ to be like someone in a household, frustrated because He’s not emancipated from His Father’s authority and lacks the power to manage the estate. But Christ is not under guardianship; on the contrary, He has abolished all forms of it.

¹⁷ So, let them explain, how do they envision these things? A true generation, the genuine Son begotten of God the Father, that is, of the Father’s Substance, or of a different substance? If they say begotten of the Father, that is, of God’s Substance, then they acknowledge the Son as begotten of the Father’s Substance. If they are of one Substance, then surely they are also of one supreme Power. However, if the Son is begotten of a different substance, how can the Father be Almighty while the Son is not? What advantage does God gain if He has made His Son of a different substance, especially when it’s acknowledged that the Son, on His part, has made us sons of God of a different substance? Therefore, the Son is either of one Substance with the Father, or of one supreme Power.

¹⁸ Our adversaries’ question, then, is weak, because they cannot judge Christ—or rather, He is clear when judged. Those who raise this question against us deserve to be condemned by their own reasoning. If the Son is not equal to the Father simply because He has not begotten a Son, then let those who promote such discussions confess that if they do not have children, their very servants are to be preferred over them, since they cannot be equal to those who do have children. On the other hand, if they do have children, they should acknowledge that the merit belongs not to them, but rightfully to their sons.

¹⁹ So, the objection that the Son cannot be equal to the Father because the Father begot the Son, while the Son did not beget another Son, doesn’t hold up. Just as the spring begets the stream without the stream begetting another spring, and light begets radiance without radiance begetting light, yet the essence of radiance and light remains one.

Chapter 9 #

¹ Now that our opponents have been unable to uphold their objection against the truth of the Son’s equality with the Father based on His Generation, let them realize that their well-known tactic of controversy, their typical misrepresentation, has been thwarted. Their usual approach is to pose this puzzle: How can the Son be equal to the Father? If He is a Son, then before being begotten, He didn’t exist. If He did exist, why was He begotten? And those who bring up challenges akin to those raised by Arius vehemently deny being Arians.

² So, they demand our response, aiming to trap us. If we say the Son existed before being begotten, they counter with the claim that if so, then before being begotten, He was created, implying no distinction between Him and other created beings. They argue that He began as a creature before becoming the Son. To this, they add: “Why was He begotten if He already existed? Was He imperfect, needing to be made more perfect?” If, however, we reply that the Son did not exist before being begotten, they swiftly argue: “Then being begotten brought Him into existence, meaning He didn’t exist before being begotten”, leading to the assertion that the Son existed when He didn’t exist.

³ But let those who pose this difficulty and try to obscure the truth consider this: do they believe the Father begets the Son within or beyond the confines of time? If they claim within time limits, then they attribute to the Father what they criticize about the Son, implying the Father began to be what He was not before. If they argue without such limits, then they must grapple with their own conundrum and admit that if the Father does not beget within time constraints, then neither does the Son, since they deny that the Father begets in such a manner.

⁴ If the Son is not begotten within the constraints of time, then we can conclude that nothing could have existed before the Son, whose existence is not bound by time. If indeed something existed before the Son, then it logically follows that not all things in heaven and on earth were created in Him, contradicting what the Apostle wrote in his Epistle. However, if there was nothing before He was begotten, I fail to see why He, before whom there was none, should be described as “after” anything.

⁵ We must also address another highly blasphemous objection of theirs, designed to confuse the minds of ordinary people. They ask whether everything that comes to an end also had a beginning. If we agree that what ends also had a beginning, they then ask whether the Father has stopped begetting His Son. If we concede this point, they conclude that the Son’s generation had a beginning. If we allow this, it seems to suggest that the generation started in the Son, who previously did not exist, could be called begotten. Their aim is to end the discussion by asserting that there was a time when the Son did not exist.

⁶ Furthermore, there are other futile objections that individuals with their fluent tongues might readily raise. They argue that if the Son is the Word of the Father, then He is called begotten because He is the Word. However, since He is the Word, He is not a creation. Now, the Father has spoken in “various ways”, they claim, therefore it follows that He has begotten many Sons if He has spoken His Word, not created it as a product of His hands. Oh, how foolish they are, speaking as if they do not understand the distinction between the spoken word and the Divine Word, which abides eternally, born of the Father—not merely spoken— in whom there is no combination of syllables, but the fullness of the eternal Godhead and everlasting life!

⁷ Another blasphemy—they question if the Father freely choose to beget His Son or whether he was forced to. If we say it was by His own choice, they intend to make it seem as though we acknowledge that the Father’s will preceded the Divine Generation, implying that something preceded the Son’s existence, thus suggesting the Son is not co-eternal with the Father, or that like the rest of creation, He is a created being, as it is written, “He has made all things, as many as He would”. But this refers not to the Father and the Son, but to the creatures the Son made. Yet if we say the Father was forced to beget His Son, we would seem to attribute weakness to the Father.

⁸ In the eternal Generation, there are no prior conditions of desire or reluctance, so I cannot say that the Father begets out of His free Will, nor can I say that He begets out of compulsion. Begetting does not depend on the possibilities determined by will; instead, it seems to stem from a certain right and essence of the Father’s hidden being. Just as the Father is not good because He chooses to be or is forced to be, but is above such conditions—He is good by nature—similarly, the exercise of His generative power is neither a matter of will nor necessity.

⁹ Let’s entertain their proposition. If we agree that the act of Generation depends on the will of the One who generates, when do they claim this act of will occurred? If it was at the beginning, then clearly, the Son was present at the beginning. If the will is eternal, then the Son is also eternal. If the will began to exist, then it suggests that God the Father, as He existed, was somehow displeased with Himself, prompting a change in His state—meaning, without His Son, He was displeased with Himself, and in His Son, He began to be well pleased.

¹⁰ Let’s pursue the implications of this argument. If the Father, in a manner like human nature, conceived a desire to beget, then would He have undergone all the experiences that humans do before birth occurs? However, we observe that generation is not solely determined by will, but also involves desire.

¹¹ Thus, they expose their own godlessness, suggesting that Christ’s generation had a beginning, so that it may appear not as the true begetting of the eternal Word, but as the mere utterance of passing and forgettable words. By introducing the notion of a multitude of sons, they aim to deny Christ’s personal possession of divine attributes, undermining His status as the only-begotten or the first-begotten Son. Lastly, by insinuating that His existence had a beginning, they imply that it may also have an end.

¹² Indeed, the Son of God had no beginning, as He already existed at the beginning, nor will He ever come to an end, for He is the Beginning and the End of the Universe. Being the Beginning, how could He acquire what He already possessed? And how could He come to an end, being Himself the End of all things, providing us with an eternal abode in that End? The Divine Generation is not an event unfolding within the confines of time; therefore, before it, time does not exist, and within it, time has no foothold.

¹³ Once again, their aimless and fruitless question finds no opening, even when directed at creation itself. Indeed, temporal existences sometimes seem to defy division by time. Consider light generating radiance: we cannot conceive that radiance comes into being after light, nor that light exists before radiance. Where there is light, there is radiance, and vice versa. We cannot have light without radiance, nor radiance without light, as both exist mutually within each other. Just as the Apostle learned to call the Son the Radiance of the Father’s Glory, for the Son is the Radiance of His Father’s light, co-eternal due to the eternity of Power, and inseparable due to the unity of brightness.

¹⁴ If we cannot fully understand or separate the created objects in the sky above us, which we can see, how can we comprehend Him whom we cannot see, who is above every created existence, God, as He resides in the very Holy of Holies of His own Generation? Can we impose time as a barrier between Him and the Son, when all time is the creation of the Son?

¹⁵ Let them cease, then, and refrain from saying that before the Son was begotten, He did not exist. The word “before” denotes a point in time, whereas the Generation transcends all time. Therefore, that which comes after something does not come before it, and the creation cannot precede the creator, as objects made necessarily originate from the craftsman who makes them. How can the usual action of any created object be considered to exist prior to its maker, when all time is a creation, and every creation derives its existence from its creator?

¹⁶ I would, therefore, like to further examine our opponents, who consider themselves so clever, and ask them to prove how their theory applies to human existence, especially since they use it to undermine the glory of God’s existence and shy away from acknowledging the inscrutable mystery of the Divine Generation. I want them to find support for their objection in the realities of human generation. Regarding God’s Son, they claim that before He was begotten, He did not exist—that is to say, they say this about the Wisdom, the Power, and the Word of God, whose Generation has no prior existence. But if, as they want us to believe, there was a time when the Son did not exist (which is blasphemous to claim), then there was a time when God lacked the fullness of Divine Perfection if He later went through the process of begetting a Son.

¹⁷ To demonstrate the weakness and transparency of their objection, which has no genuine connection to any truth, divine or human, I will prove that people have existed before they were born. Otherwise, let them show that Jacob, who, while still hidden in the secret chamber of his mother’s womb, supplanted his brother, had not been appointed and ordained before he was born. Let them also show that Jeremiah was not similarly ordained before his birth—Jeremiah, to whom the message comes: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” What stronger testimony can we have than the case of this great prophet, who was sanctified before he was born and known before he was formed?

¹⁸ What, then, shall I say about John, of whom his holy mother testifies that, while he lay in her womb, he perceived in spirit the presence of his Lord and leaped for joy? As we remember it written, his mother said: “For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.” Was he, then, who prophesied, in existence or not? Surely he was—he was truly alive when he worshipped his Maker; he was truly alive when he spoke in his mother’s womb. And so, Elisabeth was filled with the spirit of her son, and Mary was sanctified by the Spirit of hers, for it is recorded that “the babe leaped in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

¹⁹ Consider the significance of each word. Elisabeth was indeed the first to hear Mary’s voice, but John was the first to feel the gracious presence of His Lord. There is a sweet harmony in the prophecy of one woman with another, and in the movement of one babe with another. The women speak words of grace, while the babes move in secret, and as their mothers draw near to each other, they engage in a mysterious exchange of love. In this twofold miracle, though with different degrees of honor, the mothers prophesy in the spirit of their little ones. Who, I ask, was it that performed this miracle? Was it not the Son of God, Who brought the unborn into being?

²⁰ Thus, your objection cannot be reconciled with the truths of human existence—how can it possibly apply to divine mysteries? What do you mean by your claim that “before He was begotten, He was not”? Was the Father somehow engaged in a process of conception, so that certain periods passed before the Son was begotten? Was He, like women, in labor, so that there was just this labor? What are you really trying to say? Why do we seek to pry into divine mysteries? The Scriptures reveal to me the necessary effects of the Divine Generation, not the process by which it occurs.

Chapter 10 #

¹ Some people raise another objection, pointing out that it is written: “As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eats of Me, lives also by Me.” They ask, “How can the Son be equal with the Father when He has said that He lives by the Father?”

² Let those who oppose us on this point first explain what the Life of the Son is. Is it a life given by the Father to one who lacks life? But how could the Son ever be without life, since He Himself is Life? As He says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Indeed, His life is eternal, just as His power is eternal. Was there ever a time, then, when, so to speak, Life did not possess itself?

³ What do you think of what is read today about the Lord Jesus, that “He died for our sakes, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live with Him”? He Whose Death is Life—is not His Godhead Life, seeing that the Godhead is Life eternal?

⁴ But is His life truly under the Father’s control? He demonstrated that not even His physical life was in the control of another. He said, “I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father.”

⁵ Should we consider His divine life as dependent on the power of another, when His bodily life was subject only to His own power? It would seem so, were it not for the unity of power. Just as He made it clear that laying down His life was His own choice and power, so also, in obeying His Father’s command to lay it down, He shows the unity of His will with the Father’s.

⁶ So, if there was never a beginning to the Son’s life, nor any power to which it was subjected, let’s ponder what He meant when He said, “Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father.” We should try to understand His words as best we can, or better yet, let Him explain Himself.

⁷ Consider what He said earlier in His discourse: “Truly, truly, I say to you…” He begins by emphasizing the importance of listening. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” He first establishes that He is speaking as the Son of Man. Do you then think that what He said, as the Son of Man, about His flesh and blood should be applied to His divinity?

⁸ Then He continued, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” You hear Him talking about His flesh and blood, indicating the sacred symbols, conveying to us the merits and power of the Lord’s death, and yet you dishonor His divinity. Listen to His own words: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones.” Now, every time we receive the sacramental elements, which through the mysterious power of holy prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood, we proclaim the Lord’s death.

⁹ After reminding us that He speaks as the Son of Man and repeatedly mentioning His flesh and blood, He adds, “Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me will also live because of Me.” So how do they think we should understand these words? The comparison can be seen as twofold. The first comparison goes like this: “Just as the living Father sent Me, I live because of the Father.” The second comparison: “Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me will also live because of Me.”

¹⁰ If our opponents choose the former interpretation, it means this: as I am sent by the Father and have come down from the Father, so (accordingly) I live by the Father. But in what capacity was He sent and came down, if not as the Son of Man, as He himself stated earlier: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” Thus, just as He was sent and descended as the Son of Man, so as the Son of Man He lives by the Father. Moreover, whoever eats Him, as eating the Son of Man, also lives by the Son of Man. Thus, He has compared the effect of His Incarnation to His coming.

¹¹ But if they choose the second method, do we not conclude that the Son is equal to the Father and similar to humanity, while still being clearly distinct from both? What do the words mean when they say, “Even as He Himself lives by the Father, so we also live by Him,” except that the Son gives life to a person just as the Father has given life to human nature through the Son? “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whoever He chooses,” as the Lord Himself has already stated.

¹² The equality of the Son with the Father is established simply through their shared action of giving life, as the Son gives life just like the Father does. Therefore, recognize the eternity of His Life and His Sovereignty. Moreover, our connection with the Son is revealed, showing a certain unity with Him in our humanity, because just as the Son of God was made alive in the flesh by the Father, so too are we as humans made alive; for it is written that as God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, we too, as humans, are given life by the Son of God.

¹³ According to this interpretation, immortality is not only granted to us as a gift of grace but is also declared as a characteristic of the divine nature—the former because it is the divine nature that gives life, and the latter because humanity is brought to life in Christ.

¹⁴ However, if anyone tries to compare Christ’s divine nature to ours, then the Son of God is equated with humans, meaning that the Son of God lives by the Father in the same way we live by the Son of God. Yet, the Son of God gives eternal life as a free gift, which we cannot do. If He is placed on the same level as us, then He would not be able to offer this gift either. Therefore, let the followers of Arius receive the appropriate consequence of their beliefs, which is that they will not receive eternal life from the Son.

¹⁵ I would like to expand on this further. If our opponents are willing to apply the teaching of this passage to the idea of the eternity of the Divine Substance, let them consider a third explanation: Doesn’t our Lord clearly state that just as the Father is a living Father, so too does the Son live? It’s important to notice that we must understand this as a reference to the unity of Life, since the same Life is the Life of both the Father and the Son. “For as the Father has Life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have Life in Himself.” He has given it—because of the unity with Him. He has given it, not to take it away, but so that He may be glorified in the Son. He has given it, not so that the Father might keep watch over it, but so that the Son might possess it fully.

¹⁶ The Arians argue against this by pointing out that He said, “I live by the Father.” If we assume they interpret these words as referring to His divine nature, then it is certainly true that the Son lives by the Father, since He is the Son begotten by the Father. He lives by the Father because He shares the same substance as the Father; He lives by the Father because He is the Word that comes from the heart of the Father. He came forth from the Father and is begotten from the “womb of the Father.” The Father is the Fountain and Root of the Son’s being.

¹⁷ But they might argue: If you claim that when the Son said, “And I live because of the Father,” he was speaking of the shared life between the Father and the Son, doesn’t it logically follow that he also revealed the shared life between the Son and humanity when he said, “Whoever eats me, lives because of me”?

¹⁸ Indeed. Just as I acknowledge the unity of divine Life shared by the Father and the Son due to the unity of the Godhead’s substance, I also affirm that, aside from the privileges of the Divine Nature or those resulting from the Incarnation of our Lord, the Son shares spiritual life with us because of the unity of His humanity with ours. For “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.” Furthermore, just as we, in Him, sit at the right hand of the Father—not because we share His throne, but because we rest in the Body of Christ—so too, we share in Christ’s exaltation through our physical union with Him. In the same way, we live in Christ because our bodies are united with His Body.

¹⁹ So, not only do I not fear the passage where Jesus says, “I live by the Father,” but I wouldn’t fear even if Christ had said, “I live with the help of the Father.”

²⁰ Another common objection raised by some concerns the verse: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” However, it’s not just the Son who is glorified by the Father and through the Father, as written: “Father, glorify me” and “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him, and God will glorify him.” The Father is also glorified through the Son and by the Son, as the Truth has said: “I have glorified you on earth.”

²¹ So, just as the Son is glorified through the Father, He also lives by the Father. Some have considered these words and come to the conclusion that the Greek word “δόξα” might mean opinion or belief rather than glory. Consequently, they interpret the passage in this way: “I have revealed your true nature on earth, I have completed the work you assigned me, and now, Father, reveal my true nature; meaning: I have taught people to believe in you, to understand that you are the true God; now, establish in them the belief that I am your Son, and truly divine.”

Chapter 11 #

¹ Now, let’s address the somewhat amusing attempt by some to argue for a difference in power between the Father and the Son based on an apostolic testimony. The passage in question reads: “But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist”. It’s argued that this statement implies a significant difference in the degree of divine majesty, given that all things are said to be from the Father and through the Son. However, it’s quite clear that this passage provides a straightforward explanation of the omnipotence of the Son. While all things indeed originate from the Father, they equally flow through the Son, indicating the Son’s integral role in the divine power.

² The Father is not “among” all things, for it is acknowledged that “all things serve You.” Nor is the Son counted “among” all things, for “all things were made by Him,” and “all things hold together in Him, and He is above all the heavens.” Therefore, the Son is not “among” but above all things, being, in His human nature, of the people, of the Jews, yet at the same time God over all, blessed forever, with a Name above every name, as it is said of Him, “You have put all things in subjection under His feet.” In making everything subject to Him, nothing was left that is not subject, as the Apostle has said. But even if the Apostle’s words were meant regarding the Incarnate Lord, how can we doubt the incomparable majesty of His Divine Birth?

³ It is certain, then, that there can be no difference in power between the Father and the Son. In fact, such a difference is entirely absent, as the same Apostle has said that all things are “of” Him, by whom all things exist, as follows: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”

⁴ Now, if they suppose it is the Father alone being referred to, it cannot be that He is both omnipotent because all things are “of” Him, and yet not omnipotent because all things are “through” Him. By their own reasoning, they would then be declaring the Father as lacking in power and not omnipotent. At the very least, they will be confessing, even unwillingly, the omnipotence of the Son as well as of the Father.

⁵ However, let them decide whether they will understand this statement as referring to the Father. If they do, then all things are also “through” Him. If they decide it refers to the Son, then all things are “of” Him, just as they are “of” the Father. But if all things are “through” the Father as well, then surely there is no argument to reduce the honor due to the Son; and if all things are “of” the Son, then the Son must be honored in the same way as the Father.

⁶ In case our opponents suspect that we are exploiting a single spurious verse in the text, let us examine the entire passage. The Apostle exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways beyond finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? Or who has given to Him first, that it should be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things. To Him be glory forever!”

⁷ Who, then, do they think is being spoken of—the Father or the Son? If it’s the Father, then we respond that the Father is not the Wisdom of God, for the Son is. But what could be impossible for Wisdom, of whom it is written: “Seeing that she is almighty and abiding, she makes all things new in herself”? We read of Wisdom not as coming, but as abiding. So, you have the authority of Solomon to teach you about the Omnipotence and Eternity of Wisdom, and also about her Goodness, for it is written: “But malice does not overcome Wisdom.”

⁸ But to the point. The Apostle says, “How unsearchable are His judgments!” Now, if “the Father has given all judgment to the Son,” it seems that the Father is pointing to the Son as the Judge.

⁹ To clarify that he speaks of the Son, not the Father, St. Paul continues: “Who was first in giving to Him?” Yes, the Father has bestowed upon the Son, but not as a benevolent act. It’s more an acknowledgment of the Son’s inherent rights as the begotten. Thus, while it’s undeniable that the Son has received from the Father, as stated, “All things have been given unto Me of My Father,” the Apostle doesn’t deny that the Son receives gifts from the Father by virtue of His nature. Rather, he demonstrates that neither the Father nor the Son can be said to precede the other, because although the Father has given gifts to the Son, He hasn’t done so as to one who came into being after Him. The uncreated and incomprehensible Trinity, which shares one eternity and glory, allows no distinction of time or precedence.

¹⁰ Yet, if we prioritize the Greek manuscripts displaying “τίς προσέδωκεν αὐτῷ,” it becomes evident that the one to whom nothing can be added is not inferior to the one who is perfect and complete. Hence, if we better comprehend this passage from the Apostle in relation to the Son, we must also accept that all things originate from Him. This aligns with the scriptural assertion: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”

¹¹ Granted, even if they interpret the passage as referring to the Father, let’s remember that just as all things are said to originate from Him, they’re also said to flow through Him. This implies that both the Father and the Son have authority over the entire created universe. And even though we’ve already demonstrated the Son’s omnipotence by the omnipotence of the Father, let them consider that their attempts to belittle the Son also belittle the Father. If they argue that the Son’s power is limited because all things flow through Him, do they not imply that the Father’s power is also limited, as all things flow through Him too?

¹² To help them understand that these phrases denote no distinction, I’ll illustrate once more that it’s the same person through whom anything is and from whom anything originates. We encounter instances where things are attributed to the Father in both these ways. For instance, we read: “Faithful is God, through Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son.” Let our opponents ponder the Apostle’s words. We are called through the Father—this raises no debate. We are created through the Son—yet they regard this as a sign of inferiority. The Father calls us into fellowship with His Son, a truth we devoutly accept. The Son creates all things, but followers of Arius perceive this not as an act of free will, but as a compelled service, performed in servitude!

¹³ Furthermore, to gain a deeper comprehension that there’s no disparity in power between the Father and the Son, consider that the fellowship itself originates from the Son. As it’s written: “For from His fullness have we all received,” though in accordance with the Greek text of the Gospel, it should be rendered “of His fullness.”

¹⁴ Observe how there is fellowship both through the Father and from the Son, yet it’s not a distinct fellowship, but one and the same. As it’s expressed: “That our fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

¹⁵ Furthermore, Scripture speaks not only of our having fellowship with the Father and the Son but also of the Holy Spirit. As the Apostle says: “The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

¹⁶ Now, I ask, in what way does the one through whom all things exist appear inferior to the one from whom all things originate? Is it because the former is described as the Worker? Yet, the Father also works, for He is true who said, “My Father works to this day, and I work.” Therefore, just as the Father works, so does the Son; and thus, the one who works is not limited in power or dignity, for the Father also works. Considering this, what is common to the Son with the Father, or even what the Son has received from the Father, should not be esteemed less, lest heretics further dishonor the Father through the Son.

¹⁷ We mustn’t overlook those words of the same Saint John, recorded in another Scripture: “If you know that He is just, know that he who does righteousness is born of Him.” But who is righteous except the Lord, who loves righteousness? Whom else, as the preceding texts caution us, can we rely on for everlasting life if not the Son? Therefore, if the Son of God has promised us everlasting life, and He is righteous, then surely we are born of Him. Otherwise, if our adversaries deny that we are born of the Son by grace, they also deny His righteousness.

¹⁸ You must therefore acknowledge that all things originate from the Son of God, just as they do from God the Father. Just as God is the Father of all, so too is the Son the Author and Creator of all. Thus, we see the futility of their questioning, as it applies equally to the Son as to the Father, that all things are from Him, through Him, and in Him.

¹⁹ We’ve demonstrated how all things originate from Him and how all things also flow through Him. And who would doubt that all things exist in Him when another Scripture states: “For in Him are all things founded, that are in the heavens, and in Him they were created, and He is before all things, and all things consist in Him”? Therefore, from Him, you receive grace; He Himself is your Creator; and in Him, you find the foundation of all things.

Chapter 12 #

¹ There’s another verse that critics often use to argue for separating the divinity of the Father from that of the Son. It’s from the Gospel, where Jesus says, “I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Gardener.” They claim that since the vine and the gardener are of different kinds, and the vine is under the gardener’s control, it supports their argument.

² So, according to your interpretation, you suggest that the Son, in His divine nature, is likened to a vine, implying that without a caretaker, He is powerless and might even be uprooted. You twist the Scriptures to fit this narrative, claiming that when our Lord referred to Himself as the Vine, He was symbolizing His incarnation. However, if you insist on a literal debate, I will also acknowledge and affirm that the Son indeed referred to Himself as the Vine. I would never deny the assurance of salvation for His people.

³ How, then, do you intend to understand the truth that the Son of God called Himself the Vine? If you interpret this statement concerning the substance of His divinity and suppose such a difference in divinity between the Father and the Son as there is in nature between a gardener and a vine, you insult both the Father and the Son. You insult the Son because, if, as you claim, He is, in terms of His divinity, lower than a gardener, then by that same reasoning, He must also be considered lower than the Apostle Paul. For Paul called himself a gardener, as it is written: “I have planted, Apollos has watered, but God gave the increase.” Will you then say that Paul is greater than the Son of God?

⁴ So, there’s another issue at hand. If the Son is the Vine in reference to His eternally begotten Person, then, when He says, “I am the Vine, you are the branches,” it implies that the divinely begotten One is of the same substance as us. But as it’s written, “Who is like you among the gods, O Lord?” And in the Psalms, “For who among the clouds can be compared to the Lord? Who among the sons of God is like God?”

⁵ Furthermore, your interpretation not only diminishes the Son but also undermines the Father. If you define the term “gardener” to encompass all the authority of the Father’s sovereignty, then by equating Paul, a mere mortal, with the Father as a gardener, you place the Apostle—whom you deny equality with the Son—on the same level as the Father.

⁶ Once more, consider the passage: “Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” Here, you attribute the fullness of the Father’s majesty to a term that, as you can see, conveys weakness. If those who plant and water are considered nothing, and it is solely God who brings about growth—signifying His omnipotence—then observe the blasphemy in your argument. By reducing the Father to the role of a mere gardener, you subject Him to contempt and imply the need for another deity to bring about the increase of the Father’s labor. It is wicked indeed to think that by using the term “gardener”, one can elevate the dignity of God the Father, when in reality, it reduces Him to the level of humanity, identified by a common title.

⁷ Is it any surprise that, according to your heretical beliefs, you seek to elevate the Father above a Son whose divinity you equate with the common condition of humanity? If you argue that the Son is referred to as the Vine in terms of His divinity, then you not only imply His susceptibility to decay and the whims of nature but also suggest that He shares in humanity alone. According to your reasoning, since the vine and its branches share the same nature, it follows that the Son of God did not take on our flesh through the mystery of the Incarnation but rather emerged entirely from flesh.

⁸ However, I will openly declare that His flesh, though born in a new and mysterious manner, was indeed of the same nature as ours. This fact serves as the assurance of our salvation, not as the origin of the Divine Generation. He truly is the Vine, for He carries our sufferings. Whenever humanity, previously frail, leans on Him, it matures with abundant fruit of renewed devotion.

⁹ If you find the analogy of the gardener compelling, consider this: Who was it that spoke in the prophetic words, “O Lord, make it known to me, that I may know; then I saw their thoughts. I was led as a harmless lamb to the slaughter and knew it not: they took counsel together against me, saying, Come, let us throw wood into his bread”? If we understand this passage as referring to the mystery of His coming Incarnation—which would be blasphemous to attribute to the Father—then it must be the Son who speaks. Moreover, in an earlier passage, it is the Son who speaks when He says, “I have planted you as a fruitful vine—how have you become bitter, and a wild vine?”

¹⁰ Therefore, you can see that the Son is also the gardener—the Son, sharing one Name with the Father, engaged in one work, possessing one dignity and substance. If the Son is both the Vine and the Gardener, it is clear that we should understand the significance of the Vine in relation to the mystery of the Incarnation.

¹¹ Not only has our Lord referred to Himself as a Vine, but He has also, through the voice of the prophet, taken on the title of a Grape-cluster. Consider when Moses, following the Lord’s command, sent spies to the Valley of the Cluster. Is not that valley a representation of the humility of the Incarnation and the productivity of the Passion? I believe He is called the Cluster because from the Vine brought out of Egypt, symbolizing the Jewish people, there emerged a fruit for the benefit of the world. However, understanding the Cluster as a symbol of the Divine Generation is beyond human comprehension. Those who attempt to do so conclude that the Cluster must have originated from the Vine. In their folly, they attribute to the Father what they are unwilling to accept regarding the Son.

¹² If there is now no room for doubt that the Son of God is referred to as the Vine in connection to His Incarnation, consider the profound truth to which our Lord alluded when He said, “The Father is greater than I.” With this in mind, He immediately continued: “I am the true Vine, and My Father is the Gardener”, revealing that the Father’s greatness lies in His care and cultivation of our Lord’s humanity, just as a vineyard owner nurtures his vines. Moreover, our Lord’s humanity is susceptible to growth and suffering, serving as a shelter from the harmful allure of worldly pleasures, under the protective shadow of the Cross upon which His limbs were spread.