The Book of Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, On the Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord, Book One.

Latin Text from public domain Migne Editors, Patrologiae Cursus Completus.

Translated into English using ChatGPT.

Table of Contents Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Chapter IV. Chapter V. Chapter VI. Chapter VII. Chapter VIII. Chapter IX. Chapter X.

Chapter I.

Having mentioned the occasion of speaking, Ambrosius approaches the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. He then explores what displeased God in the offering of the former. Then, after explaining the few who would strike a wide-ranging verdict against Cain, he teaches about the burnt offering of Abel.

Brothers, I desire to pay my debt, but I cannot find my creditors from yesterday, unless perhaps they thought we should be disturbed by an unexpected meeting: but true faith is never disturbed.

So, while they perhaps come, let us turn away the farmers who have been proposed, one of whom, that is Cain, from the fruits of the earth: but the other, namely Abel, offered a sacrifice to the Lord from the firstborn of his sheep (Gen. IV, 3, 4). I find nothing in the nature of the offerings that I would criticize, except that Cain also knew that his offerings were displeasing, and the Lord said: If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned (Ibid., 7).

So where then is the crime? where is the fault? Not in the offering of a gift, but in the attitude of the offering. There are some who rightly judge that one person, in offering something, has chosen one thing, while another, in offering, has chosen something of lesser value. But we are not so lacking in the spiritual senses within us as to not understand that the Lord sought a bodily sacrifice, not a spiritual one. And therefore, he added, 'rest' (Ibid.), indicating that it is more tolerable to abstain from offering gifts than to offer a gift with an unbelieving spirit. For whoever does not know how to divide, does not know how to judge: but the spiritual person judges all things (I Cor. II, 15). And therefore Abraham divided the sacrifice that he was offering (Gen. XV, 10).

Abel also knew how to divide, who offered a sacrifice from the firstborn of his sheep (Gen IV, 4), teaching that it is not the gifts of the earth that please God, which had degenerated in the sinner, but those in which the divine grace of the mystery shines forth. Therefore, he prophesied that we would be redeemed from sin through the passion of the Lord, about whom it is written: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world (John I, 29). Hence, he also offered the firstborn, in order to designate the primogeniture. Therefore, it shows us the true sacrifice of God that we will be, of whom the Prophet says: Bring to the Lord the sons of rams (Psalm 28:1), and it is rightly confirmed by the judgment of God.

But to them it is said, 'Keep silent,' which I believe is a general statement applicable to all those outside the Church; for here I perceive the representation of many peoples whom divine judgment encompasses, among whom, in the case of Cain, it already rejected the offerings.

Chapter II.

The following are various types of people who, under the false pretense of being Christian, shine a light on the Church and are subject to the mentioned sentence. It reminds us how we should avoid the same mindset.

For this is the general opinion regarding all the impious. Therefore, if a Jew offers, who separates the son of the virgin Mary from God the Father, he is told: If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned: be at peace. (Ibid., 7).

If Eunomianus, who, coming forth from the impious source of Arian impiety, glides down in the overflowing mire of his own perfidy, asserts that the generation of Christ, which is above all things, is to be gathered from the traditions of Philosophy: whereas surely there is one reason of creatures, and another secret power of the divine; and the saying itself is: 'If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned: cease.'

This is said of the Sabellians, who confound the Father and Son. This is said of the Marcionites, who believe in a different God of the New Testament than the God of the Old Testament. This is said of the Manicheans and Valentinians, who did not believe that the truth of human flesh was assumed by Christ. Paul of Samosata and Basilides are also counted in the same category of opinion.

Likewise, by the authority of the same sentiment, those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit are condemned. For some are either Arian Jews or Arian Jews; because just as the former separate the Son from the Father, so too do the latter separate the Spirit from God the Father and the Son of God.

Novatus also and Donatus and all who have sought to rend the body of the Church, it is said to them severally: If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you are guilty. For the sacrifice of the Church is, which is offered to God, to which Paul said: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, to offer your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God (Rom. XII, 1). Therefore, they have divided the sacrifice wrongly, by tearing the members of the Church.


This statement also confounds those who, by separating the rational soul from the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation, desire to separate the nature of man from man. And perhaps these people rightly offer it to the Trinity, but they do not know how to distinguish between the reason and the nature of the divine and human; for the nature of God is simple, and man consists of a rational soul and a body. If you take away one, you have taken away the whole nature of man.

Therefore, this is the opinion against all heresies, which do not persecute the Church with a brotherly spirit, but rather with a spirit of enmity. Indeed, under the guise of the name Christian and by a certain claim of faith relatedness, they desire to wound us with parricidal swords; because our conversion is towards them, and sinners rule over us in this world. For the sinner rules in this world, the righteous in the kingdom of God.

Let us beware, therefore, lest anyone separate us from the chamber of the eternal king and attempt to separate us from the secret of the mother Church, to which the soul in the Song of Songs signifies that it has been introduced as the Word of God (Song 3:4). Let us beware lest we separate the substance of the hidden nature of the only-begotten Son from the bosom of the Father and the paternal womb, and let us meditate on not inflicting any prejudice on the divine generation by these words by which the truth of the assumed incarnation is portrayed; lest anyone say to us, 'If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, you have sinned; be silent.' That means: if we do not know how to distinguish what is proper to the eternal divinity and the incarnation; if we compare the Creator with His own works; if we say that the author of time began His existence after time. For it cannot be that the one through whom all things exist is one among all.

Chapter III.

Those who do not accept John's testimony about the eternity of the Word, you rebuke. And at the same time, you praise the same evangelist and explain the passage: where he not only teaches that the eternity and divinity of the Word are signified, but also that the same attributes are demonstrated in the Father. In the Word, nothing corporeal should be considered, and although we do not fully grasp its nature, we should be satisfied with the authority of John, who explains how he saw the Word.


Let it not be believed by us, let the Scripture be recited. It is not I who say that in the beginning was the Word (John 1:1), but I hear: I do not fabricate, but I read; which we all read, but not all understand. And when it is read, we all hear, and not all hear: For the heart of some has become thick, and their ears have become heavily burdened (Acts 28:27); namely, the ears of the inner affection. For it is not the flesh that sins, which keeps its duty and receives sound, but it is the corrupt interpreter of a pure hearing, who refuses to hear what is said, and to understand what is read. Why do you close your ears like wax and lead, and yet you cannot exclude the benefits and services of nature on Sundays? You hear against your will, you hear with disgust: you hear, so that you cannot excuse yourself for not having heard.

Therefore, when it is read 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1). Who says this? John, certainly that fisherman: but he does not say this as a fisherman, but as one affected by a human fisherman; who now no longer catches fish, but gives life to men (Luke 5:10). It is not his own statement, but that of the one who granted him the power to give life. For the fisherman, he was more silent about the fish he used to catch; and about divine mysteries, more mute, who did not know the author of his voice: but being given life by Christ, he heard a voice in John, recognized the Word in Christ.


And therefore, being full of the Holy Spirit, who knew that the beginning was not of time, but above time, he left the ages, and ascending by the spirit above every beginning, said: In the beginning was the Word, that is, let there be heaven; for it was not yet, when in the beginning was the Word. For although heaven has a beginning, God does not. Finally, in the beginning, God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). It is one thing to have made; it is another thing to have been. What happens, begins: what was, does not receive a beginning, but precedes. Let time also remain, for after the sky there is time. Let angels and archangels also remain. And if I do not find the beginning of them, nevertheless there was a time when they were not. For they were not always. Therefore, if I cannot find the beginning of them, whom it is certain have a beginning, how can I find the beginning of the Word, by whom every beginning, not only of creatures, but also of all our thoughts, is preceded?


Therefore, he had openly expressed his eternal divinity; but to ensure that no one would divide the eternity of the Word from the Father, so that we would believe that the Word is the same as the Father’s, that good fisherman added: And the Word was with God (John 1:1). This statement should be understood in the following way: The Word was, just as the Father was; because he was with the Father, and in the Father, and with the Father always. Indeed, just as we read about the Father, was; so also we read about the Word, was.


What do you distinguish in understanding, if you do not distinguish in hearing? It is of the Father's nature to be the Word: It is of the Father's nature to be with the Word; for we read that the Word was with God. Therefore, if, according to your opinion, it was sometimes not, then, according to your opinion, neither was He in the beginning, with whom the Word was. For by the Word I hear, by the Word I understand that God was. For if I believe that the Word is everlasting, which I believe, I cannot doubt the eternity of the Father, of whom the Son is everlasting. If I consider his temporal generation, he begins to have communion with us, so that he appears to have started as the Father: but if you have no doubt about the Father, because it is not possible for God to begin to exist, you have no doubt about the Father, because he has eternal perfection as God; lest perhaps you stumble in the use of human speech, when you say Word and Son, therefore he added: And the Word was God (John 1).

Certainly, He has what the Father has, because He was God. How do you deny eternity to Him, whose name is one with the Father's God? Let not the sound and similarity of speech deceive you: there is another Word, which has time, which is composed of syllables and formed by letters: the Son is not such a Word, because the Father of the Word is not such.

Therefore, we must be careful not to introduce the question of the corporeal voice there either. God is incorporeal: He certainly does not have a corporeal voice. If the corporeal voice is not in the Father, neither is the Son a corporeal word. If there is no body in the Father, there is no time in the Father either. If there is no time in the Father, there is certainly no time in the Word. If there is no beginning of time in the Word, there is no number or degree of the Word either. Because if there is number in the Word, then there are many words. If there are many words, then there are many sons. But there is one Word, which excludes both degree and number: one according to nature.

Do not inquire about the nature of things. I do not know much better than I know this. This is the only thing I know well, that I do not know what I cannot know. He says, 'What we have seen and heard' (1 John 1:3), John says: he said that he knows only this well, what he heard and what he saw, who was reclining on the chest of Christ. Therefore, it is enough for them to hear, but it is not enough for me.

But what he heard, he told me; and what he heard from Christ, I cannot deny that it is true about Christ. Therefore, what he heard, I heard; and what he saw, I saw; for he saw what he saw: not, of course, the divinity, which cannot be seen according to its own nature. But because it could not be seen according to its own nature, he assumed what was beyond the nature of divinity; so that he could be seen according to the nature of the body. Finally, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove (Luke 3:22); because the divine nature could not be seen in the truth of its glory.

Chapter IV.

It is not enough if we believe in Christ having true flesh, unless we also separate it from any confusion or weakness with divinity: nor if we say that He is the God of both covenants, unless we profess that He is co-eternal with the Word Himself: and finally, if we acknowledge that He began before the Virgin, we must proclaim that He is older than all beginning. Peter's confession is praised; and why he remained silent while others were speaking, and how wonderfully he responded afterward, is explained.


Therefore, do not interpret according to nature what is beyond the nature of divinity. For even if you believe that true flesh was assumed by Christ, and you offer the body to be transfigured on the altars; yet you do not distinguish between the nature of divinity and the body, and it is said to you: If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned (Gen. 4:7). Divide what is mine, divide what is the Word's. I did not have what was His, and He did not have what is mine. He accepted what is mine, in order to share what is his: He accepted not to confuse, but to fulfill. If you believe in acceptance, you fabricate confusion; you ceased to be a Manichaean, yet you did not begin to be a son of the Church.

If you believe in the reception of the body, you join compassion to divinity: you have certainly turned away from faithlessness, not faithlessness; for you believe that what you presume is beneficial to you, but you do not believe what is worthy of God.

Moreover, if you believe that the same God is the author of both the new and the old Testament, but you attribute times and moments to his Word: Valentinus is more tolerable, who believes that there are not ages before God, but rather that there are gods, which are the ages; for it is less sacrilegious to join the ages to divinity than to prefer them.

If you believe again that Christ did not take His beginning from the Virgin, but nevertheless consider some beginning to exist before Christ: in time there is a disagreement about impiety; for you denied that He is equal to the Virgin, not to time. Moreover, I will not deny that He is equal to the Virgin in terms of receiving a body, and I will confess the Creator of time. For what profit is it if you say whether Christ is this or that creature? The creature changes, not the divinity that is worshipped.

He did not want himself to be recognized as Christ in this way, nor did he want his merits to be valued only for what is beyond human. Finally, when he asked: Who do men say that I am? (Matthew 16:13), and some said Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; he did not proclaim anyone's opinion. But when Peter said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (ibid., 16), he rightly praised him alone.

Therefore John said, Peter said, Christ proved, and you do not believe, Ariane? Do you not think that John and Peter should be believed, whom our Lord Jesus Christ himself believed to excel in the testimony of his glory to the faith of all? Finally, as a testimony to the Old and New Testaments, Moses is joined with Elijah, as John is often mentioned with Peter (Matthew 17:1).

Peter says, 'You are' (John 13:23); he does not say, 'You have begun to be.' Peter says, 'You are the Son of God'; he does not say, 'You are a creature.' John said this. If you still do not believe because you have not understood the mystery that surpasses wisdom, Peter repeated it. Christ commended both, one by judgment, the other by mystery; for he added that you should read what was leaning on Christ's chest and understand that his head, in which the principal of all senses is, was filled with a certain hidden wisdom. But if you do not think that the mystery should be understood, at least do not attack the judgment. Peter is praised because he believed in the Son of God, whom he saw; because he separated himself from the ignorant opinions of the common people. Finally, when the Lord asked what people thought of the Son of Man, when the opinion of the crowd was stated, Peter remained silent.

Therefore, be silent, Simon, and while others are answering, you remain silent. (Matth. XVI, 14). Even though you are the first, you, without being asked, ask questions. And do not fear being reprimanded by the Lord because you do not respond to the one asking. Therefore, he says, I do not respond because my own opinion is not being asked, but rather someone else's. For it is written: Let my mouth not speak the works of men (Psal. XVI, 4): however, it is the work of the deceitful to preach deceitfulness. Therefore, I remain silent for now, because I have not yet been asked about what I feel: I will not utter with my lips what my mind has not approved. There will be a time when I will respond. I myself will be asked what I feel, and only then will I respond with what is mine; it is mine to speak the truth, assert piety, proclaim gratitude.

Therefore, he does not remain silent as if he were slower in understanding or slower in speech, nor does he differ in the compliance of his voice as if he were disdainful: but he avoids the danger of common opinion as a cautious person, who did not avoid the danger of salvation. In conclusion, in the latter you have because he jumped out of the boat to meet the Lord, not desiring glory, but being eager for obedience.

Therefore, he who previously kept silent, in order to teach us that we should not repeat the words of the wicked, this one, I say, when he heard: But who do you say that I am? (Matt. XVI, 15), immediately mindful of his place, asserted his primacy: the primacy of confession, certainly not of honor; the primacy of faith, not of order. This is to say: Now let no one overcome me, now the roles are reversed: I must compensate for what I have kept silent, what I have kept silent must benefit. My tongue has no thorns; faith should come forth without hindrance. While others, although they bring up the matter, evacuate the impurity of their alien descent, those who have said that either Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the prophets is Christ (Matt. XVI, 14); for that voice had impurity, it had thorns: while others, I say, wash off this impurity, while these thorns are unraveled in others, let our voice yield the Son of God, Christ. To me, the word is pure, from which impiety has left no expressed thorns.

This is therefore Peter who responded for the other apostles, indeed before the others (Ibid., 16); and therefore he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own, but also the common [good]. To him Christ also gave his approval, the Father revealed. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father received it from the Father, he did not receive it from the flesh.

Chapter V.

This faith is


Therefore, faith is the foundation of the Church: for it is not said of the flesh of Peter, but of faith, that the gates of death shall not prevail against it; but confession has conquered hell (Ibid.). And this confession has not excluded one heresy alone; for when the Church is often buffeted by many waves like a good ship, the foundation of the Church must prevail against all heresies.

The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and various sects; yet a general faith opposes all of them, because Christ is the Son of God, everlasting from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary. Whom the holy prophet David describes as a giant, because he is of two natures and shares in divinity and corporeality: who, like a bridegroom, proceeds from his chamber and rejoices like a giant to run his course (Psalm 19:6). The bridegroom of the soul according to the Word: a giant of the earth, because he traversed the duties of our usage, always being the eternal God, he received the sacraments of the incarnation, not divided, but one, because he is one in both, that is, in divinity and in body: for he is not one from the Father and another from the Virgin, but the same from both, although in different ways.

Generation does not prejudice generation, nor does flesh prejudice divinity; for neither does the pledge belong to the Father, nor does the will belong to suffering, nor does suffering belong to the will. For He both suffered and did not suffer; He died and did not die; He was buried and did not remain buried; He rose again and did not rise again, because He raised His own body; for what fell, rises again, and what did not fall, does not rise again. Therefore, He rose again according to the flesh, which had died and risen again; He did not rise again according to the Word, which had not been dissolved into the earth, but always remained with God.


Therefore, He both died according to the nature He assumed, and did not die according to the eternal substance of life. And He suffered according to the assumption of the body, so that the truth of the assumed body might be believed. And He did not suffer according to the impassible divinity of the Word, which is devoid of all pain. Finally, the same One said: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Psalm 22:1) Because according to the flesh, He was forsaken, He who according to His divinity could neither be forsaken nor forsake.


He also says the same thing: Far be it from my salvation to speak words of my sins (Ibid.), that is, let not one say, 'Why have You forsaken me?' but let him understand that these things are spoken according to the flesh, which are far from the fullness of divinity. For words of sins are foreign to God, because sins of words are foreign as well. But since I have taken on foreign sins, I have also taken on the words of foreign sins, so that I may say that I am forsaken by the Father God, even though I am always with God.


Therefore, he was immortal in death, impassible in suffering. For as though death did not capture him like a god, and the underworld saw him as though he were a man. In the end, he gave up his spirit (Matthew 27:50), and yet, as though an arbiter of stripping off and taking on a body, he gave up his spirit, he did not lose it. He was hanging on the cross, and he shook everything. The world trembled at the wood, whom the whole world trembled in fear of. He was amidst the torments, receiving wounds, and giving the kingdom of heaven. He became the sin of all, he washed away the sins of the human race. Finally, he died and, rejoicing and exulting a second and third time, I say, he died; so that his death might become the life of the dead.

But even his tomb did not lack a miracle. For when he was anointed by Joseph and buried in his tomb (Luke 23:53), he himself, who was dead among the dead, unlocked the graves of the dead with a new work. And indeed, his body lay in the tomb, but he himself, free among the dead, giving remission to those in hell and breaking the law of death, was granting forgiveness. Therefore, his flesh was in the tomb, but his power was working from heaven. He was shown to all through the truth of his body that he was not just flesh, but that the Word was flesh. Indeed, flesh tasted death, but the impassible power of God: and if it stripped off the body, nevertheless God suffered no loss from the body.

Why do you attribute the sufferings of the body to divinity, and connect the weak pain of human nature with divine nature? Now the soul, he said, is troubled (John 12:27). The soul is troubled, not wisdom; for wisdom remained unchanged, although it was surrounded by the garment of flesh. For in that servant form was the fullness of true light: and when he emptied himself, he was the light. Finally, he said: Walk while you have the light (John 12:35). And when he was in death, he was not in the shadow. Finally, even in hell, he poured out the light of eternal life. There the true light of wisdom shone, illuminating hell, but hell was not closed. For where is wisdom? Finally the righteous one says: But where is wisdom found? But where is discipline found? Man does not know its way, nor is it found among humans (Job 28:12-13).

Therefore, Wisdom is neither in time nor in place, as it indicates the existence of time. But how can it be in time, that which was in the beginning? How can it be in place, that which was with God? The Only Begotten Son is sought after, and is found in the bosom of the Father by the evangelical spirit. Do you think the bosom of the Father is a place? And you inquire how he was born, when the prophetic man says: 'No man knows her way' (Job 28:13)? And do you estimate his origin according to men, when Job says that it has not been found among men? And you attribute death to Wisdom, about which the abyss says: It is not in me; and the sea says: It is not with me (Ibid., 14). It does not say heaven, It is not in me, but the abyss says, It is not in me. For he did not say to the abyss, but to the Father: Into your hands I commend my spirit (Luke 23:46). Although the soul was once in the abyss, it is no longer; because it is written: For you will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption (Psalm 16:10).


Therefore, the sea says: He is not with me, that is, my life says that it is restless amidst the waves of the world. For his flesh is not among men, because according to the flesh we no longer know Christ (II Cor. V, 16). The earth says: He is not with me, because he has risen. Finally, the Angel says: Why do you seek the living among the dead (Luke XXIV, 5)? And the sea rightly said: He is not with me; for he was above the sea. Finally, he walked on the sea and on physical footsteps, when he commanded Peter to walk on the sea (Matt. XIV, 29); although Peter faltered, he faltered not because of the weakness of the one commanding, but because of the obedience of the weak.


Therefore, do not allow the stain of our human nature to corrupt the splendor of glory, nor pour the fog of human flesh onto the light. Furthermore, by preaching passion, if you do not acknowledge what is capable of suffering, you have denied the piety of the Lord and rejected your own salvation. Therefore, we must consider those who, upon hearing the Son of God say, 'Why do you hit me?' (John 18:23), deemed subject to injury the one who is subject to the nature of divinity, as mentally deranged. For he said: 'Why do you strike me?' but the divine nature did not feel the blow. He said: 'I have given my back to the lashings, and my cheeks to those who pluck out the beard: I did not turn away my face from the insults and spitting.' (Isaiah 50:6). He spoke of his back and cheeks and face, that is, parts of the human body. For just as the flesh suffered in the Word, remaining in the flesh, so the Word of God suffered in the flesh, as it is written: 'For Christ suffered in the flesh' (1 Peter 4:1); he referred this to himself in relation to the assumption of the body; so that he might take upon himself what is ours, and clothe himself with the human.


Therefore, rightly according to its own nature, the flesh suffered, and its nature was not changed by the suffering of the body; for in truth, our resurrection is real, and therefore the passion of Christ is preached in truth.

Chapter VI.

These heretics, who claim that Christ either suffered in a phantom or embraced two persons in himself, are all refuted, just like those who distinguish the Word of God from the Son of God or do not distinguish divinity from the flesh, or subject divinity to the injuries of the body as if it were imperfect. However, Ambrose shows that the authors of all of these errors are those who pretended that the divinity and the flesh of the Lord are of one nature, falsely selling the authority of the Council of Nicaea, while he reveals that only the humanity of Christ is described in the Scriptures. He took on flesh in order to redeem what he had sinned, since nothing can be common to God and sin. Finally, he reveals how absurd the things that follow from the opinions of his adversaries are.

For neither, as some say, did he suffer in appearance, since he did not walk on the sea in appearance, as the disciples are reported to have thought in the Gospel (Matthew 14:26). But they are excused because: the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:39); for Jesus had not yet been honored (Romans 5:5). Christ has now been crucified and risen for us: the Spirit has now been given to us, who is the advocate of truth. And indeed, the disciples sometimes made mistakes, so that we would not be able to make mistakes later. Therefore, their error benefits us. As if men have erred, as if disciples have believed.

And therefore we must condemn those who preach that Jesus came in a phantom, and also those who, contrary to the line of error, do not say that he is the same and only Son of God: but that there is one who was born of God the Father, and another who was generated from the Virgin; whereas the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh (John 1:1), so that you would believe in one Lord Jesus, not two.

Some even believed that the Word of God and the Son of God were different: whereas the Evangelist testifies that He Himself, who was the Word in the beginning and was with God the Father, came in His own person. But there are those who, just as they believed that the prophets were only one, also believed that the Word was made Christ, not that He Himself was the Word of God. But it is not said of any of the prophets that the Word was made flesh. None of the prophets took away the sins of the world. No other has it been said: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased (Matt. III, 17). Nowhere in the prophets do we read that the Lord of majesty, whom the Apostle said the Jews crucified (I Cor. II, 8), refers to anyone else but Christ.

But while we refute these arguments, others arise who claim that the flesh of the Lord and the divinity are of one nature. What sacrilege have these vomited forth from hell? Now the Arians are more tolerable, whose strength of perfidy grows through these people; for they assert with even greater contention that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not of one substance; because these people have attempted to say that the divinity of the Lord and the flesh are of one substance. Then when these people say that the Word has been transformed into flesh, hair, blood, and bones, and has been changed from its own nature; a place is given to them to twist the weakness of the flesh, through a certain divine change, to the weakness of the divinity.


There are also those who have fallen into such impiety that they think that the divinity of the Lord was circumcised and made imperfect by the incarnation, and that on the cross, it was not flesh that hung there, but the divine substance, which is the agent of all things, coagulated in the likeness of flesh. But who would not shudder? Who would listen to the claim that the Word of God did not assume passible flesh for itself from the Virgin Mary, but made it out of divine substance? By asserting this, they fall into the error of contending that the body of the Lord was not assumed in time but has always coexisted with the Word of God.


Of all these authors are those who said that the divinity and the flesh of the Lord were of one nature. I read that I should not believe, unless I read myself: I read, I say, in the books of a certain person, it is written this way, that the organ and the one who moved the organ were of one nature in Christ. I have put this here so that the name of the author may be discovered from the writings; and let them take note that, although with the most exquisite arguments and adorned speeches, the force of truth cannot be obscured.


And here he frequently mentions that he holds the treatise of the Council of Nicaea. But in that treatise our fathers said that they affirmed not the flesh, but the Word of God to be of one substance with the Father; and that the Word indeed proceeded from the paternal substance, but that the flesh was confessed to be from the virgin. Therefore, how is the name of the Council of Nicaea invoked and new things introduced which our ancestors never experienced; when surely the Scriptures say that Christ suffered according to the flesh (1 Peter 1:2), not according to the divinity: the Scriptures say that a virgin will conceive in her womb and bear a Son (Isaiah 7:14)? For she received virtue, and she gave birth to a Son, whom she herself conceived.

Finally, Gabriel also declares this in his own words, saying: 'And what is born of you will be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). He says 'of you' in order to point out that as far as the human aspect is concerned, what is born of Mary is true human nature, while according to the divine aspect, it retains the prerogative of the Lord's body and is in no way separated from it. Indeed, Paul also says that he was predestined in the Gospel of God: 'which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:2-3). And to the Galatians: But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (Gal. IV, 4). And to Timothy He said: Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David (II Tim. II, 8).

Therefore, He received from us what was proper to offer for us, so that He might redeem us from ourselves; and He gave us what was not ours, out of His divine generosity. According to His nature, He offered Himself for us, so as to operate beyond our nature. The sacrifice is ours, the reward is His: and in the same act you will find both according to nature and beyond nature. For according to the condition of the body, He was in the womb, He was born, He was nursed, He was placed in a manger; but beyond the condition, the Virgin conceived, the Virgin gave birth: so that you may believe that He was God, who renewed nature; and He was man, who was born according to nature from a man.


For indeed, as some have interpreted, the very nature of the Word has not changed, which is always unchangeable, as He Himself said: 'See, see Me, for I am, and I have not changed' (Malachi 3:6). But even Paul said: 'For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, He Himself is unto the ages' (Hebrews 13:8), that is, He who was not changed according to the nature of flesh, but remained unchangeable even in the mutable condition of human quality.


Therefore, you have learned that he offered a sacrifice from our own. For what was the cause of the Incarnation, if not so that the flesh which had sinned might be redeemed by itself? Therefore, what had sinned, that is what was redeemed. Therefore, the divinity of the Word was not immolated, because the divinity of the Word had not sinned; and therefore the nature of the Word was not transformed into the nature of the flesh; because the divinity, which was free from sin, should not offer itself for the sin that it had not committed. For Christ offered in himself what he put on: and put on what he did not have before. Therefore, he did not put on the divinity of his divinity, in which there was the fullness of eternal divinity: but he took on flesh, so that he might strip off the spoils of the flesh, and in himself crucify the possessions of the devil, and raise the trophies of virtue.

Therefore, if the flesh of all was subject to injury in Christ, how can you say that Word is of the same substance with divinity? If the Word and the flesh are of one substance, and the flesh has a nature derived from the earth, how is it asserted that the Word and the soul are of one substance, which soul has assumed a perfect nature of human beings? However, the Word is of the same substance with God according to the profession of the Father, and the assertion of the Lord Himself, who says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). Therefore, the Father is preached as having one substance with the earthly body. And yet you are indignant at the Arians because they say that the Son of God is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of one substance with creatures.

But what else are you accomplishing by saying these things, except that you either compare the slime of Adam and our earthly substance to the divine nature, or certainly transfer divinity into an injustice of earthly corruption? For by saying that the Word became flesh and bones, you certainly say that it was turned into earth; since flesh and bones are from the earth.

They say that it is written: 'And the Word became flesh' (John 1:14). It is written, I do not deny it; but consider what follows: 'And dwelt among us', that is, that Word which took on flesh, dwelt among us, that is, dwelt in human flesh; and therefore he is called Emmanuel, that is, God with us (Matthew 1:23). Therefore, this Word became flesh, because he became a man. As also in Joel it is said: I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28); for it is not upon irrational flesh, but upon men, that the promise of the outpouring of spiritual grace is future.

But if you hold to the letter, as you think, from what is written, that the Word was made flesh, that the Word of God was made flesh; do you deny that it is written about the Lord, that he did not commit sin, but became sin (II Cor. 5:21)? Therefore, the Lord was not turned into sin (Gal. 3:13)? Not so; but because he took on our sins, he was called sin. For the Lord was also called cursed, not because the Lord was turned into a curse, but because he himself took on our curse: Cursed is he who hangs on a tree (Deut. 21:23). Therefore, you marvel because it is written: The Word was made flesh, when flesh was assumed by the Word of God; for when it is written that he was made sin, it means that he was made sin in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in nature or operation of sin, but in order to crucify our sin in his own flesh, he assumed the reception of the weaknesses of our guilty body, which is carnal.

Therefore, let them stop saying that the nature of the Word has been changed into the nature of the body, so that it does not appear that the nature of the Word has been changed into the contagion of sin. For it is one thing that He assumed, and another thing that was assumed. The power came into the Virgin, just as the Angel said to her: The power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35). But the body was born from the Virgin, and therefore there is a descent from heaven indeed, but a human conception. Therefore, the nature of the flesh and the nature of divinity could not be the same.

Chapter VII.

The one who added this to the previous books is excused: then, when he demonstrated the foolish arguments of those who denied that the soul is received from Christ, he establishes the same reception of the soul with testimonies from Scripture; then, after explaining why the soul should not be overlooked by the Lord, he shows that they are troubled by empty fear. How Christ is said to fear or to make progress; and yet there is no danger of being divided or of appearing wicked: this last point is turned against them themselves.


I could pursue this more extensively, but I fear that these very things may seem superfluous or prolix to some. For perhaps someone might say: Did you not promise that you would conclude in the five books you wrote about the divinity of the Father and the Son? But what should I do when new and diverse questions arise daily? The promise is not overlooked, but the objection constrains. For how can there be a limit to the response if there is no limit to the objection?


And yet, in the previous book, I had promised to fulfill the response to the divinity of the Father and the Son. However, in this book on the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation, a fuller discussion has been made, as it should be. For when the Lord says, 'My soul is sorrowful even unto death' (Matt. 26:38), and later, 'Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as you will' (ibid., 39), this is not referring to the compassion of the Holy Spirit, but to the rational assumption of the soul and human nature. Therefore, it is necessary to assert that the sacrament of the Lord and the fullness of human nature were accomplished in Christ, and that we distinguish them from any weakness of the Spirit. For he is not subject to weakness who is not subject to passion.

Therefore, I inquire by what reasoning certain individuals believe that the soul is not received from the Lord Jesus; is it because of the fear that Christ would be corrupted by human sensation? Indeed, they say that the desire of the flesh is contrary to the law of the mind (Rom. VII, 23). But whoever says this, is so far from thinking that Christ, under the law of the flesh, should have been led into the bonds of sin; that he himself, in the heat of human frailty, believed that he could be helped by Christ, saying: Wretched me, a man! Who will free me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 7:24). So he who freed others from the slippery flesh, could he possibly fear being overcome by the dominion of that same flesh?

But he was afraid of the allurements of that flesh, as they wished. Therefore, he should have avoided the acceptance of flesh, so that he would not be drawn into the slippery slope of error. But how could he fear the slippery slope of sin, who had come to forgive sin? And therefore, when he assumed human flesh, it follows that he received the perfection and fullness of the incarnation; for there is nothing imperfect in Christ. Therefore, he assumed flesh in order to resurrect: he took on a soul, but a perfect soul, endowed with reason, he assumed and received a human soul.


For who can deny that he received his soul, since he himself says: I lay down my life for my sheep? And again: Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again (John 10:15). This is not said in a parable, nor with a superficial meaning, in which one thing is said and another is understood, as in this: My soul hates your New Moons and your Sabbaths (Isaiah 1:13); although this can also be referred to the soul of Christ, which was laid down in order to abolish the error of Jewish superstition and establish the truth of one sacrifice.


But let them doubt about this prophecy, they cannot refute this statement about the property of the soul; since it is about the death and resurrection of the Lord; finally he adds: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18). Therefore, he lays down the same soul that he took up. I say he took it up; for the Word itself, the living God, was not made in his own flesh in place of our soul: but just as he took up our flesh, so he took up our complete soul by the assumption of human nature. He assumed my soul in order to bless it with the sacrament of his incarnation; He accepted my affection in order to mend it.

But what need was there for taking on flesh without a soul; when surely flesh that is insensible and without reason neither is subject to sin nor worthy of reward? Therefore, He took on for us that which was more in danger among us. But what profit is it to me if He has not redeemed the whole of me? But He has redeemed the whole of me, who says: 'You make me unworthy, who have made the whole man sound on the Sabbath' (John 7:23)? He has redeemed the whole of me, because in a perfect man, faithful not in part but in entirety, He rises again.


Therefore, let those who are compassionate not fear that Christ, who even controlled the foal of a donkey that no one had ridden before, could not govern his own flesh, soul, and human understanding. The one who planted the ear, will he not hear? The one who governed others could not govern himself? The one who forgave sins committed sin himself? Let those overly worried individuals, like the tutors of Christ, cease to fear that the law of the mind, which did not oppress Paul but only resisted, will also oppress desire for the flesh in Christ himself. The athlete of Christ counts the victories of his mind. Do they tremble lest the flesh waver in the Lord, which conquered in a servant?

Christ does not want us to fear for Himself, the Lord does not want us to weep for Himself. Finally, He says: Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, weep for yourselves (Luke 23:28). And to those, He says: Do not fear for me, fear for yourselves. Have you not heard David saying: The LORD is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? (Psalm 27:1). And elsewhere: I shall not fear what man can do to me (Psalm 118:6); and elsewhere: I shall not fear what flesh can do to me (Psalm 56:5).


Therefore He says: I could fear the fall of human nature which man himself did not fear: and so, before flesh, God took on the perfection of human nature: I took on the senses of man, but I am not inflated by the sense of the flesh. By the sense of man I said that my soul was troubled: by the sense of man I hungered: by the sense of man I prayed, as I always heard the prayers of those who pray: by the sense of man I made progress, as it is written: And Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and grace with God and men (Luke 2:52).


How did the Wisdom of God progress? Let the order of words teach you. It advanced in age and wisdom, but in a human way. Therefore, it preceded age so that you would believe the statement according to a human being. Age belongs to the body, not to divinity. Therefore, if it advanced in the age of a human, it advanced in the wisdom of a human. Wisdom, however, progresses through the senses, because wisdom comes from the senses. But Jesus advanced in both age and wisdom. Who was making progress in understanding? If human, then he himself underwent change: if divine, then he is mutable by progress. For whatever makes progress, certainly changes for the better: but what is divine does not change: therefore, what changes is not necessarily divine. Therefore, human understanding was making progress; therefore, it assumed a human understanding.

And so that we may know that he was speaking according to the human, he added above, saying: But the boy grew and was strengthened and filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was with him (ibid., 40). And the boy, it is the name of our age: neither the power of God could be strengthened, nor God could grow, nor the height of God's wisdom, nor the fullness of God's divinity could be fulfilled. Therefore, what was being fulfilled was not God's wisdom, but our own. For how could he be fulfilled, who descended to fulfill all things (Ephesians 4:10)?


But how did Isaiah say it, that the child did not know his father or mother? For it is written: Before the child knows his father or mother, he will receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria (Isaiah 8:4). For the wisdom of God, which is to come and is hidden, does not deceive; but through human imprudence, infancy lacks knowledge and remains ignorant of what it has not yet learned.

But, you say, we must be cautious lest if we attribute two primary senses or a twofold wisdom to Christ, we divide Christ. When we worship both his divinity and his flesh, do we divide Christ? When we venerate in him the image of God and the cross, do we divide him? Surely the Apostle, who said of him: For although he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God (2 Corinthians 13:4); he himself said that Christ is not divided. Do we also divide Him when we say that He received a rational and intellectual soul capable of our understanding? (I Cor. I, 13)

For God himself, the Word, in his flesh, was not a rational and intelligent soul, but a rational and intelligent soul, and the same human, and of the same substance as our souls, and a flesh similar to our own, and of the same substance as our flesh. The Word of God, assuming this, was also a perfect man, without any stain of sin; for he himself did not sin, but was made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, the flesh is of the same essence as the soul, and our soul and flesh are of the same substance.

Nor do I fear that I may appear to introduce a quaternity, for we truly adore the Trinity, we who assert this. For I do not divide Christ when I distinguish the substance of His flesh and His divinity, but I proclaim one Christ with the Father and the Spirit of God, and I will demonstrate that those who say that the flesh of Christ is of the same substance as His divinity introduce a quaternity. For it is not that which is of the same substance that is one, but one is, for surely those who confess the Son of the same substance as the Father in the treatise of the Council of Nicaea did not believe in one person, but in one divinity in the Father and the Son.


Therefore, when they say that the flesh of Christ, which was also the Son of God, was of the same substance, they themselves incur the folly of a vain assertion, as they seek to divide Christ. Thus, they introduce a fourth uncreated entity, which we adore, even though only the uncreated divinity of the Trinity exists.

Chapter VIII.

Against this Catholic sentence, that the Son who is begotten is equal to the Father who begot him, opponents argue that the begotten cannot be of the same nature as the unbegotten; it is replied that the terms begotten and unbegotten, which are not found in the Scriptures, are introduced by them, since they reject them in terms of nature and substance because they deny their existence in the same Scriptures. Moreover, it is shown from the sacred scriptures that there is nature and substance in God.


I had concluded the book, but there was a concern that we might seem to disregard religion because we were unable to solve it. For a while now, certain individuals have been saying to us that the Son of God, who was born, cannot be unequal to the Father who begot him, even though the former was born and the latter begot, because generation is not about power but about nature. They consider the question to be closed against them in that regard, but in an objectionable way they turn the discussion around in the same place, thinking that by changing the wording, they can change the issue, saying: How can the unbegotten and the begotten be of the same nature and substance?


So, in order to respond, most merciful Emperor, to the question you have posed to me; first of all, I do not find in the holy Scriptures anything innate: I have not read, I have not heard. Whose therefore are the people of such changeability, that they say we use those things which are not written; when we, on the other hand, say those things which are written: and they themselves object that it is not written? Do they not oppose themselves, and undermine the authority of their own false accusation?


For they say that it is not written that God is substance and nature; whereas certainly the Scripture testifies that the Son of God is the brightness of his glory, and the character of his substance (Hebrews 1:3), and in another book we have shown very fully that many others have spoken of the divine substance (Book III on Faith, chapter 4).

Who then would deny that divine nature? When the apostle Peter wrote in his epistle that the mercy of the Lord was accomplished through the passion of the cross, in order to make us partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But elsewhere Paul also wrote: But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those who by nature are not gods (Galatians 4:8). We also find this in Greek manuscripts, which have greater authority.


So what, therefore, do those mean who deny that nature is divine, except that now they not only slander the Son but also the Father? For if it is denied that God is by nature, then it follows that he is by grace, like humans. Or certainly it is falsely believed, like demons, whose images are given the name of God. But let us follow the authority of the Apostle, so that we may say that nature is not divine in idols. Therefore, if it is not in idols, it is not in demons: it remains that in God there is a divine nature and substance.


Therefore, with apostolic authority, we affirm that it is right to say of God the Father that His nature is God; let them now understand that the same nature of God the Father is also that of the Son, and likewise that of the Holy Spirit; lest perhaps they say the same thing: Indeed, we read that nature is divine, but we do not read of the unity of the divine nature. But when the Son Himself said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); He proved the unity of the divinity. When He said: All that the Father has is mine (John 16:15); and further: Father, all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine (John 17:10); He affirmed the unity. When he said, 'The Father who dwells in me, he himself does the works that I do' (John 14:10), he clearly declared unity.

Then Peter shows that there is one divine nature: \"That he might make us sharers of the divine nature\" (2 Peter 1:4). For he could have said it differently; he could have said, I say, \"That he might make us sharers of the divine natures\"; especially since we pass into participation in the divine nature through the Son. Can he give what he does not have? Therefore, there is no doubt that he gives from what he has; and therefore, he who gives the sharing in the divine nature has the divine nature.


The Apostle Paul also says: 'Those who are not by nature gods' (Galatians 4:8); he shows that there is only one true nature of God. For he himself could have said: 'Those who are not by nature gods' if he knew that there is a plurality of divine nature, with something different in the Father, something different in the Son, something different in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by saying 'Those who are not by nature gods,' he expressed the unity of the divine nature.

But what is the nature of God, if not to be the true God? as he said to the Thessalonians: How you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God (I Thess. I, 9). For they pretend to be gods, but God by nature is living and true. For even in our use of language, the Son by adoption is also the true Son. We do not say that the adopted Son is Son by nature, but we say that he is by nature the one who is the true Son.


Therefore, we have proven by reading that both the nature and substance are divine: and the apostolic authority has also demonstrated that the nature of God is unity, not plurality.

Chapter IX.

While the heretics want to claim that the unbegotten Father, which they did not read in Scripture, should be granted to them, they reveal their eagerness for debate. However, it must be admitted that it is written, but by Arius, who is opposed by the Apostle. Their objection is turned back against themselves, and the voice of the unbegotten is also affirmed for all creatures. After explaining the reasoning of the opponents, Ambrose responds that the terms "begotten" and "unbegotten" do not signify nature, but rather quality. With the examples presented, this proves the point extensively, but in particular it is longer in that it makes it clear that the same substance can arise from different beginnings.

Now they argue that when they have read the Unbegotten Father. But if they demand that it be granted to them in the manner of dialectic, that they may use as a premise what has not been read and pretend that it has been read, they reveal that they are driven by the desire for controversy rather than the pursuit of knowledge of the truth. For in dialectic itself, if what they demand to be granted to them is not granted, they are unable to find a starting point for their argument, which they desire in order to find an approach to controversy, rather than to examine the truth. And this is the case where the dispute is more about the clever tactics of argumentation than about the investigation of truth. For this is indeed the glory of dialecticians, if they seem to conquer with words and refute the truth; and on the other hand, it is contrary to the definition of faith that truth, not words, should be weighed. In short, simple truth excludes the words of philosophers, just as it does the nets of fishermen.

Therefore, what is this assertion, where if I do not grant them the word of the uncreated, they cannot find the beginning of the assertion? So, let them demonstrate where they have read it.

He had forgotten: now I remember. It has been read, they say; for Arius said that the Father is uncreated, and the Son is begotten and created. Behold, they contend against the apostolic writings in this matter: let them contend, however, if they confess themselves to be disciples of Arius. For how can they deny the teacher whose invention they follow?

But if they say this, what Arius said: I should more justly say what the Apostle said (Ephesians 3:14). For he called the Father, not ungenerated: he called the Son, and he called him begotten Son. What I have read, I do not deny; indeed, I gladly use it: what I have not read, I should not use. But yet, what we would not do in dialectic, they may use; and perhaps they may say that because we do not read the Father as begotten like the Son, therefore we must consider him ungenerated.


This is understood, therefore it is not read. But if it is understood, neither is the Holy Spirit born read: therefore, the Spirit, because it is not born, must certainly be called uncreated according to your opinion. Therefore, if you say that the uncreated and the born cannot be of one substance; it remains that you do not deny the unity of the divine nature and substance of the Father and the Holy Spirit, because we do not read of the Father being born, nor of the Holy Spirit. For if the power of your entire argument is that the ungenerated and generated cannot be of the same nature, therefore, he who is not generated is of the same nature and substance as he who is not generated. And if you think that the Father is greater because he is not generated, is the Holy Spirit also greater than the Son?

Many and countless examples can be provided to show that something which is not generated is called ungenerated. For many have said that even the world is ungenerated, and that the matter of all things, which the Greeks call 'hyle' as if it were a material forest, is ungenerated. Therefore, they see that this word cannot have a certain prerogative of power, unless perhaps they seem to honor God with this word, by which philosophers believed the world should be considered a gift. Is the Father, therefore, begotten in such a way as the world? Far from it. Or does only this speech befit God, since God is beyond the scope of all speeches? Therefore, there is nothing precious to God in that speech, which can be common with others.

But nevertheless, however you want it, let the incomparable prerogative of this speech be, which is not designated by any authority, but is estimated by your judgment. Therefore, what advantage does this have, that you want to create a difference in nature, a difference in power between the Father and the Son from a word? Unbegotten, it says, and begotten cannot be of the same nature and substance; or, as they sometimes say, the uncreated and the created are not of the same nature. For neither do the ingenerate and inoperative make a distinction, nor do they want there to be a distinction between the begotten and the created, in such a way that they would call the Son a creature.

Therefore, they say that because the Father is the ultimate cause, that is, αἰτίαν as the Greeks say, and has surpassed all others, since he was not created from another, he is not a son; since he is indeed substance, not having a beginning or cause from elsewhere, from which he exists. And therefore, they say, there cannot be another substance like this, because all things have their cause for existence from Father God. Hence, they say it is not plausible that the Son, because he is from the Father, and does not have a cause of his own to exist, but receives it from the Father, should be similar to the Father: since the Father does not have a cause from elsewhere, but the Son, as they argue, could not have existed unless he had received this very thing from the Father to be.


And so they say that what is begotten and what is uncreated are dissimilar; as if, indeed, as I have often said elsewhere, generation is about power, not nature. For when I say what is begotten, I am expressing not a property of nature but the meaning of generation; and I will prove this with more evident examples. For if I were to say 'Son' generally, without adding whose, it could be understood as both the son of a human, and the son of wickedness, and the son of destruction, and the son of the devil, as the Scripture testifies about the Jews (John 8:44); and likewise what is in use for the offspring of a beast and the young of doves. And therefore in the appellation of sons, the expression of nature is not signified. But indeed if I desire to designate nature, I will call a man, or name a horse, or say a bird, so that nature can be understood.

So, if I want to designate divine nature, I should name the true God. But when I say Son, I indicate that he was born: when I also say Father, I declare that he has begotten. Therefore, do not make a distinction in nature, since this indicates the nature of the one who begets and the one who is begotten: indications of this kind express the quality of the substance; for there are many sons, as I said, but there is a difference among the sons: one by nature, another by grace.


Many creatures are invisible and visible: invisible, like Principalities and Powers, Thrones and Dominions; visible, like the sun, moon, stars, man, and earth. Therefore, there are various species and various substances of creatures. So, if you want to express the property of any creature, you will name either the sun, or the moon, or the stars; and thus what you consider to be significant is understood.

Moreover, if you were to say 'made' or 'created,' which they sometimes say about the Son, since many things have been made and created, you do not seem to have meant the property of substance, but rather the appearance of quality. For substance is one thing, quality another. Furthermore, we have said in another place that the Latins have translated οὐσίαν as 'substance.' But when the substance of God is spoken of, what else is signified except that God always exists? This is expressed by the very letters, because when the divine power is always being, that is, when it always exists, it is called οὐσία, with the order of one letter changed for the sake of sound and the conciseness and elegance of speech. Therefore, οὐσὶα, which always signifies God, declares how the appellation of ungenerated or generated is, as you wish, namely, that the Father is not from another, nor is the Son from Himself. Here, there seems to be a different species. Certainly, a distinct species, but an indistinct divinity.

You ask how this can be proven? I will demonstrate also in creatures a different species, different beginnings in many, and one substance, and I will produce examples from the Scriptures. Therefore, if this can be applicable in mortal things; in the same way as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit impose a law of necessity on divinity.

Indeed, all flying creatures, which appear to be of the same kind, are certainly of the same nature, just as there is one kind and one nature of eagles, and likewise of vultures and others according to their species. However, as for how they began to be flying creatures, we find three species and we have read that their origins have different causes. For it is written that God said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life, and the flying creatures flying above the earth (Gen. I, 20). And a little later, when God had made paradise and placed man in it, it is written that God formed beasts of the field and birds of the air from the earth (Gen. II, 19). Therefore, the birds in this place are figuratively represented as being from the earth. Moreover, you have also read that God said to the birds: Increase and multiply (Gen. I, 22); certainly commanding the increase of offspring from the union of male and female. Therefore, we also observe that those of one kind began in different ways: some from water, some from earth, some from the union of male and female; yet these are all of the same nature and do not have a difference in substance.


But what about the unity of nature, as our flesh is with the truth of the Lord's body? Yet both are derived from different causes and have different origins. For the flesh of the Lord, generated by the Spirit coming upon the Virgin (Luke 1:35), did not require the customary union of male and female intercourse. But our flesh, unless the male and female sexes unite in their natural channels, cannot be formed within the mother's womb. And yet, even though the cause of their generation is different, the flesh of Christ is one with all human flesh.


For the birth of the Virgin did not change nature, but it renewed the use of procreation. Indeed, flesh was born from flesh. Therefore, the Virgin had something of her own to give, for the mother did not give something foreign, but contributed her own from her womb in an unusual way, but in the usual manner. Therefore, the Virgin had flesh, which she transmitted by the established right of nature into the offspring. Therefore, Mary, who gave birth according to the flesh, and the nature of the one born, are not unlike brothers, for the Scripture says that he was to become like his brothers in every respect (Heb. II, 17). Likewise, our Son of God is similar, not according to the fullness of divinity, but according to the nature of the rational soul, and to express it more clearly, the truth of our human body.

But what can we say about Adam himself, who, being formed from the clay of the earth, surely begot sons of his own consorts of nature, participants of his race, heirs of his succession (Gen. II, 17)? Indeed, there are different beginnings in both parents and children, but there is one human nature; yet, the dissimilarity of origin did not prejudice the similarity of substance. Therefore, just as a son is similar to his father even in those things which, due to the frailty of human condition, could not possess the fullness of similarity, how then is the Son of God the true dissimilar to the Father?

Chapter X.

Those who acknowledge the Son to be like the Father, but deny that they are of the same substance, do not differ from those who came before them. For it is not possible for there to be an accidental or partial likeness between them; such likenesses are attributed to mere humans in relation to God, but the likeness between the Son and the Father is of nature, of which the Son is also the perfect image. Therefore, the term 'begotten' does not hinder the Catholic faith, but reveals the perfidy of heretics; for by using an unfamiliar term in Scripture, they denied the omnipotence that is attributed to those persons there.


But most of those who follow the same sect think that they disagree with them in the form of discussion, those who say that the Son is dissimilar to the Father in all things. Therefore, let us also refute the nonsense of those who say that the Son is similar, but not of one substance with the Father.

But those things that are not of the same nature are necessarily different and distant: and those that are of different nature, it follows that they cannot be similar; unless perhaps you say they are similar in appearance, but dissimilar in truth. For both milk and snow and a white swan are of the same color, but they preserve the difference of their distinct natures; nor does the difference of natures of species become colored by the similarity of appearance.

How then do they say that the Father and the Son are similar, who deny the unity of substance? Do they think that they are similar according to form, figure, and color? But these are attributes of the body, they indicate a certain composition. But how do we fit invisibility with similarity according to color or form? Or how can a creature be similar to the uncreated? How can the splendor of glory and the character of his substance (Heb. I, 3) be similar if, as they say, glory and substance are different?


They say that the Son is similar in glory and operation, and therefore he is called the image of God. Therefore, if he is similar in some things, but not in all things, he is similar in part and dissimilar in part. It follows from this proposition that if he is similar in part, he is not identical in whole, but is a composite image of God. And therefore, it follows that he himself appears to be composite, whose image is composite. But if the composite maintains similarity in its parts, its image cannot be similar in part.


But those who deny similarity according to the unity of nature, consider similarity to others. For they often say: Why do you think that Scripture gave much to the Son because it said image; when God himself said to men: Be holy, for I am holy (Lev. XIX, 2)? And the Son said: Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matth. XVI, 48)? And they do not understand that by this it is implied: that the Son is similar to the Father not according to a part, but according to the fullness of divinity and the perfection. Finally, if many are similar, why is only the Son called the invisible image of God, and the character of his substance; unless it is because in him is the unity of the same nature, and the expression of his majesty?

For there is one kind of likeness according to imitation, another according to nature, as the words themselves of the examples proposed indicate; for the Scripture says: Be holy, that they may become so through imitation. Therefore, it is said to men: Be holy, because they are not so; but God says of Himself: I am holy, because I am so by nature, not by progress in growing holiness. Then Wisdom says: Be perfect, that they may begin to possess what they do not yet possess. But concerning the Father it says: As your Father, who is in heaven, is perfect. Therefore the Father is perfect, who always is. Hence His being, whether in Greek called οὐσία, because it always exists, or in Latin called substance, because it remains in itself and does not subsist by the help of another.

Therefore, the Father is holy and perfect, the Son is also holy and perfect, as the image of God. But the image of God, because all things that are God are seen in the Son, that is, eternal divinity, omnipotence, and majesty. Therefore, just as God is, so His image appears. Therefore, it is necessary that you believe the image to be such as God is. For if you take away from the image, it will appear that you have taken away from the one whose image it is. If you believe the image to be lesser, then a lesser God will appear in the image. For as you have judged the image to be, so shall he appear to you, whose image is invisible. The image said: He who sees me, sees the Father also (John 14:9). And as you have judged him to be, whose image you believe the Son to be; so necessarily must the Son be judged by you. Hence, since the Father is uncreated, so is the Son uncreated; since the Father is not less, so is the Son not less; since the Father is omnipotent, so is the Son omnipotent.

Therefore it has been said, even if they use what they do not read, so that they may call it innate; nevertheless, that word does not hinder us from believing that Christ is of one nature and substance with the Father. And if of one nature, certainly of one power.

This place is not difficult to refute the studies of the perfidious. For how do they deny the omnipotent Christ, which is written, who are willing to claim that which they do not teach in writing? For we have taught the omnipotent Christ above (Book 2, De Fide, chapter 3), in the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, and in the prophecy of Zechariah, and in the Gospel. If anyone thinks these things should be reviewed, let him review and repeat.


However, because I almost passed by there due to the congestion of testimonies, let them say about what they think was said, that which Amos prophesied; for it is written thus: 'The Lord who touches the earth, and it trembles, and all who dwell in it mourn. And he rises up like the river of Egypt, for he builds his ascent above the heavens, and he establishes his promise upon the earth: he calls the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the face of the earth, the Lord Almighty is his name.' Do they not understand that all these things agree in the Son, who, descending to the earth, touched it, was moved in his passion, ascended from the earth into heaven, and descended upon the earth from heaven, as he himself promised?

But why do I labor about the Son, when Scripture also testifies about the omnipotent Spirit? For it is written: By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their power (Psalm 32:6). And concerning Wisdom, it is written that it possesses the omnipotent Spirit; for Solomon says: For Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me (Wisdom 7:12). Indeed, in Wisdom there is a spirit of understanding, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, immaculate, manifest, invulnerable, loving what is good, keen, provident, powerful, benevolent, steadfast, untroubled, all-seeing, and penetrating through all intelligent spirits.