ST. AMBROSE ON JESUS AS GOD’S ANGEL
The following is taken from St. Ambrose’s Exposition of the Faith, Book I. This holy servant of Christ sets out to prove that Jesus is the divine Angel of God who appeared to Abraham, Moses and Nebuchadnezzar. All emphasis will be mine.
Chapter 13.
Discussion of the Divine Generation is continued. St. Ambrose illustrates its method by the same example as that employed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The duty of believing what is revealed is shown by the example of Nebuchadnezzar and St. Peter. By the vision granted to St. Peter was shown the Son’s Eternity and Godhead — the Apostle, then, must be believed in preference to the teachers of philosophy, whose authority was everywhere falling into discredit. The Arians, on the other hand, are shown to be like the heathen.
79. It will be asked: In what sort was the Son begotten?
As one who is for ever, as the Word, as the brightness of eternal light, Hebrews 1:3 for brightness takes effect in the instant of its coming into existence. Which example is the Apostle’s, not mine. Think not, then, that there was ever a moment of time when God was without wisdom, any more than that there was ever a time when light was without radiance. Judge not, Arian, divine things by human, but believe the divine where you find not the human.
80. The heathen king saw in the fire, together with the three Hebrew children, the form of a fourth, like as of an angel, Daniel 3:25 and because he thought that this angel excelled all angels, he judged Him to be the Son of God, Whom he had not read of, but in Whom he believed. Abraham, also, saw Three, and adored One. Genesis 18:1-3
81. Peter, when he saw Moses and Elias on the mountain, with the Son of God, was not deceived as to their nature and glory. For he enquired, not of them, but of Christ, what he ought to do, inasmuch as though he prepared to do homage to all three, yet he waited for the command of one. But since he ignorantly thought that for three persons three tabernacles should be set up, he was corrected by the sovereign voice of God the Father, saying, This is My dearly beloved Son: hear Him.
Matthew 17:5 That is to say: Why do you join your fellow-servants in equality with your Lord?
This is My Son.
Not Moses
is My Son, nor Elias is My Son,
but This is My Son
. The Apostle was not dull to understand the rebuke; he fell on his face, brought low by the Father’s voice and the glorious beauty of the Son, but he was raised up by the Son, Whose wont it is to raise up them that are fallen. Matthew 17:6-8 Then he saw one only, Matthew 17:8 the Son of God alone, for the servants had withdrawn, that He might be seen to be Lord alone, Who alone was entitled Son.
82. What, then, was the purpose of that vision, which signified not that Christ and His servants were equal, but betokened a mystery, save that it should be made plain to us that the Law and the Prophets, in agreement with the Gospel, revealed as eternal the Son of God, Whom they had heralded. When we, therefore, hear of the Son coming forth of the womb, the Word from the heart, let us believe that the Son was not fashioned with hands but begotten of the Father, not the work of a craftsman but the offspring of a parent.
83. He, therefore, Who said, This is My Son,
said not, This is a creature of time,
nor This being is of My creation, My making, My servant,
but This is My Son, Whom you see glorified.
This is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, Who appeared to Moses in the bush, Exodus 3:14 concerning Whom Moses says, He Who is has sent me.
It was not the Father Who spoke to Moses in the bush or in the desert, but the Son. It was of this Moses that Stephen said, This is He Who was in the church, in the wilderness, with the Angel.
Acts 7:38 This, then, is He Who gave the Law, Who spoke with Moses, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.
This, then, is the God of the patriarchs, this is the God of the prophets.
84. It is of the Son, therefore, that we read, your mind understands the reading, let your tongue make confession. Away with arguments, where faith is required; now let dialectic hold her peace, even in the midst of her schools. I ask not what it is that philosophers say, but I would know what they do. They sit desolate in their schools. See the victory of faith over argument. They who dispute subtly are forsaken daily by their fellows; they who with simplicity believe are daily increased. Not philosophers but fishermen, not masters of dialectic but tax-gatherers, now find credence. The one sort, through pleasures and luxuries, have bound the world’s burden upon themselves; the other, by fasting and mortification, have cast it off, and so does sorrow now begin to win over more followers than pleasure.
85. Let us now see how far Arians and pagans do differ. The latter call upon gods, who are different in sex and unequal in power; the former affirm a Trinity where there is likewise inequality of power and diversity of Godhead. The pagans assert that their Gods began to exist once upon a time; the Arians lyingly declare that Christ began to exist in the course of time. Have they not all dyed their impiety in the vats of philosophy? But indeed the pagans do extol that which they worship, the Arians maintain that the Son of God, Who is God, is a creature. ()
I now cite a large segment of this great saint’s refutation since it is filled with remarkable insights and scriptural references. For instance, St. Ambrose cites Genesis 1:26, Romans 9:5 and 1 John 5:20 to prove that the Father was speaking to the Son at creation, and that the Son is called God over all and the true God. This remarkable saint also appeals to Psalm 22:10 to prove that the Father only became the Son’s God when the Son was conceived in the pure and holy womb of the holy Virgin. All emphasis will be mine.
Chapter 7.
The likeness of Christ to the Father is asserted on the authority of St. Paul, the prophets, and the Gospel, and especially in reliance upon the creation of man in God’s image.
48. The Apostle says that Christ is the image of the Father — for he calls Him the image of the invisible God, the first-begotten of all creation. First-begotten, mark you, not first-created, in order that He may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of His nature, and first in virtue of His eternity. In another place also the Apostle has declared that God made the Son heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds, Who is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His substance. Hebrews 1:2 The Apostle calls Christ the image of the Father, and Arius says that He is unlike the Father. Why, then, is He called an image, if He has no likeness? Men will not have their portraits unlike them, and Arius contends that the Father is unlike the Son, and would have it that the Father has begotten one unlike Himself, as though unable to generate His like.
49. The prophets say: In Your light we shall see light; and again: Wisdom is the brightness of everlasting light, and the spotless mirror of God’s majesty, the image of His goodness. Wisdom 7:26 See what great names are declared! Brightness, because in the Son the Father’s glory shines clearly: spotless mirror, because the Father is seen in the Son: John 12:45 image of goodness, because it is not one body seen reflected in another, but the whole power [of the Godhead] in the Son. The word image teaches us that there is no difference; expression, that He is the counterpart of the Father’s form; and brightness declares His eternity. The image in truth is not that of a bodily countenance, not one made up of colors, nor modelled in wax, but simply derived from God, coming out from the Father, drawn from the fountainhead.
50. By means of this image the Lord showed Philip the Father, saying, Philip, he that sees Me, sees the Father also. How then do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? John 14:9-10 Yes, he who looks upon the Son sees, in portrait, the Father. Mark what manner of portrait is spoken of. It is Truth, Righteousness, the Power of God: not dumb, for it is the Word; not insensible, for it is Wisdom; not vain and foolish, for it is Power; not soulless, for it is the Life; not dead, for it is the Resurrection. You see, then, that while an image is spoken of, the meaning is that it is the Father, Whose image the Son is, seeing that no one can be his own image.
51. More might I set down from the Son’s testimony; howbeit, lest He perchance appear to have asserted Himself overmuch, let us enquire of the Father. For the Father said, Let us make man in Our image and likeness. Genesis 1:26 The Father says to the Son in Our image and likeness, and you say that the Son of God is unlike the Father.
52. John says, Beloved, we are sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: we know that if He be revealed, we shall be like Him. 1 John 3:2 O blind madness! O shameless obstinacy! We are men, and, so far as we may, we shall be in the likeness of God: dare we deny that the Son is like God?
53. Therefore the Father has said: Let us make man in Our image and likeness. At the beginning of the universe itself, as I read, the Father and the Son existed, and I see one creation. I hear Him that speaks. I acknowledge Him that does: but it is of one image, one likeness, that I read. This likeness belongs not to diversity but to unity. What, therefore, you claim for yourself, you take from the Son of God, seeing, indeed, that you can not be in the image of God, save by help of the image of God.
Chapter 8.
The likeness of the Son to the Father being proved, it is not hard to prove the Son’s eternity, though, indeed, this may be established on the authority of the Prophet Isaiah and St. John the Evangelist, by which authority the heretical leaders are shown to be refuted.
54. It is plain, therefore, that the Son is not unlike the Father, and so we may confess the more readily that He is also eternal, seeing that He Who is like the Eternal must needs be eternal. But if we say that the Father is eternal, and yet deny this of the Son, we say that the Son is unlike the Father, for the temporal differs from the eternal. The Prophet proclaims Him eternal, and the Apostle proclaims Him eternal; the Testaments, Old and New alike, are full of witness to the Son’s eternity.
55. Let us take them, then, in their order. In the Old Testament— to cite one out of a multitude of testimonies — it is written: Before Me has there been no other God, and after Me shall there be none. Isaiah 43:10 I will not comment on this place, but ask you straight: Who speaks these words — the Father or the Son? Whichever of the two you say, you will find yourself convinced, or, if a believer, instructed. Who, then, speaks these words, the Father or the Son? If it is the Son, He says, Before Me has there been no other God; if the Father, He says, After Me shall there be none. The One has none before Him, the Other none that comes after; as the Father is known in the Son, so also is the Son known in the Father, for whenever you speak of the Father, you speak also by implication of His Son, seeing that none is his own father; and when you name the Son, you do also acknowledge His Father, inasmuch as none can be his own son. And so neither can the Son exist without the Father, nor the Father without the Son. The Father, therefore, is eternal, and the Son also eternal.
56. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Was, mark you, with God. Was— see, we have was four times over. Where did the blasphemer find it written that He was not. Again, John, in another passage — in his Epistle — speaks of That which was in the beginning. 1 John 1:1 The extension of the was is infinite. Conceive any length of time you will, yet still the Son was.
57. Now in this short passage our fisherman has barred the way of all heresy. For that which was in the beginning is not comprehended in time, is not preceded by any beginning. Let Arius, therefore, hold his peace. Moreover, that which was with God is not confounded and mingled with Him, but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished which it has as the Word abiding with God; and so let Sabellius keep silence. And the Word was God. This Word, therefore, consists not in uttered speech, but in the designation of celestial excellence, so that Photinus’ teaching is refuted. Furthermore, by the fact that in the beginning He was with God is proven the indivisible unity of eternal Godhead in Father and Son, to the shame and confusion of Eunomius. Lastly, seeing that all things are said to have been made by Him, He is plainly shown to be author of the Old and of the New Testament alike; so that the Manichæan can find no ground for his assaults. Thus has the good fisherman caught them all in one net, to make them powerless to deceive, albeit unprofitable fish to take.
Chapter 9.
St. Ambrose questions the heretics and exhibits their answer, which is, that the Son existed, indeed, before all time, yet was not co-eternal with the Father, whereat the Saint shows that they represent the Godhead as changeable, and further, that each Person must be believed to be eternal.
58. Tell me, thou heretic — for the surpassing clemency of the Emperor grants me this indulgence of addressing you for a short space, not that I desire to confer with you, or am greedy to hear your arguments, but because I am willing to exhibit them — tell me, I say, whether there was ever a time when God Almighty was not the Father, and yet was God. I say nothing about time,
is your answer. Well and subtly objected! For if you bring time into the dispute, you will condemn yourself, seeing that you must acknowledge that there was a time when the Son was not, whereas the Son is the ruler and creator of time. He cannot have begun to exist after His own work. You, therefore, must needs allow Him to be the ruler and maker of His work.
59. I do not say,
do you answer, that the Son existed not before time; but when I call Him Son,
I declare that His Father existed before Him, for, as you say, father exists before son. But what means this? You deny that time was before the Son, and yet you will have it that something preceded the existence of the Son — some creature of time — and you show certain stages of generation intervening, whereby thou dost give us to understand that the generation from the Father was a process in time. For if He began to be a Father, then, in the first instance, He was God, and afterwards He became a Father. How, then, is God unchangeable? For if He was first God, and then the Father, surely He has undergone change by reason of the added and later act of generation.
60. But may God preserve us from this madness; for it was but to confute the impiety of the heretics that we brought in this question. The devout spirit affirms a generation that is not in time, and so declares Father and Son to be co-eternal, and does not maintain that God has ever suffered change.
61. Let Father and Son, therefore, be associated in worship, even as They are associated in Godhead; let not blasphemy put asunder those whom the close bond of generation has joined together. Let us honour the Son, that we may honour the Father also, as it is written in the Gospel. John 5:23 The Son’s eternity is the adornment of the Father’s majesty. If the Son has not been from everlasting, then the Father has suffered change; but the Son is from all eternity, therefore has the Father never changed, for He is always unchangeable. And thus we see that they who would deny the Son’s eternity would teach that the Father is mutable.
Chapter 10.
Christ’s eternity being proved from the Apostle’s teaching, St. Ambrose admonishes us that the Divine Generation is not to be thought of after the fashion of human procreation, nor to be too curiously pried into. With the difficulties thence arising he refuses to deal, saying that whatsoever terms, taken from our knowledge of body, are used in speaking of this Divine Generation, must be understood with a spiritual meaning.
62. Hear now another argument, showing clearly the eternity of the Son. The Apostle says that God’s Power and Godhead are eternal, and that Christ is the Power of God — for it is written that Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. If, then, Christ is the Power of God, it follows that, forasmuch as God’s Power is eternal, Christ also is eternal.
63. You can not, then, heretic, build up a false doctrine from the custom of human procreation, nor yet gather the wherewithal for such work from our discourse, for we cannot compass the greatness of infinite Godhead, of Whose greatness there is no end, in our straitened speech. If you should seek to give an account of a man’s birth, you must needs point to a time. But the Divine Generation is above all things; it reaches far and wide, it rises high above all thought and feeling. For it is written: No man comes to the Father, save by Me. John 14:6 Whatsoever, therefore, thou dost conceive concerning the Father — yea, be it even His eternity— you can not conceive anything concerning Him save by the Son’s aid, nor can any understanding ascend to the Father save through the Son. This is My dearly-beloved Son, the Father says. Is mark you — He Who is, what He is, forever. Hence also David is moved to say: O Lord, Your Word abides for ever in heaven, — for what abides fails neither in existence nor in eternity.
64. Do you ask me how He is a Son, if He have not a Father existing before Him? I ask of you, in turn, when, or how, do you think that the Son was begotten. For me the knowledge of the mystery of His generation is more than I can attain to, — the mind fails, the voice is dumb — ay, and not mine alone, but the angels’ also. It is above Powers, above Angels, above Cherubim, Seraphim, and all that has feeling and thought, for it is written: The peace of Christ, which passes all understanding. If the peace of Christ passes all understanding, how can so wondrous a generation but be above all understanding?
65. Do thou, then (like the angels), cover your face with your hands, for it is not given you to look into surpassing mysteries! We are suffered to know that the Son is begotten, not to dispute upon the manner of His begetting. I cannot deny the one; the other I fear to search into, for if Paul says that the words which he heard when caught up into the third heaven might not be uttered, 2 Corinthians 12:2-5 how can we explain the secret of this generation from and of the Father, which we can neither hear nor attain to with our understanding?
66. But if you will constrain me to the rule of human generation, that you may be allowed to say that the Father existed before the Son, then consider whether instances, taken from the generation of earthly creatures, are suitable to show forth the Divine Generation. If we speak according to what is customary among men, you cannot deny that, in man, the changes in the father’s existence happen before those in the son’s. The father is the first to grow, to enter old age, to grieve, to weep. If, then, the son is after him in time, he is older in experience than the son. If the child comes to be born, the parent escapes not the shame of begetting.
67. Why take such delight in that rack of questioning? You hear the name of the Son of God; abolish it, then, or acknowledge His true nature. You hear speak of the womb — acknowledge the truth of undoubted begetting. Of His heart — know that here is God’s word. Of His right hand — confess His power. Of His face — acknowledge His wisdom. These words are not to be understood, when we speak of God, as when we speak of bodies. The generation of the Son is incomprehensible, the Father begets impassibly, and yet of Himself and in ages inconceivably remote has very God begotten very God. The Father loves the Son, John 5:20 and you anxiously examine His Person; the Father is well pleased in Him, you, joining the Jews, look upon Him with an evil eye; the Father knows the Son, and you join the heathen in reviling Him. Luke 23:36-37
Chapter 11.
It cannot be proved from Scripture that the Father existed before the Son, nor yet can arguments taken from human reproduction avail to this end, since they bring in absurdities without end. To dare to affirm that Christ began to exist in the course of time is the height of blasphemy.
68. You ask me whether it is possible that He Who is the Father should not be prior in existence. I ask you to tell me when the Father existed, the Son as yet being not; prove this, gather it from argument or evidence of Scripture. If you lean upon arguments, you have doubtless been taught that God’s power is eternal. Again, you have read the Scripture that says: O Israel, if you will hearken unto Me, there shall be no new God in you, neither shall you worship a strange God. The first of these commands betokens [the Son’s] eternity, the second His possession of an identical nature, so that we can neither believe Him to have come into existence after the Father, nor suppose Him the Son of another Divinity. For if He existed not always with the Father, He is a new [God]; if He is not of one Divinity with the Father, He is a strange [God]. But He is not after the Father, for He is not a new God; nor is He a strange God, for He is begotten of the Father, and because, as it is written, He is God above all, blessed forever. Romans 9:5
69. But if the Arians believe Him to be a strange God, why do they worship Him, when it is written: You shall worship no strange God? Else, if they do not worship the Son, let them confess thereto, and the case is at an end — that they deceive no one by their professions of religion. This, then, we see, is the witness of the Scriptures. If you have any others to produce, it will be your business to do so.
70. Let us now go further, and gather the truth in conclusion from arguments. For although arguments usually give place, even to human evidence, still, heretic, argue as you will. Experience teaches us, you say, that the being which generates is prior to that which is generated. I answer: Follow our customary experience through all its departments, and if the rest agree herewith, I oppose not your claim that your point be granted; but if there be no such agreement, how can you claim assent on this one point, when in all the rest you lack support? Seeing, then, that you call for what is customary, it comes about that the Son, when He was begotten of the Father, was a little child. You have seen Him an infant, crying in the cradle. As the years passed, He has gone forward from strength to strength — for if He was weak with the weakness of things begotten, He must also have fallen under the weakness, not only of birth, but of life also.
71. But perchance you run to such a pitch of folly as not to flinch from asserting these things of the Son of God, measuring Him, as you do, by the rule of human infirmity. What, then, if, while you cannot refuse Him the name of God, you are bent to prove Him, by reason of weakness, to be a man? What if, while you examine the Person of the Son, you are calling the Father in question, and while you hastily pass sentence upon the Former, you include the Latter in the same condemnation!
72. If the Divine Generation has been subject to the limits of time — if we suppose this, borrowing from the custom of human generation, then it follows, further, that the Father bare the Son in a bodily womb, and laboured under the burden while ten months sped their courses. But how can generation, as it commonly takes place, be brought about without the help of the other sex? You see that the common order of generation was not the commencement, and you think that the courses of generation, which are ruled by certain necessities whereunto bodies are subject, have always prevailed. You require the customary course, I ask for difference of sex: you demand the supposition of time, I that of order: you enquire into the end, I into the beginning. Now surely it is the end that depends on the beginning, not the beginning on the end.
73. Everything, say you, that is begotten has a beginning, and therefore because the Son is the Son, He has a beginning, and came first into existence within limits of time. Let this be taken as the word of their own mouth; as for myself, I confess that the Son is begotten, but the rest of their declaration makes me shudder. Man, do you confess God, and diminish His honour by such slander? From this madness may God deliver us.
Chapter 12.
Further objections to the Godhead of the Son are met by the same answer — to wit, that they may equally be urged against the Father also. The Father, then, being in no way confined by time, place, or anything else created, no such limitation is to be imposed upon the Son, Whose marvellous generation is not only of the Father, but of the Virgin also, and therefore, since in His generation of the Father no distinction of sex, or the like, was involved, neither was it in His generation of the Virgin.
74. The next objection is this: If the Son has not those properties which all sons have, He is no Son. May Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pardon me, for I would propound the question in all devoutness. Surely the Father is, and abides for ever: created things, too, are as God has ordained them. Is there any one, then, among these creatures which is not subject to the limitations of place, time, or the fact of having been created, or to some originating cause or creator. Surely, none. What, then? Is there any one of them whereof the Father stands in need? So to say were blasphemy. Cease, then, to apply to the Godhead what is proper only to created existences, or, if you insist upon forcing the comparison, bethink you whither your wickedness leads. God forbid that we should even behold the end thereof.
75. We maintain the answer given by piety. God is Almighty, and therefore God the Father needs none of those things, for in Him there is no changing, nor any place for such help as we need, we whose weakness is supported by means of things of this kind. But He Who is Almighty, plainly He is uncreate, and not confined to any place, and surpasses time. Before God was not anything — nay, even to speak about anything being before God is a grave sin. If, then, you grant that in the nature of God the Father there is nought that implies a being sustained, because He is God, it follows that nothing of this sort can be supposed to exist in the Son of God, nothing that connotes a beginning, or growth, forasmuch as He is very God of very God.
76. Seeing, then, that we find not the customary order prevailing, be content, Arian, to believe in a miraculous generation of the Son. Be content, I say, and if you believe me not, at least have respect unto the voice of God saying, To whom have you esteemed Me to be like? Isaiah 46:5 and again: God is not like a man that He should repent. Numbers 23:19 If, indeed, God works mysteriously, seeing that He does not work any work, or fashion anything, or bring it to completion, by labor of hands, or in any course of days, for He spoke, and they were made; He gave the word and they were created, why should we not believe that He Whom we acknowledge as a Creator, mysteriously working, discerning it in His works, also begot His Son in a mysterious manner? Surely it is fitting that He should be regarded as having begotten the Son in a special and mysterious way. Let Him Who has the grace of majesty unrivalled likewise have the glory of mysterious generation.
77. Not only Christ’s generation of the Father, but His birth also of the Virgin, demands our wonder. You say that the former is like the manner wherein we men are conceived. I will show — nay more, I will compel you yourself to confess, that the latter also has no likeness to the manner of our birth. Tell me how it was that He was born of Mary, with what law did His conception in a Virgin’s womb agree, how there could be any birth without the seed of a man, how a maiden could become great with child, how she became a mother before experience of such intercourse as is between wives and husbands. There was no [visible] cause — and yet a son was begotten. How, then, came about this birth, under a new law?
78. If, then, the common order of human generation was not found in the case of the Virgin Mary, how can you demand that God the Father should beget in such wise as you were begotten in? Surely the common order is determined by difference of sex; for this is implanted in the nature of our flesh, but where flesh is not, how can you expect to find the infirmity of flesh? No man calls in question one who is better than he is: to believe is enjoined upon you, without permission to question. For it is written, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:6 Language is vain to set forth, not only the generation of the Son, but even the works of God, for it is written: All His works are executed in faithfulness; His works, then, are done in faithfulness, but not His generation? Ay, we call in question that which we see not, we who are bidden to believe rather than enquire of that we see.
Chapter 14.
That the Son of God is not a created being is proved by the following arguments: (1) That He commanded not that the Gospel should be preached to Himself; (2) that a created being is given over unto vanity; (3) that the Son has created all things; (4) that we read of Him as begotten; and (5) that the difference of generation and adoption has always been understood in those places where both natures — the divine and the human — are declared to co-exist in Him. All of which testimony is confirmed by the Apostle’s interpretation.
86. It is now made plain, as I believe, your sacred Majesty, that the Lord Jesus is neither unlike the Father, nor one that began to exist in course of time. We have yet to confute another blasphemy, and to show that the Son of God is not a created being. Herein is the quickening word that we read as our help, for we have heard the passage read where the Lord says: Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creation.
Mark 16:15 He Who says all creation
excepts nothing. How, then, do they stand who call Christ a creature
? If He were a creature, could He have commanded that the Gospel should be preached to Himself? It is not, therefore, a creature, but the Creator, Who commits to His disciples the work of teaching created beings.
87. Christ, then, is no created being; for created beings are,
as the Apostle has said, given over to vanity.
Romans 8:20 Is Christ given over unto vanity? Again, creation
— according to the same Apostle — groans and travails together even until now.
What, then? Does Christ take any part in this groaning and travailing — He Who has set us miserable mourners free from death? Creation,
says the Apostle, shall be set free from the slavery of corruption
. Romans 8:21-22 We see, then, that between creation and its Lord there is a vast difference, for creation is enslaved, but the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom
. 2 Corinthians 3:17
88. Who was it that led first into this error, of declaring Him Who created and made all things to be a creature? Did the Lord, I would ask, create Himself? We read that all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.
John 1:3 This being so, did He make Himself? We read — and who shall deny?— that in wisdom has God made all things. If so, how can we suppose that wisdom was made in itself?
89. We read that the Son is begotten, inasmuch as the Father says: I brought you forth from the womb before the morning star
. We read of the first-born
Son, Colossians 1:15 of the only-begotten
John 1:14 — first-born, because there is none before Him; only-begotten, because there is none after Him. Again, we read: Who shall declare His generation?
Isaiah 53:8 Generation,
mark you, not creation.
What argument can be brought to meet testimonies so great and mighty as these?
90. Moreover, God’s Son discovers the difference between generation and grace when He says: I go up to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.
He did not say, I go up to our Father,
but I go up to My Father and your Father.
This distinction is the sign of a difference, inasmuch as He Who is Christ’s Father is our Creator.
91. Furthermore He said, to My God and your God,
because although He and the Father are One, and the Father is His Father by possession of the same nature, while God began to be our Father through the office of the Son, not by virtue of nature, but of grace— still He seems to point us here to the existence in Christ of both natures, Godhead and Manhood — Godhead of His Father, Manhood of His Mother, the former being before all things, the latter derived from the Virgin. For the first, speaking as the Son, He called God His Father, and afterward, speaking as man, named Him as God.
92. Everywhere, indeed, we have witness in the Scriptures to show that Christ, in naming God as His God, DOES SO AS A MAN. My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
And again: From My mother’s womb You are My God.
In the former place He suffers as a man; in the latter it is a man who is brought forth from his mother’s womb. And so when He says, From My mother’s womb You are My God,
He means that He Who was always His Father is His God from the moment when He was brought forth from His Mother’s womb.
93. Seeing, then, that we read in the Gospel, in the Apostle, in the Prophets, of Christ as begotten, how dare the Arians to say that He was created or made? But, indeed, they ought to have bethought them, where they have read of Him as created, where as made. For it has been plainly shown that the Son of God is begotten of God, born of God — let them, then, consider with care where they have read that He was made, seeing that He was not made God, but born as God, the Son of God; afterward, however, He was, according to the flesh, made man of Mary.
94. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law.
His Son,
observe, not as one of many, not as His in common with another, but His own, and in saying His Son,
the Apostle showed that it is of the Son’s nature that His generation is eternal. Him the Apostle has affirmed to have been afterwards made
of a woman, in order that the making might be understood not of the Godhead, but of the putting on of a body — made of a woman,
then, by taking on of flesh; made under the Law
through observance of the Law. Howbeit, the former, the spiritual generation is before the Law was, the latter is after the Law.
Chapter 15.
An explanation of Acts 2:36 and Proverbs 8:22 , which are shown to refer properly to Christ’s manhood alone.
95. To no purpose, then, is the heretics’ customary citation of the Scripture, that God
made Him both Lord and Christ. Let these ignorant persons read the whole passage, and understand it. For thus it is written. God
made this Jesus, Whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. It was not the Godhead, but the flesh, that was crucified. This, indeed, was possible, because the flesh allowed of being crucified. It follows not, then, that the Son of God is a created being.
96. Let us dispatch, then, that passage also, which they do use to misrepresent — let them learn what is the sense of the words, The Lord created Me.
It is not the Father created,
but the Lord created Me.
The flesh acknowledges its Lord, praise declares the Father: our created nature confesses the first, loves, knows the latter. Who, then, cannot but perceive that these words announce the Incarnation? Thus the Son speaks of Himself as created in respect of that wherein he witnesses to Himself as being man, when He says, Why do you seek to kill Me, a man, Who have told you the truth?
He speaks of His Manhood, wherein He was crucified, and died, and was buried.
97. Furthermore, there is no doubt but that the writer set down as past that which was to come; for this is the usage of prophecy, that things to come are spoken of as though they were already present or past. For example, in the twenty-first psalm you have read: Fat bulls (of Bashan) have beset me,
and again: They parted My garments among them.
This the Evangelist shows to have been spoken prophetically of the time of the Passion, for to God the things that are to come are present, and for Him Who foreknows all things, they are as though they were past and over; as it is written, Who has made the things that are to be.
98. It is no wonder that He should declare His place to have been set fast before all worlds, seeing that the Scripture tells us that He was foreordained before the times and ages. The following passage discovers how the words in question present themselves as a true prophecy of the Incarnation: Wisdom has built her a house, and set up seven pillars to support it, and she has slain her victims
. She has mingled her wine in the bowl, and made ready her table, and sent her servants, calling men together with a mighty voice of proclamation, saying: ‘He who is simple, let him turn in to me.’ Do we not see, in the Gospel, that all these things were fulfilled after the Incarnation, in that Christ disclosed the mysteries of the Holy Supper, sent forth His apostles, and cried with a loud voice, saying, If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink.
John 7:37 That which follows, then, answers to that which went before, and we behold the whole story of the Incarnation set forth in brief by prophecy.
99. Many other passages might readily be seen to be prophecies of this sort concerning the Incarnation, but I will not delay over books, lest the treatise appear too wordy
Chapter 16.
The Arians blaspheme Christ, if by the words created
and begotten
they mean and understand one and the same thing. If, however, they regard the words as distinct in meaning, they must not speak of Him, of Whom they have read that He was begotten, as if He were a created being. This rule is upheld by the witness of St. Paul, who, professing himself a servant of Christ, forbade worship of a created being. God being a substance pure and uncompounded, there is no created nature in Him; furthermore, the Son is not to be degraded to the level of things created, seeing that in Him the Father is well pleased.
100. Now will I enquire particularly of the Arians, whether they think that begotten and created are one and the same. If they call them the same, then is there no difference between generation and creation. It follows, then, that forasmuch as we also are created, there is between us and Christ and the elements no difference. Thus much, however, great as their madness is, they will not venture to say.
101. Furthermore — to concede that which is no truth, to their folly — I ask them, if there is, as they think, no difference in the words, why do they not call upon Him Whom they worship by the better title? Why do they not avail themselves of the Father’s word? Why do they reject the title of honour, and use a dishonouring name?
102. If, however, there is — as I think there is — a distinction between created
and begotten,
then, when we have read that He is begotten, we shall surely not understand the same by the terms begotten
and created.
Let them therefore confess Him to be begotten of the Father, born of the Virgin, or let them say how the Son of God can be both begotten and created. A single nature, above all, the Divine Being, rejects strife (within itself).
103. But in any case let our private judgment pass: let us enquire of Paul, who, filled with the Spirit of God, and so foreseeing these questionings, has given sentence against pagans in general and Arians in particular, saying that they were by God’s judgment condemned, who served the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, in fact, you may read: God
gave them over to the lusts of their own heart, that they might one with another dishonour their bodies, they who changed God’s truth into a lie, and worshipped and served the thing created rather than the Creator, Who is God, blessed forever. Romans 1:24-25
104. Thus Paul forbids me to worship a creature, and admonishes me of my duty to serve Christ. It follows, then, that Christ is not a created being. The Apostle calls himself Paul
, a servant of Jesus Christ, Romans 1:1 and this good servant, who acknowledges his Lord, will likewise have us not worship that which is created. How, then, could he have been himself a servant of Christ, if he thought that Christ was a created person? Let these heretics, then, cease either to worship Him Whom they call a created being, or to call Him a creature, Whom they feign to worship, lest under color of being worshippers they fall into worse impiety. For a domestic is worse than a foreign foe, and that these men should use the Name of Christ to Christ’s dishonour increases their guilt.
105. What better expounder of the Scriptures do we indeed look for than that teacher of the Gentiles, that chosen vessel — chosen from the number of the persecutors? He who had been the persecutor of Christ confesses Him. He had read Solomon more, in any case, than Arius has, and he was well learned in the Law, and so, because he had read, he said not that Christ was created, but that He was begotten. For he had read, He spoke, and they were made: He commanded, and they were created.
Was Christ, I ask, made at a word? Was He created at a command?
106. Moreover, how can there be any created nature in God? In truth, God is of an uncompounded nature; nothing can be added to Him, and that alone which is Divine has He in His nature; filling all things, yet nowhere Himself confounded with anything; penetrating all things, yet Himself nowhere to be penetrated; present in all His fullness at one and the same moment, in heaven, in earth, in the deepest depth of the sea, to sight invisible, by speech not to be declared, by feeling not to be measured; to be followed by faith, to be adored with devotion; so that whatsoever title excels in depth of spiritual import, in setting forth glory and honour, in exalting power, this you may know to belong of right to God.
107. Since, then, the Father is well pleased in the Son; believe that the Son is worthy of the Father, that He came out from God, as He Himself bears witness, saying: I went out from God, and have come;
John 8:42 and again: I went out from God.
John 16:27 He Who proceeded and came forth from God can have no attributes but such as are proper to God.
Chapter 17.
That Christ is very God is proved from the fact that He is God’s own Son, also from His having been begotten and having come forth from God, and further, from the unity of will and operation subsisting in Father and Son. The witness of the apostles and of the centurion — which St. Ambrose sets over against the Arian teaching — is adduced, together with that of Isaiah and St. John.
108. Hence it is that Christ is not only God, but very God indeed — very God of very God, insomuch that He Himself is the Truth. John 14:6 If, then, we enquire His Name, it is the Truth
; if we seek to know His natural rank and dignity, He is so truly the very Son of God, that He is indeed God’s own Son; as it is written, Who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for our sakes,
Romans 8:32 gave Him up, that is, so far as the flesh was concerned. That He is God’s own Son declares His Godhead; that He is very God shows that He is God’s own Son; His pitifulness is the earnest of His submission, His sacrifice, of our salvation.
109. Lest, however, men should wrest the Scripture, that God
gave Him up, the Apostle himself has said in another place, Galatians 1:3-4 Peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for our sins;
and again: Ephesians 5:2 Even as Christ has loved us, and given Himself for us.
If, then, He both was given up by the Father, and gave Himself up of His own accord, it is plain that the working and the will of Father and Son is one.
110. If, then, we enquire into His natural pre-eminence, we find it to consist in being begotten. To deny that the Son of God is begotten [of God] is to deny that He is God’s own Son, and to deny Christ to be God’s own Son is to class Him with the rest of mankind, as no more a Son than any of the rest. If, however, we enquire into the distinctive property of His generation, it is this, that He came forth from God. For while, in our experience, to come out implies something already existent, and that which is said to come out seems to proceed forth from hidden and inward places, we, though it be presented but in short passages, observe the peculiar attribute of the Divine Generation, that the Son does not seem to have come forth out of any place, but as God from God, a Son from a Father, nor to have had a beginning in the course of time, having come forth from the Father by being born, as He Himself Who was born said: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High
. Sirach 24:3
111. But if the Arians acknowledge not the Son’s nature, if they believe not the Scriptures, let them at least believe the mighty works. To whom does the Father say, Let
us make man? Genesis 1:26 save to Him Whom He knew to be His true Son? In Whom, save in one who was true, could He recognize His Image? The son by adoption is not the same as the true Son; nor would the Son say, I and the Father are one,
John 10:30 if He, being Himself not true, were measuring Himself with One Who is true. The Father, therefore, says, Let us make.
He Who spoke is true; can He, then, Who made be not true? Shall the honour rendered to Him Who speaks be withheld from Him Who makes?
112. But how, unless the Father knew Him to be His true Son, should He commend to Him His will, for perfect co-operation, and His works, for perfect bringing in out in actuality? Seeing that the Son works the works which the Father does, and that the Son quickens whom He will, as it is written, He is then equal in power and free in respect of His will. And thus is the Unity maintained, forasmuch as God’s power consists in that the Godhead is proper to each Person, and freedom lies not in any difference, but in unity of will.
113. The apostles, being storm-tossed in the sea, as soon as they saw the waters leaping up round their Lord’s feet, and beheld His fearless footsteps on the water, as He walked amid the raging waves of the sea, and the ship, which was beaten upon by the waves, had rest as soon as Christ entered it, and they saw the waves and the winds obeying Him — then, though as yet they did not believe in their hearts they believed Him to be God’s true Son, saying, Truly You are the Son of God.
Matthew 14:33
114. To the same effect the confession of the centurion, and others who were with him, when the foundations of the world were shaken at the Lord’s Passion, — and this, heretic, you deny. The centurion said, Truly this was the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Was
said the centurion — Was not
says the Arian. The centurion, then, with bloodstained hands, but devout mind, declares both the truth and the eternity of Christ’s generation; and thou, O heretic, deniest its truth, and makest it matter of time! Would that you had imbued your hands rather than your soul! But you, unclean even of hand, and murderous of intent, seekest Christ’s death, so far as in you lies, seeing that you think of Him as mean and weak; nay, and this is a worse sin, you, albeit the Godhead can feel no wound, still would do your diligence to slay in Christ, not His Body, but His Glory.
115. We cannot then doubt that He is very God, Whose true Godhead even executioners believed in and devils confessed. Their testimony we require not now, but it is withal greater than your blasphemies. We have called them in to witness, to put you to the blush, while we have also cited the oracles of God, to the end that you should believe.
116. The Lord proclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: In the mouth of them that serve Me shall a new name be called upon, which shall be blessed over all the earth, and they shall bless the true God, and they who swear upon earth shall swear by the true God.
Isaiah 65:16 These words, I say, Isaiah spoke when he saw God’s Glory, and thus in the Gospel it is plainly said that he saw the Glory of Christ and spoke of Him. John 12:41
117. But hear again what John the Evangelist has written in his Epistle, saying: We know that the Son of God has appeared, and has given us discernment, to know the Father, and to be in His true Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. He is very God, and Life Eternal.
1 John 5:20 John calls Him true Son of God and very God. If, then, He be very God, He is surely uncreate, without spot of lying or deceit, having in Himself no confusion, nor unlikeness to His Father.
FURTHER READING
63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord
Taylor Marshall & The Angel of God
The Council of Antioch on Christ’s Divinity
ATHANASIUS ON THE ANGEL OF GOD
AUGUSTINE ON JESUS BEING THE ANGEL OF YHVH
POPE LEO & AQUINAS ON THE ANGEL OF GOD