On John v. 19. The Son can do Nothing of Himself.
"If freedom of action [395] is better than subjection to control, [396] and a man is free, while the Son of God is subject to control, then the man is better than the Son. This is absurd. And if he who is subject to control cannot create free beings (for he cannot of his own will confer on others what he does not possess himself), then the Saviour, since He made us free, cannot Himself be under the control of any."
"If the Son could do nothing of Himself, and could only act at the bidding of the Father, He is neither good nor bad. He was not responsible for anything that was done. Consider the absurdity of the position that men should be free agents both of good and evil, while the Son, who is God, should be able to do nothing of His own authority!"
On John xv. 1. "I am the Vine."
"If, say they, the Saviour is a vine, and we are branches, but the Father is husbandman; and if the branches are of one nature with the vine, and the vine is not of one nature with the husbandman; then the Son is of one nature with us, and we are a part of Him, but the Son is not of one nature with, but in all respects of a nature foreign to, the Father, I shall reply to them that He called us branches not of His Godhead, but of His flesh, as the Apostle says, we are the body of Christ, and members in particular,' [397] and again, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?' [398] and in other places, as is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us all bear the image of the heavenly.' [399] If the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God,' [400] and man is not of one substance with Christ, Who is God (for man is not God), but Christ is of one substance with God (for He is God) therefore God is not the head of Christ in the same sense as Christ is the head of man. The natures of the creature and the creative Godhead do not exactly coincide. God is head of Christ, as Father; Christ is head of us, as Maker. If the will of the Father is that we should believe in His Son (for this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life), [401] the Son is not a Son of will. That we should believe in Him is (an injunction) found with Him, or before Him." [402]
On Mark x. 18. There is none Good, etc.
"If the Saviour is not good, He is necessarily bad. For He is simple, and His character does not admit of any intermediate quality. How can it be otherwise than absurd that the Creator of good should be bad? And if life is good, and the words of the Son are life, as He Himself said, the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,' [403] in what sense, when He hears one of the Pharisees address Him as good Master does He rejoin, There is none good but One, that is God'? It was not when He had heard no more than good that he said, there is none good,' but when He had heard good Master. He answered as to one tempting Him, as the gospel expresses it, or to one ignorant, that God is good, and not simply a good master."
On John xvii. 5. Father, glorify Me.
"If when the Son asked to be glorified of the Father He was asking in respect of His Godhead, and not of His manhood, He asked for what He did not possess. Therefore the evangelist speaks falsely when he says we beheld His glory'; [404] and the apostle, in the words They would not have crucified the Lord of glory,' [405] and David in the words And the King of glory shall come in.' [406] It is not therefore an increase of glory which he asks. He asks that there may be a manifestation of the oeconomy. [407] Again, if He really asked that the glory which He had before the world might be given Him of the Father, He asked it because He had lost it. He would never have sought to receive that of which He was in possession. But if this was the case, He had lost not only the glory, but also the Godhead. For the glory is inseparable from the Godhead. Therefore, according to Photinus, [408] He was mere man. It is then clear that He spoke these words in accordance with the oeconomy of the manhood, and not through failure in the Godhead."
On Coloss. i. 15. Firstborn of every Creature.
"If before the creation the Son was not a generated being but a created being, [409] He would have been called first created and not firstborn. [410] If, because He is called first begotten of creation He is first created, then because He is called first begotten of the dead [411] He would be the first of the dead who died. If on the other hand He is called first begotten of the dead because of His being the cause of the resurrection from the dead, He is in the same manner called first begotten of creation, because He is the cause of the bringing of the creature from the non existent into being. If His being called first begotten of creation indicates that He came first into being then the Apostle, when he said, all things were created by Him and for Him' [412] ought to have added, And He came into being first of all.' But in saying He is before all things,' [413] he indicated that He exists eternally, while the creature came into being. Is' in the passage in question is in harmony with the words In the beginning was the Word.' [414] It is urged that if the Son is first begotten, He cannot be only begotten, and that there must needs be some other, in comparison with whom He is styled first begotten. Yet, O wise objector, though He is the only Son born of the Virgin Mary, He is called her first born. For it is said, Till she brought forth her first born Son.' [415] There is therefore no need of any brother in comparison with whom He is styled first begotten. [416]
"It might also be said that one who was before all generation was called first begotten, and moreover in respect of them who are begotten of God through the adoption of the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born among many brethren.'"
On Prov. vii. 22. The Lord created Me (LXX.). [418]
"If it is the incarnate Lord who says I am the way,' [419] and No man cometh unto the Father but by me,' [420] it is He Himself Who said, The Lord created me beginning of ways.' The word is also used of the creation and making of a begotten being, [421] as I have created a man through the Lord,' [422] and again He begat sons and daughters,' [423] and so David, Create in me a clean heart, O God,' [424] not asking for another, but for the cleansing of the heart he had. And a new creature is spoken of, not as though another creation came into being, but because the enlightened are established in better works. If the Father created the Son for works, He created Him not on account of Himself, but on account of the works. But that which comes into being on account of something else, and not on its own account, is either a part of that on account of which it came into being, or is inferior. The Saviour will then be either a part of the creature, or inferior to the creature. We must understand the passage of the manhood. And it might be said that Solomon uttered these words of the same wisdom whereof the Apostle makes mention in the passage For after that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God.' [425] It must moreover be borne in mind that the speaker is not a prophet, but a writer of proverbs. Now proverbs are figures of other things, not the actual things which are uttered. If it was God the Son Who said, The Lord created me,' He would rather have said, The Father created me.' Nowhere did He call Him Lord, but always Father. The word begot,' then, must be understood in reference to God the Son, and the word created, in reference to Him who took on Him the form of a servant. In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart (for He was One), but in thought we take into account the nature of each. Peter had not two in his mind when he said, Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.' [426] If, they argue, the Son is a thing begotten and not a thing made, how does Scripture say, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, Whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ'? [427] We must also say here that this was spoken according to the flesh about the Son of Man; just as the angel who announced the glad tidings to the shepherds says, To you is born to-day a Saviour, Who is Christ the Lord.' [428] The word to-day' could never be understood of Him Who was before the ages. This is more clearly shewn by what comes afterwards where it is said, That same Jesus whom ye have crucified.' [429] If when the Son was born [430] He was then made wisdom, it is untrue that He was the power of God and the wisdom of God.' [431] His wisdom did not come into being, but existed always. And so, as though of the Father, it is said by David, Be thou, God, my defender,' [432] and again, thou art become my salvation,' [433] and so Paul, Let God be true, but every man a liar.' [434] Thus the Lord of God is made unto us wisdom and sanctification and redemption.' [435] Now when the Father was made defender and true, He was not a thing made; and similarly when the Son was made wisdom and sanctification, He was not a thing made. If it is true that there is one God the Father, it is assuredly also true that there is one Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour. According to them the Saviour is not God nor the Father Lord, and it is written in vain, the Lord said unto my Lord.' [436] False is the statement, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' [437] False too, The Lord rained from the Lord.' [438] False, God created in the image of God,' [439] and Who is God save the Lord?' [440] and Who is a God save our God.' [441] False the statement of John that the Word was God and the Word was with God;' [442] and the words of Thomas of the Son, my Lord and my God.' [443] The distinctions, then, ought to be referred to creatures and to those who are falsely and not properly called gods, and not to the Father and to the Son."
On John xvii. 3. That they may know Thee, the only true God.
"The true (sing.) is spoken of in contradistinction to the false (pl.). But He is incomparable, because in comparison with all He is in all things superexcellent. When Jeremiah said of the Son, This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with Him,' [444] did he describe Him as greater even than the Father? That the Son also is true God, John himself declares in the Epistle, That we may know the only true God, and we are (in Him that is true, even) in his (true) Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.' [445] It would be wrong, on account of the words There shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him,' to understand the Son to be greater than the Father; nor must we suppose the Father to be the only true God. Both expressions must be used in connexion with those who are falsely styled, but are not really, gods. In the same way it is said in Deuteronomy, So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange God with him.' [446] If God is alone invisible and wise, it does not at once follow that He is greater than all in all things. But the God Who is over all is necessarily superior to all. Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour God over all, describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd. The passage in question must be viewed in the same manner. The great God cannot be less than a different God. When the Apostle said of the Son, we look for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' [447] did he think of Him as greater than the Father? [448] It is the Son, not the Father, Whose appearance and advent we are waiting for. These terms are thus used without distinction of both the Father and the Son, and no exact nicety is observed in their employment. Being equally with God' [449] is identical with being equal with God. [450] Since the Son thought it not robbery' to be equal with God, how can He be unlike and unequal to God? Jews are nearer true religion than Eunomius. Whenever the Saviour called Himself no more than Son of God, as though it were due to the Son, if He be really Son, to be Himself equal to the Father, they wished, it is said, to stone Him, not only because He was breaking the Sabbath, but because, by saying that God was His own Father, He made Himself equal with God. [451] Therefore, even though Eunomius is unwilling that it should be so, according both to the Apostle and to the Saviour's own words, the Son is equal with the Father."