This Christ, whom you assert to be the Son of man only, he testifies to be the Son of God. Whom will you have us believe—you or Peter? I suppose you are not so shameless as to dare to set yourself before the first of the apostles—although what is there that you would not dare? Or how should you not despise an apostle, you who have been able to deny God? 'Thou art therefore,' he says, 'the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Does this contain in itself anything ambiguous or obscure? It is simply a plain and open confession; it proclaims Christ to be the Son of God. Perhaps you deny that it was said—but the evangelist testifies to it. Or do you say the apostle lies? But detestable is such falsehood, that accuses an apostle of falsehood. Or do you contend that this was perhaps said of some other Christ?
But this is a new kind of monstrous fabrication. What then remains? One thing only: that since both what is written is read and what is read is true, at last, constrained either by force or by necessity, since you cannot establish falsehood, you should cease to assail the truth. Yet because I have used the testimony of the chief apostle, by which he himself confessed the Lord Jesus Christ to be God in His presence, let us see how He whom he confessed approved his confession—for it is far more than what the apostle said, if God Himself praised his saying. When therefore the apostle said 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' what answer was given by the Lord and Saviour?
'Blessed art thou,' He says, 'Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but the Spirit of my Father which is in heaven.' If it displeases you to use the apostle's testimony, use God's; for by praising it God added His own authority to the apostolic saying, so that even though that saying issued from the apostle's mouth, God nevertheless made it His own by approving it. 'Blessed art thou,' He says, 'Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but the Spirit of my Father which is in heaven.' Therefore in the apostle's saying you see the testimony both of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son who was present, and of God the Father. What more, or what like it, do you require? The Son praised, the Father was present, the Holy Spirit revealed.
The apostle's saying, therefore, is the testimony of the whole Godhead; for necessarily that saying has the authority of Him by whose authorship it proceeded. 'Blessed art thou,' He says, 'Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but the Spirit of my Father which is in heaven.' Therefore, if flesh and blood did not reveal or inspire these things to Peter, you may now understand who has inspired you. If the Spirit of God taught him who confessed Christ to be God, you see that you have been taught by the spirit of a demon, you who have been able to deny it. Yet what other words follow that saying of the Lord by which He praised Peter? 'And I,' He says, 'say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.'
You see that Peter's saying is the faith of the Church. Therefore he who is not held by the faith of the Church must of necessity be outside the Church. 'And to thee,' says the Lord, 'I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' This faith merited heaven; this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. Understand what awaits you: you will not be able to enter the door of this key, you who have denied the faith of this key. 'And the gates of hell,' He says, 'shall not prevail against thee.' The gates of hell are the faith—nay rather the faithlessness—of heretics. For by as great a distance as hell is from heaven, by so great a distance is he who denies Christ to be God from him who has confessed it. 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind,' He says, 'on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'
The perfect faith of the apostle received in a manner the power of the Godhead, so that whatever it bound or loosed on earth should be bound or loosed in the heavens. You therefore, who come against the apostle's faith, since you already see yourself bound on earth, it remains that you should recognize yourself to be bound in heaven as well. But it is a long task to go through each point, which by their very number make for a most lengthy and copious discourse, even if they be recorded briefly and concisely. Yet I wish to add to you still one further apostolic testimony, so that you may understand that the things which followed after the Lord's passion agree with those that were done before it.
When the Lord, having entered among His disciples while the doors were shut, willed to declare to the apostles the reality of His body, and the apostle Thomas had handled His flesh, felt His side, examined His wounds, and had thoroughly ascertained the truth of the body thus made manifest—what did he cry out? 'My Lord,' he says, 'and my God.' Did he say what you say: man, and not God; Christ, and not Godhead? He indeed touched the body of his Lord, and answered that He was God.
Did he introduce any distinction between man and God, or did he name that flesh 'theodochon'—as you say—that is, the receptacle-image of the Deity? Or, after the manner of your impiety, did he record that He whom he touched was to be venerated not for His own sake, but for the sake of Him whom He had received into Himself? But this subtlety of your distinction the apostle of God perhaps did not know, and he had not the elegance of your judgement and its nice discrimination—a man rustic indeed and unlearned, ignorant of the dialectic art, unacquainted with philosophical disputation, for whom of course the instruction of his Lord amply sufficed, and who knew absolutely nothing except what he had learned by the Lord's teaching. And therefore his speech was heavenly doctrine, his faith was divine instruction.
He had not learned, as you do, to sever the Lord from His own body, and he utterly knew not how to tear God asunder from Himself—holy, sincere, godly, possessing a tried innocence, an unimpaired faith, an uncorrupted knowledge, a sense simple without cunning, together with perfect simplicity a wisdom untouched by all evil, ignorant of all corruption, free from all heretical perversity, and one who, expressing in himself the form of the divine teaching, held fast this whole that he had learned. And so he, whom you perhaps suppose rustic and unlearned, now confounds you with a brief reply and crushes you with his few words. What then did the apostle Thomas touch, when he came to feel God? Christ, of course, without a doubt. And what did he exclaim?
'My Lord,' he says, 'and my God.' Go now, if you can, and separate Christ from God; change this saying, if you are able; bring forth your dialectical disputation, bring forth your worldly prudence and that foolish wisdom of wordy craftiness; turn yourself into every shape and contract yourself into whatever you can, whether by wit or by art. Say whatever you please, do whatever you please: you can never escape hence, unless you confess that what the apostle touched was God. And indeed, if by any means you could, you would perhaps wish to alter the proclamation of the gospel history, so that it might be read that the apostle Thomas neither touched the body of the Lord nor called the Lord Christ God. But what is written in the gospel of God can by no means be altered. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but the words
but the words of God shall not pass away. For lo, even now that Thomas the apostle, who bore witness then, cries out to you: 'God is Jesus whom I touched; God is He whose members I handled. I did not grasp things incorporeal, nor did I test things intangible; I did not touch a spirit with my hand, that I should be thought to have said only of such a thing: He is God. For a spirit, according to the saying of my Lord, hath not flesh and bones. I touched the body of my Lord; I felt His flesh and bones; I put my fingers into the place of the wounds, and concerning Christ my Lord whom I had handled I proclaimed: My Lord and my God. For I know not how to make a distance between Christ and God; I will not insert sacrilegious opinions between Jesus and God; I know not how to tear my God asunder from Himself.'
Away from me, whoever you are that hold a different opinion, whoever you are that speak otherwise. I have known Christ to be nothing other than God. This I held with my fellow apostles; this I delivered to the churches; this I preached to the nations; this too I cry out to you: Christ is God, Christ is God. A sound mind holds no other view, a sound faith speaks no other thing; the Godhead cannot be torn asunder from itself. And since whatever Christ is, is God, nothing other than God can be found in God. What say you now, heretic? Do these testimonies of faith suffice even for the utmost unbelief, or must something yet be added?
And what can be added even after the prophets or after the apostles, unless perhaps—as the Jews once demanded—you too should ask that a sign from heaven be given you? But when you seek this, that same answer which was then given to them must be given to you: 'A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh a sign, and a sign shall not be given it save the sign of the prophet Jonah.' And this sign might have sufficed for you even along with the Jews who crucified Him, so that, instructed by this thing alone, you might believe our Lord God, even as those who had persecuted Him also came to believe.
Yet, since we have made mention of a heavenly sign, I will show you a sign from heaven of such a kind that not even the demons ever contradicted it, while, compelled by the very necessity of the truth, though they perceived Him to be corporeal by the laws of the body, they nevertheless cried out that He was God, as indeed He was. What then does the evangelist say concerning the Lord Jesus Christ? 'Having been baptized,' he says, 'He straightway went up out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit descending like a dove and coming upon Him. And lo, a voice from the heavens saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' What now say you to this, heretic? Does the saying displease you, or the person of Him who speaks?
Surely the understanding of the utterance needs no interpretation, nor does the dignity of the Speaker need any recommendation of words: it is God the Father who spoke; what was said is evident. Can you utter a voice so shameless or so sacrilegious as to say that even God the Father is not to be believed concerning the only-begotten Son of God? 'This is therefore,' He says, 'my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' But perhaps you will attempt to say—such is your madness—that this was said of the Word, not of Christ. Tell me then, who was it that was being baptized? The Word, or Christ? The flesh, or the spirit? You surely cannot deny that it was Christ.
That man, therefore, born of man and of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit descending upon the Virgin and by the power of the Most High overshadowing her, and thus the Son both of man and of God—He assuredly, as you cannot deny, was baptized. If therefore He was baptized, He also was the one named; for surely the one named was He who was also baptized. 'This is,' He says, 'my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Can anything be said more significantly or more expressly? Christ was baptized, Christ went up out of the water, when Christ was baptized the heavens were opened, for Christ's sake the dove descended, upon Christ in bodily form the Holy Spirit stood, Christ the Father called.
If you have dared to deny that this was said of Christ, it remains that you must contend that Christ was neither baptized, nor that the Spirit descended, nor that the Father spoke. But the truth itself urges and presses you, so that even though you may be unwilling to confess it, yet you cannot deny it. For what does the evangelist say? 'And having been baptized He straightway went up out of the water.' Who was baptized? Christ, of course. 'And lo,' he says, 'the heavens were opened unto Him.' Unto whom, that is, but unto Him who was baptized? Christ, of course. 'And He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him.' Who saw? Christ, of course. Upon whom did it descend? Upon Christ, of course. 'And a voice was made from heaven, saying.' Concerning whom? Concerning Christ, of course. For what follows?
'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' So that it might be shown for whose sake all those things had been done, the voice followed, saying: 'This is my beloved Son.' This is to say: This is He for whose sake all these things were done; for this is my Son. For His sake the heavens were opened, for His sake my Spirit came, for His sake my voice was made: for this is my Son. Saying therefore 'This is my Son,' whom did He designate? Him, of course, whom the dove touched. Whom then did the dove touch? Christ, of course. Therefore Christ is the Son of God. My promise, as I reckon, has been fulfilled. You see then indeed, heretic, a sign from heaven given to you—not one, in fact, but many and singular signs.
For you have one in the opening of heaven, another in the descent of the Spirit, a third in the voice of the Father. All these most evidently declare Christ to be God, since both the unbarring of the heavens shows Him to be God, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him proves Him to be God, and the address of the Father confirms Him to be God. For neither would heaven have opened save for the honour of its Lord, nor would the Spirit in bodily form have descended save upon the Son of God, nor would the Father have declared Him Son save as truly Son—especially with these tokens of the divine nativity, which not only would confirm the truth of pious faith, but would also exclude the depravity of impious opinion.
For with the ineffable magnificence of the divine utterance, when the Father had said expressly and significantly 'This is my Son,' He added also that which followed: 'beloved,' namely, 'and in whom I am well pleased.' Just as through prophecy He had already proclaimed Him 'the mighty God and the great God,' so here, saying 'my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,' He added, over and above the name of His own Son, the name also of a Son beloved and well pleasing to Himself, so that the addition of names might signify the property of the divine nature, and this might pertain peculiarly to the honour of the Son of God, since it had befallen no man whatsoever.
And so, just as those things were proper and peculiar to the person of our Lord Jesus Christ—that the heavens were opened, that God the Father, in the sight of all, by the approaching and standing dove touched Him as it were with His own hand and pointed Him out as though with an indicating finger, saying 'This is my Son'—so this too was proper and singular to Him, that He is named peculiarly beloved and peculiarly well pleasing to the Father, so that peculiar additions might show forth a peculiar signification of nature, and the property of surnames might confirm the property of the only-begotten Son, which the honour of the preceding signs had already established. But now let there be an end of this little book.
For this saying of God the Father can neither be augmented by human words nor equalled by them. Concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, God the Father is of Himself a witness sufficient for us, saying: 'This is my Son.' If you think these voices of God the Father are to be contradicted, then you must needs contradict Him who made Him to be acknowledged by the whole world as His Son by a most evident declaration. Having completed three little books as most faithful and most abundant witnesses—inasmuch as their truth is enriched not only by human but also by divine testimonies—they might indeed suffice us abundantly for the proof of the case by divine authority, since the divine authority of a case is by itself surely sufficient for its own case.
Yet, because the whole series of the sacred volumes is full of these testimonies, where there are as many witnesses as there are sentences—nay, where the sacred Scripture itself is, as it were, in a manner one testimony of the divine mouth—we have thought that some things should still be heaped up, not for the necessity of proof, but for the abundance and copiousness of the matter, so that whatever was not necessary for the defence might all serve for adornment.
Therefore, since in the preceding books we have proved the Lord Jesus Christ to be God—not only by prophetic and apostolic, but also by evangelic and angelic testimonies—while He was in the flesh and on earth, let us now show that He who was born in the flesh was always God even before the assumption of the flesh, so that you may understand, with the testimonies of the divine volumes agreeing and as it were crying out together, that you ought to believe the same one, after the corporeal nativity, to be both man and God—Him whom before the corporeal nativity you believed to be God only; and Him whom after the bringing forth of the Virgin you believe to be God in a body, that same one, before the Virgin's childbirth, to be the Word, God.
Learn therefore first from the apostle, the teacher of the whole world, that He who is without beginning, God, the Son of God, was at the end of the world—that is, in the fullness of times—made the Son of man. For he says: 'But when the fullness of the times came, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.' Tell me then now: before the Lord Jesus Christ was born of His mother Mary, did God have a Son, or did He not have one? You cannot deny that He had one. For never is there either a Son without a Father, or a Father without a Son; because, just as the Son is spoken of from the Father, so the Father is spoken of from the Son. You see then that, when the apostle says 'God sent His Son'—His own, to be sure, His own, to use the very words of the apostle himself—God sent His own Son.
For He neither sent some Son not His own—since He is said to have sent His own—nor could He have sent at all, if there were not one to be sent. 'He sent,' He says, 'His Son, made of a woman.' Therefore both, because He sent Him, He sent one who existed; and because He sent His own, He sent not, to be sure, one belonging to another, but His own. Where then now is that argument of your earthly cunning: 'No one begets one prior to himself'? Is not the Lord older than Mary? Is not the Son of God older than the daughter of man? Is not God, in fine, older than man himself, since surely no man is not from God?
You see then that Mary not only bore one older than herself—not only, I say, one older than herself, but her own author—and, bringing forth, she became the parent's parent of her own procreator; for as it was easy for God to bestow a nativity upon man, so easy was it for Himself; as easy for Him to make man be born, so easy that He Himself should be born of man. For the power of God is not circumscribed in His own person, so that what is lawful to Him in all things should not be lawful in Himself; and He who surely, in the nature of the Deity itself, has this—that God can do all things—should not have this in His own person alone, that He should be God in man.
Therefore, setting aside and rejecting the frivolous and perishable stupidities of earthly argumentations, one must believe only the plain testimony and the bare truth, and faith must be accommodated only to those witnesses concerning God whom God sent, and in whom He Himself, so to speak, preached concerning Himself. For it is fair that concerning the knowledge of Him we should believe Him whose alone is all that we know of Him; because God surely could not have been known by man, unless He Himself had bestowed the knowledge of Himself. And therefore it is just that we should believe Him wholly concerning that which we know of Him, whose is everything that we know; because, if we do not believe Him from whom we know, it comes to pass that we know nothing at all, while we do not believe Him through whom we know.
And so, since by the preceding testimony it became clear that God sent His Son, and that He who was always the Son of God was made the Son of man, let us see whether the same apostle has said elsewhere something similar to this testimony, so that the truth, now shining of itself, may shine yet more by the doubled light of testimonies. The same apostle therefore says: 'God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' You see surely that the apostle said nothing by chance or with an inconsiderate word, so as to pass over that which he had once said; because, of course, neither chance nor inconsiderateness could befall him in whom dwelt the fullness of divine counsel and speech. What then does he say? 'God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' The same he repeats, the same he inculcates, saying:
'God sent His Son'—an eminent and admirable teacher indeed, knowing that in this the whole mystery of the catholic faith is utterly contained: that the Lord was born in the flesh and that the Son of God was sent into this world; and this he cries out again and again, saying: 'God sent His Son.' Nor is it a wonder if he, peculiarly sent to evangelize the advent of God, thus proclaimed it, since the lawgiver himself cried out this very thing even before the law, saying: 'I beseech thee, Lord, provide another whom thou mayest send'—which in the Hebrew volumes is read much more plainly: 'I beseech thee, Lord, send him whom thou art about to send.'
The godly prophet indeed, and one bearing in himself the affection of the whole human race, was as it were pleading with the voices of all human flesh to God the Father that He whom the Father was to send for the redemption and salvation of all might be sent as speedily as possible, saying: 'I beseech thee, Lord, send him whom thou art about to send.' 'God therefore sent,' he says, 'His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Well done: when he said He was sent in the flesh, he excluded from Him the sin of the flesh.
For 'God,' he says, 'sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh'—that is, so that in the true assumption of flesh there might be acknowledged the truth that there was no sin, and that, as regards the body, truth might be understood, so, as regards sin, the likeness of sin; because, since all flesh is sinful, but He had flesh without sin, He had in Himself the likeness of sinful flesh while He was in the flesh, yet lacked the truth of sin, because He was without sin. 'God therefore sent,' he says, 'His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Do you wish to know how well the apostle proclaimed this? Hear how this flowed into the mouth of the apostle as if from the very mouth of God Himself, the Lord saying:
'For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.' Lo, He Himself, as you see, testifies that He was sent by God the Father for the salvation of the human race. But if you think it should be declared more evidently which Son God sent for the saving of men—although the proper and only-begotten Son is but one, and when He is said to have sent His Son, it is shown that He surely sent His only-begotten—hear nevertheless David the prophet most evidently designating Him who was sent for human salvation: 'He sent,' he says, 'His word, and healed them.' Can you turn this to the flesh, so as to say that only a man was sent by God to heal the human race? You surely cannot.
For David the prophet, together with all the sacred Scriptures, cries out against you, saying: 'He sent His word, and healed them.' You see then that the Word was sent to heal men; because, although healing was given through Christ, yet it was the Word of God in Christ that healed all things through Christ. And thus, Christ and the Word of God being united through the mystery of the incarnation, Christ was made, and the Word of God, one Son of God out of both realities. And the apostle John, wishing to declare this openly, says: 'God sent His Son, the Saviour of the world.' You understand how by an inseparable connection he has joined God and man together. For Christ, who was born of Mary, is without doubt called Saviour, according to that saying:
'For unto you is born this day a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.' But here he names that very Word of God which was sent the Saviour, saying: 'God sent His Son, the Saviour of the world.' It is therefore plain that, the Word of God being united with man through the mystery, both the Word which was sent to save is called Saviour, and the Saviour born in the flesh is called, through the fellowship of the Word, the Son of God; and thus, by the undivided majesty of either name, since God is united with man, whatever the man is, God is—the whole is utterly named God. And therefore the same apostle well added, saying: 'Whosoever shall believe that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and the love of God is perfected in him.'
He proclaims that man truly to believe, him he asserts to be full of divine love, who believes Jesus to be the Son of God; and he testifies that the Son of God is the Word of God, and by this he means one and the very same thing utterly to be understood—the only-begotten Word of God and Jesus Christ the Son of God. But do you wish to know more fully that, although Christ was according to the flesh truly born a man of man, yet on account of the ineffable unity of the mystery, by which man is united with God, there is utterly no distance between Christ and the Word? Hear the Lord's gospel—nay rather, hear God Himself speaking of Himself: 'This is,' He says, 'life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.'
Above you have heard that the Word of God was sent to heal men; but here you hear that He who was sent is Jesus Christ. Separate this, if you can, when you see so great a unity of Christ and the Word, that not only is the Word united with Christ, but also, on account of that very unity, Christ is now said to be the Word. But perhaps you think this shines forth too little—not because it shines little, but because dark faithlessness always makes darkness for itself even in the light. Hear then in a few words the apostle embracing this whole mystery of the Lord's unity: 'One,' he says, 'is our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.' O good Jesus, how great is the authority in Thy words! For those things which are spoken by Thine own through Thee are Thine.
Behold how much this saying of the apostle embraces in few words. 'One,' he says, 'is our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.' Did he use any circumlocution of words to proclaim the mystery of so great a sacrament, or did he treat, in the narration of a long discourse, that which he wished us to understand? 'One,' he says, 'is our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.' With but a plain and brief expression he taught the secret of so great a majesty—with this confidence, namely, by which he knew that his speech, in the business of God, needed no long argumentations, and that the Godhead gives faith to his sayings. For the demonstration of the facts alone suffices for the confirmation of the sayings, when the proof lies in the authority of Him who speaks.