Chapter XXII.—Sundry Passages of St. John Quoted, to Show the Distinction Between the Father and the Son. Even Praxeas’ Classic Text—I and My Father are One—Shown to Be Against Him.

Again, whose doctrine does He announce, at which all were astonished?273    See John vii. passim. Was it His own or the Father’s? So, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (not as being the Father, of course but as the Son), He says to them “You are not ignorant whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know Him, because I am from Him.”274    Ver. 28, 29. He did not say, Because I myself am He; and, I have sent mine own self: but His words are, “He hath sent me.” When, likewise, the Pharisees sent men to apprehend Him, He says: “Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go unto Him that sent me.”275    Ver. 33. When, however, He declares that He is not alone, and uses these words, “but I and the Father that sent me,”276    John viii. 16. does He not show that there are Two—Two, and yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum and substance of what He was teaching them, that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of two men’s testimony,277    Ver. 17. He adds at once: “I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father (is another,) who hath sent me, and beareth witness of me.”278    Ver. 18. Now, if He were one—being at once both the Son and the Father—He certainly would not have quoted the sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two. Likewise, when they asked Him where His Father was,279    Ver. 19. He answered them, that they had known neither Himself nor the Father; and in this answer He plainly told them of Two, whom they were ignorant of. Granted that “if they had known Him, they would have known the Father also,”280    Ver. 19. this certainly does not imply that He was Himself both Father and Son; but that, by reason of the inseparability of the Two, it was impossible for one of them to be either acknowledged or unknown without the other. “He that sent me,” says He, “is true; and I am telling the world those things which I have heard of Him.”281    John viii. 26. And the Scripture narrative goes on to explain in an exoteric manner, that “they understood not that He spake to them concerning the Father,”282    Ver. 27. although they ought certainly to have known that the Father’s words were uttered in the Son, because they read in Jeremiah, “And the Lord said to me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth;”283    Jer. i. 9. and again in Isaiah, “The Lord hath given to me the tongue of learning that I should understand when to speak a word in season.”284    Isa. l. 4. In accordance with which, Christ Himself says: “Then shall ye know that I am He and that I am saying nothing of my own self; but that, as my Father hath taught me, so I speak, because He that sent me is with me.”285    John viii. 28, 29. This also amounts to a proof that they were Two, (although) undivided. Likewise, when upbraiding the Jews in His discussion with them, because they wished to kill Him, He said, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your father;”286    Ver. 38. “but now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God;”287    Ver. 40. and again, “If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God,”288    Ver. 42. (still they are not hereby separated, although He declares that He proceeded forth from the Father. Some persons indeed seize the opportunity afforded them in these words to propound their heresy of His separation; but His coming out from God is like the ray’s procession from the sun, and the river’s from the fountain, and the tree’s from the seed); “I have not a devil, but I honour my Father;”289    Ver. 49. again, “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that He is your God: yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His saying.”290    John viii. 54, 55. But when He goes on to say, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,”291    Ver. 56. He certainly proves that it was not the Father that appeared to Abraham, but the Son. In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, “that He must do the works of the Father which had sent Him;”292    John ix. 4. and after He had given the man sight, He said to him, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?” Then, upon the man’s inquiring who He was, He proceeded to reveal Himself to him, as that Son of God whom He had announced to him as the right object of his faith.293    Vers. 35–38. In a later passage He declares that He is known by the Father, and the Father by Him;294    John x. 15. adding that He was so wholly loved by the Father, that He was laying down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father.295    Vers. 15, 17, 18. When He was asked by the Jews if He were the very Christ296    Ver. 24. (meaning, of course, the Christ of God; for to this day the Jews expect not the Father Himself, but the Christ of God, it being nowhere said that the Father will come as the Christ), He said to them, “I am telling you, and yet ye do not believe: the works which I am doing, in my Father’s name, they actually bear witness of me.”297    Ver. 25. Witness of what? Of that very thing, to be sure, of which they were making inquiry—whether He were the Christ of God. Then, again, concerning His sheep, and (the assurance) that no man should pluck them out of His hand,298    Vers. 26–28. He says, “My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all;”299    Ver. 29. adding immediately, “I am and my Father are one.”300    Ver. 30. Here, then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings—“I and my Father;” then that there is a plural predicate, “are,” inapplicable to one person only; and lastly, that (the predicate terminates in an abstract, not a personal noun)—“we are one thing” Unum, not “one person” Unus. For if He had said “one Person,” He might have rendered some assistance to their opinion.  Unus, no doubt, indicates the singular number; but (here we have a case where) “Two” are still the subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son’s, who obeys the Father’s will. When He says, “I and my Father are one” in essence—Unum—He shows that there are Two, whom He puts on an equality and unites in one. He therefore adds to this very statement, that He “had showed them many works from the Father,” for none of which did He deserve to be stoned.301    John x. 32. And to prevent their thinking Him deserving of this fate, as if He had claimed to be considered as God Himself, that is, the Father, by having said, “I and my Father are One,” representing Himself as the Father’s divine Son, and not as God Himself, He says, “If it is written in your law, I said, Ye are gods; and if the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that He blasphemeth, because He said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, even if ye will not believe me, still believe the works; and know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.”302    Vers. 34–38. It must therefore be by the works that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that the Father is one with the Son. All along did He therefore strenuously aim at this conclusion, that while they were of one power and essence, they should still be believed to be Two; for otherwise, unless they were believed to be Two, the Son could not possibly be believed to have any existence at all.

CAPUT XXII.

Cujus autem doctrinam dicit ad quam mirabantur? suam, an Patris? Aeque ambigentibus inter se, ne ipse esset Christus, utique non Pater, sed Filius: Neque me scitis, inquit (Joan. VII, 28), unde sim, et non veni a meipso; sed est verus qui me misit, quem 0182B vos non nostis. Ego novi illum, qui ab illo sum , et ille me misit: Non dixit, quia ipse sum, et ipse me misi; sed: ille misit. Item, cum misissent ad invadendum eum Pharisaei: Modicum adhuc temporis, ait, vobiscum sum; et vado ad eum qui me misit. At ubi se negat esse solum? Sed ego, inquit, et qui me misit Pater; nonne duos demonstrat, tam duos quam inseparatos? imo totum erat hoc quod docebat, inseparatos duos esse. Siquidem et legem proponens duorum hominum testimonium confirmantem, subjungit: Ego testimonium dico de me, et testimonium dicit de me, qui me misit Pater. Quod si unus esset, dum idem est et Filius et Pater, non uteretur legis patrocinio fidem imponentis, non unius testimonio, sed duorum. Item, interrogatus ubi esset Pater, neque se, neque Patrem notum esse illis respondens, 0182C duos dixit ignotos; quod si ipsum nossent, Patrem nossent, non quidem quasi ipse esset Pater et Filius, sed quia per individuitatem neque agnosci, neque ignorari alter sine altero potest. Qui me, ait, misit, verax est; et ego quae ab eo audivi, ea et loquor in mundum. Interpretante extrinsecus Scriptura, non cognovisse illos quod de Patre dixisset, cum scilicet cognoscere debuissent sermones Patris in Filio esse, legendo apud Hieremiam (Jerem. I, 9): Et dixit mihi Dominus, «Ecce dedi sermones meos in os tuum;» Et apud Isaiam (Is. I, 4): Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae ad cognoscendum quando oporteat dicere sermonem. Sicut ipse rursus: Tunc, inquit (Joan. VIII, 28), cognoscetis quod ego sim, et a memetipso nihil loquar: sed sicut me docuit, ita et loquor; quia et qui me misit, mecum est. Et hoc ad testimonium 0182D individuorum duorum. Item, in altercatione Judaeorum, exprobrans quod occidere eum vellent: Ego, 0183A inquit, quae vidi penes Patrem meum, loquor; et vos quod vidistis penes patrem vestrum, id facitis: et nunc vultis occidere hominem veritatem vobis locutum, quam audivit a Deo; et: Si Deus esset pater vester, dilexissetis me. Ego enim ex Deo exivi et veni (et tamen non separantur , licet exiisse dixerit, ut quidam arripiunt hujus dicti occasionem; exivit autem a Patre, ut radius ex sole, ut rivus ex fonte, ut frutex ex semine). Ego daemonium non habeo, sed honoro Patrem meum; et: Si ego me ipse glorificem, nihil est gloria mea. Est qui me glorificet Pater, quem vos dicitis Deum esse vestrum, nec nostis illum, at ego novi eum. Et si dicam, «Non novi,» ero similis vestri mendax; sed novi illum, et sermonem ejus servo. Ac cum subjungit: Abraham diem meum vidit, et laetatus est; 0183B nempe demonstrat Filium Abrahae retro visum, non Patrem. Item, super caecum illum Patris opera dicit se facere oportere. Cui post restitutionem luminum: Tu, inquit (Joan. IX, 35), credis in Filium Dei? et interroganti quis esset iste, ipse se demonstrans, utique Filium demonstravit, quem credendum esse dixerat. Dehinc, cognosci se profitetur a Patre, et Patrem a se. Et ideo se diligi a Patre, quod animam suam ponat; quia hoc praeceptum accepisset a Patre. Et interrogatus a Judaeis, si ipse esset Christus (utique Dei , nam usque in hodiernum Judaei Christum Dei, non ipsum Patrem sperant, quia nunquam Christus Pater scriptus est venturus): Loquor, inquit, vobis, et non creditis. Opera quae ego facio in nomine Patris, ipsa de me testimonium dicunt. Quid 0183C testimonium? ipsum scilicet esse, de quo interrogabant, id est Christum Dei. De ovibus etiam suis, quod nemo illas de manu ejus eriperet: Pater enim quod mihi dedit, majus est omnibus ; et : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Hic ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti, imo caeci, qui non videant, primo, Ego et Pater, duorum esse significationem; dehinc in novissimo, sumus, non ex unius esse persona, quod pluraliter dictum est; tum quod, unum sumus, non, «unus sumus.» Si enim dixisset, «unus sumus,» potuisset adjuvare sententiam illorum. Unus etiam singularis numeri significatio videtur. Adhuc cum duo, masculini generis. Unum dicit, neutrali verbo, quod non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem, ad similitudinem, ad conjunctionem, ad dilectionem 0183D Patris, qui Filium diligit; et ad obsequium Filii, qui voluntati Patris obsequitur. Unum sumus, dicens, ego et Pater, ostendit duos esse, quos aequat 0184A et jungit. Adeo addit etiam multa se opera a Patre ostendisse, quorum nihil lapidari meretur. Et ne putarent ideo se illum lapidare debere, quasi se Deum ipsum, id est Patrem voluisset intelligi; quia dixerat, Ego et Pater unum sumus, qua Filium Dei Deum ostendens, non qua ipsum Deum. Si in lege, inquit, scriptum est, «Ego dixi, vos dii estis,» et non potest solvi Scriptura; quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos eum blasphemare dicitis, quia dixi , Filius Dei sum? Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere; si vero facio, et mihi credere non vultis, vel propter opera credite. Et scitote quod ego in Patre sim, et Pater in me. Per opera ergo erat Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre; et ita per opera intelligimus unum esse Patrem et Filium . Adeo totum hoc perseverabat 0184B inducere, ut duo tamen crederentur in una virtute; quia aliter Filius credi non posset, nisi duo crederentur.