Chapter VIII.
Against this Catholic sentence, that the Son who is begotten is equal to the Father who begot him, opponents argue that the begotten cannot be of the same nature as the unbegotten; it is replied that the terms begotten and unbegotten, which are not found in the Scriptures, are introduced by them, since they reject them in terms of nature and substance because they deny their existence in the same Scriptures. Moreover, it is shown from the sacred scriptures that there is nature and substance in God.
I had concluded the book, but there was a concern that we might seem to disregard religion because we were unable to solve it. For a while now, certain individuals have been saying to us that the Son of God, who was born, cannot be unequal to the Father who begot him, even though the former was born and the latter begot, because generation is not about power but about nature. They consider the question to be closed against them in that regard, but in an objectionable way they turn the discussion around in the same place, thinking that by changing the wording, they can change the issue, saying: How can the unbegotten and the begotten be of the same nature and substance?
So, in order to respond, most merciful Emperor, to the question you have posed to me; first of all, I do not find in the holy Scriptures anything innate: I have not read, I have not heard. Whose therefore are the people of such changeability, that they say we use those things which are not written; when we, on the other hand, say those things which are written: and they themselves object that it is not written? Do they not oppose themselves, and undermine the authority of their own false accusation?
For they say that it is not written that God is substance and nature; whereas certainly the Scripture testifies that the Son of God is the brightness of his glory, and the character of his substance (Hebrews 1:3), and in another book we have shown very fully that many others have spoken of the divine substance (Book III on Faith, chapter 4).
Who then would deny that divine nature? When the apostle Peter wrote in his epistle that the mercy of the Lord was accomplished through the passion of the cross, in order to make us partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But elsewhere Paul also wrote: But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those who by nature are not gods (Galatians 4:8). We also find this in Greek manuscripts, which have greater authority.
So what, therefore, do those mean who deny that nature is divine, except that now they not only slander the Son but also the Father? For if it is denied that God is by nature, then it follows that he is by grace, like humans. Or certainly it is falsely believed, like demons, whose images are given the name of God. But let us follow the authority of the Apostle, so that we may say that nature is not divine in idols. Therefore, if it is not in idols, it is not in demons: it remains that in God there is a divine nature and substance.
Therefore, with apostolic authority, we affirm that it is right to say of God the Father that His nature is God; let them now understand that the same nature of God the Father is also that of the Son, and likewise that of the Holy Spirit; lest perhaps they say the same thing: Indeed, we read that nature is divine, but we do not read of the unity of the divine nature. But when the Son Himself said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); He proved the unity of the divinity. When He said: All that the Father has is mine (John 16:15); and further: Father, all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine (John 17:10); He affirmed the unity. When he said, 'The Father who dwells in me, he himself does the works that I do' (John 14:10), he clearly declared unity.
Then Peter shows that there is one divine nature: \"That he might make us sharers of the divine nature\" (2 Peter 1:4). For he could have said it differently; he could have said, I say, \"That he might make us sharers of the divine natures\"; especially since we pass into participation in the divine nature through the Son. Can he give what he does not have? Therefore, there is no doubt that he gives from what he has; and therefore, he who gives the sharing in the divine nature has the divine nature.
The Apostle Paul also says: 'Those who are not by nature gods' (Galatians 4:8); he shows that there is only one true nature of God. For he himself could have said: 'Those who are not by nature gods' if he knew that there is a plurality of divine nature, with something different in the Father, something different in the Son, something different in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by saying 'Those who are not by nature gods,' he expressed the unity of the divine nature.
But what is the nature of God, if not to be the true God? as he said to the Thessalonians: How you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God (I Thess. I, 9). For they pretend to be gods, but God by nature is living and true. For even in our use of language, the Son by adoption is also the true Son. We do not say that the adopted Son is Son by nature, but we say that he is by nature the one who is the true Son.
Therefore, we have proven by reading that both the nature and substance are divine: and the apostolic authority has also demonstrated that the nature of God is unity, not plurality.