14. Yet from these two comparisons, these two kinds, we may perhaps find in the creature
a resemblance whereby we may understand how the Son is both coeternal with the Father,
and in no respect less than He. But this we cannot find in one kind of resemblances singly:
let us join both kinds together. How both kinds? One, of which they themselves give instances
of resemblances, and the other, of which we gave. For they gave instances of resemblances
from those things which are born in time, and are preceded in time by them of whom they
are born, as man of man. He that is born first is greater in time; but yet man and man, that
is of the same substance. For man begets a man, and a horse a horse, and a sheep a sheep.
These beget after the same substance, but not after the same time. They are diverse in time,
but not in nature diverse. What then do we praise here in this nativity? The equality of
nature surely. But what is wanting? The equality of time. Let us retain the one thing which
is praised here, that is, the equality of nature. But in the other kind of resemblances, which
we gave from the brightness of the fire and the image of the shrub, you find not an equality
of nature, you do find an equality of time. What do we praise here? Equality of time. What
is wanting? Equality of nature. Join the things which you praise together. For in the creatures
there is wanting something which you praise, in the Creator nothing can be wanting: because
what you find in the creature, came forth from the Hand of the Creator. What then is there
in things coeval? Must not that be given to God which you praise here in? But what is
wanting must not be attributed to that Sovereign Majesty, in the which there is no defect.
See I offer to you things begetting coeval with things begotten: in these you praise the
equality of time, but find fault with the inequality3588 of nature. What you find fault with,
do not attribute to God; what you praise, attribute to Him; so from this kind of resemblances
you attribute to Him instead of a cotemporaneousness a coeternity, that the Son may be
coeternal with Him of whom He was born. But from the other kind of resemblances, which
itself too is a creature of God, and ought to praise the Creator, what do you praise in them?
Equality of nature. You had before assigned coeternity by reason of the first distinction; by
reason of this last, assign equality; and the nativity of the same substance is complete. For
what is more mad, my brethren, than that I should praise the creature in anything which
does not exist in the Creator? In man I praise equality of nature, shall I not believe it in Him
who made man? That which is born of man is man; shall not that which is born of God, be
That which He is of whom He was born? Converse have I none with works which God hath
not made. Let then all the works of the Creator praise Him. I find in the one case a cotem-
poraneousness, I get at the knowledge of a coeternity in the other. In the first I find an
equality of nature, I understand an equality of substance in the other. In this then that is
“wholly,” which in the other case is found in the several parts, and several things. It is then
“wholly” here altogether, and not only what is in the creature; I find it wholly here, but as
3588 Disparilitatem.
962
On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1, ‘In the beginning was the word, and…