the image comes from it, not it from the image. It is born then together with its image, and the shrub and its image begin to be together. Dost thou not confess that the image is begotten of that shrub, not the shrub of the image? So then thou dost confess that the image is from that shrub. Accordingly that which begets and that which is begotten began to “be” together. Therefore they are coeval. If the shrub had been always, the image from the shrub would have been always too. Now that which has its being from something else, is of course born of it. It is possible then that one that begets might always be, and always be together with that which was born of him. For here it was that we were in perplexity and trouble, how the Eternal Nativity might be understood. So then the Son of God is so called on this principle, that there is the Father also, that He hath One from whom He derives His Being; not on this, that the Father is first in time, and the Son after. The Father always was, the Son always from the Father. And because whatever “is” from another thing, is born, therefore the Son was always born. The Father always was, the image from Him always was; as that image of the shrub was born of the shrub, and if the shrub had always been, the image would also have always been born from the shrub. Thou couldest not find things begotten coeternal 463 with the eternal begetters, but thou hast found things born coeval with those that begat them in time. I understand the Son coeternal with the Eternal who begat Him. For what with regard to things of time is coeval, with regard to things eternal is coeternal. 13. Here there is somewhat for you to consider, Brethren,3584 as a protection against blasphemies. For it is constantly said, “See thou hast produced certain resemblances; but the brightness which is thrown out from the fire, shines less brilliantly than the fire itself, and the image of the shrub has less proper3585 subsistence, than that shrub of which it is the image. These instances have a resemblance, but they have not a thorough equality: wherefore they do not seem to be of the same substance.” What then shall we say, if any one say, “The Father then is to the Son, such as the brightness is to the fire, and the image to the shrub”? See I have understood the Father to be eternal; and the Son to be coeternal with Him; nevertheless say we that He is as the brightness which is thrown out from and is less brilliant than the fire, or as the image which is reflected from and has less real existence than the shrub? No, but there is a thorough equality. “I do not believe it,” he will say, “because thou hast not discovered a resemblance.” Well then, believe the Apostle, because he was able to see what I have said. For he says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”3586 Equality is3587 perfect likeness in every way. And what said he? “Not robbery.” Why? Because that is robbery which belongs to another. 3584 Propter. 3585 Proprietatem. 3586 Phil. ii. 6. 3587 Conjungitur. 961 On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1, ‘In the beginning was the word, and…