“If, say they, the Saviour is a vine, and we are branches, but the Father is husbandman; and if the branches are of one nature with the vine, and the vine is not of one nature with the husbandman; then the Son is of one nature with us, and we are a part of Him, but the Son is not of one nature with, but in all respects of a nature foreign to, the Father, I shall reply to them that He called us branches not of His Godhead, but of His flesh, as the Apostle says, we are ‘the body of Christ, and members in particular,’ 1 Cor. xii. 27. and again, ‘know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?’ 1 Cor. vi. 15. and in other places, ‘as is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us all bear the image of the heavenly.’ 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49:  in the last clause Basil reads φορέσωμεν, instead of the φορέσομεν of A.V., with א, A, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P.  If the head of the ‘man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God,’ 1 Cor. xi. 3. and man is not of one substance with Christ, Who is God (for man is not God), but Christ is of one substance with God (for He is God) therefore God is not the head of Christ in the same sense as Christ is the head of man.  The natures of the creature and the creative Godhead do not exactly coincide.  God is head of Christ, as Father; Christ is head of us, as Maker.  If the will of the Father is that we should believe in His Son (for this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life), John vi. 40. the Son is not a Son of will.  That we should believe in Him is (an injunction) found with Him, or before Him.”i.e.simultaneous with, or even anterior to, His advent.  Maran hesitates as to the meaning of the phrase, and writes:  “Suspicor tamen intelligi sic posse.  Quanquam voluntas patris est ut in Filium credamus, non tamen propterea sequitur, Filium ex voluntate esse.  Nam credere nos oportet in Filium, ut primum in hunc mundum venit, imo antequam etiam naturam humanam assumeret, cum patriarchæ et Judæi prisci ad salutem consequendam in Christum venturum credere necesse habuerint.  Itaque cum debeamus necessario credere in Filium omni ætate et tempore; hinc efficitur, Filium esse natura, non voluntate, neque adoptione.  Si voluntas est Patris ut nos in ejus Filium credamus, non est ex voluntate Filius, quippe nostra in ipsum fides aut cum ipso aut ante ipsum invenitur.  Subtilis hæc ratiocinatio illustratur ex alia simili, quæ reperitur (i.e. at the beginning of Book IV.).  Si fides in Filium nostra opus est Dei, ipse Dei opus esse non potest.  Nam fides in ipsum et ipse non idem.”