That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.

“(vii. de Trin. c. 20) All judgment is given to Him, because He quickens whom He will. Nor can the judgment be looked on as taken away from the Father, inasmuch as the cause of His not judging is, that the judgment of the Son is His. For all judgment is given from the Father. And the reason for which He gives it, appears immediately after: That all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.”

“(Hom. xxxix. 2) For, lest you should infer from hearing that the Author of His power was the Father, any difference of substance, or inequality of honour, He connects the honour of the Son with the honour of the Father, shewing that both have the same. But shall men then call Him the Father? God forbid; he who calls Him the Father, does not honour the Son equally with the Father, but confounds both.”

“(xxi. s. 13) First indeed, the Son appeared as a servant, and the Father was honoured as God. But the Son will be seen to be equal to the Father, that all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 1But what if persons are found, who honour the Father, and do not honour the Son? It cannot be: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him. It is one thing to acknowledge God, as God; and another to acknowledge Him as the Father. When thou acknowledgest God the Creator, thou acknowledgest an almighty, supreme, eternal, invisible, immutable Spirit. When thou acknowledgest the Father, thou dost in reality acknowledge the Son; for He could not be the Father, had He not the Son. But if thou honour the Father as greater, the Son as less, so far as thou givest less honour to the Son, thou takest away from the honour of the Father. For thou in reality thinkest that the Father could not or would not beget the Son equal to Himself; which if He would not do, He was envious, if He could not, He was weak. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; has a reference to the resurrection of souls, which is the work of the Son, as well as of the Father. But the resurrection of the body is meant in what comes after: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him. Here is no as; the man Christ is honoured, but not as the Father Who sent Him, since with respect to His manhood He Himself saith, My Father is greater than I. (Tr. xxi. s. 17). But some one will say, if the Son is sent by the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Leave thy fleshly actions, and understand a mission, not a separation. Human things deceive, divine things make clear; although even human things give testimony against thee, e. g. if a man offers marriage to a woman, and cannot obtain her by himself, he sends a friend, greater than himself, to urge his suit for him. But see the difference in human things. A man does not go with him whom he sends; but the Father Who sent the Son, never ceased to be with the Son; as we read, I am not alone, but the Father is with Me. (c. 16)”

“Here he hands down the teaching concerning the life-giving power. And first the teaching itself is set forth; second, its confirmation, at the place, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth his teaching about the life-giving power in general; second, in particular, at the place, "and greater works than these will he show him." Concerning the first he does three things. First he intimates the origin of his power; second, the greatness of that same power, at the place, "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner"; third, he assigns the reason for both, at the place, "for the Father loves the Son." Now it must be considered, concerning the first point, that the Arians strive to confirm their error from these words which the Lord here speaks, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc. — namely, that the Son is less than the Father — because, according to what the Evangelist said, the Jews were persecuting Christ because he was making himself equal to God. The Lord, seeing that the Jews were moved by this, wishing to exclude this (so the Arians say), added such words in order to show that he was not equal to the Father, saying: "Amen, amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he shall have seen the Father doing"; as if he were saying: do not understand me, by what I said, "my Father works, and I work," to work in such a way as though I were equal to him, since I can do nothing of myself. Since therefore the Son cannot do anything except what he shall have seen the Father doing, he is indeed less than the Father, as they themselves say. But this understanding is false and erroneous: because if the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would not be the same as the Father, which is against that word below, John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." For equality is considered according to magnitude, which in divine things is the very essence. Hence if he were unequal to the Father, he would differ from him according to essence. But for the true understanding of this, it must be known that, concerning those things which seem to import a lessening in the Son, it could be said by some that these things are said of Christ according to the assumed nature, just as it is said below, John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." Hence according to this they would want to say that what the Lord says, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," must be understood of the Son according to the assumed nature. This indeed cannot stand, because according to this it would be necessary to say that all the things which the Son of God did in the assumed nature, the Father had done before him — for instance, that he had walked upon the sea with dry feet, just as Christ walked, otherwise it would not be said "except what he shall have seen the Father doing." But if it be said that whatever things Christ did in the flesh, God the Father also did, insofar as the Father works in him, according to that word below, John 14:10: "but the Father abiding in me, he himself does the works"; so that the sense would be: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he shall have seen the Father doing" — in himself, namely in the Son — but neither can this stand, because according to this the words that follow could not be adapted to it, namely, "whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner." For the Son never, according to the assumed nature, created the world, as the Father created it. Therefore what is said is not to be referred to the assumed nature. According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding those things which seem to import a lessening in the Son, although they do not: namely, that they be referred to the origin of the Son from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, nevertheless he has this very thing from the Father through eternal generation; but the Father has it from no one, since he is unbegotten. Hence according to this it continues thus: Why are you scandalized, because I have called my Father God, and because I have made myself equal to God? Amen, amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself; as if he were saying: I am indeed equal to the Father, in such a way that I am from him, not he from me; and whatever I have, so that I may do it, is mine from the Father. According to this manner, then, mention is made in these words of the power of the Son, through this word "can," and of his operation through this word "do." And therefore both can be understood here: namely, so that first the derivation of the Son's power from the Father may be shown; and second, so that the conformity of the Son's operation to the operation of the Father may be shown. As to the first, Hilary explains it in this way. Above, the Lord said that he was equal to the Father. But certain heretics, on account of the authorities of Scripture which speak of the unity and equality of the Son with the Father, attribute to the Son that he is unbegotten — as the Sabellians, saying that the Son is the same as the Father in person. Lest, then, you should understand it thus, he says: "the Son cannot do anything of himself," for the power of the Son is the same as his nature. From him, therefore, the Son has his power from whom he has his being; but he has his being from the Father — below, John 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world" — from whom also he has his nature, because he is God from God; therefore from him he has his power. Thus, then, what he says: "the Son cannot do anything, except what he shall have seen the Father doing," amounts to as much as if it were said: the Son, just as he does not have being except from the Father, so too he does not have the power to do anything except from the Father. For in natural things, a thing receives its power to operate from the same source from which it receives its being, just as fire receives its capacity to ascend upward from that from which it receives its form and being. Nor, however, is inequality implied by his saying, "the Son cannot do anything of himself"; for this pertains to relation, whereas the question of equality and inequality pertains to quantity. But by his saying, "except what he shall have seen the Father doing," a false understanding might creep in for someone, so that he would believe the Son to act in this way because he saw the Father doing it — namely, that the Father did it first, and having seen this, the Son afterward began to do it, after the manner of two craftsmen, namely a master and a disciple, where the disciple makes a chest according to the manner in which he has seen the master make it. But this indeed is not true of the Word; for above it is said: "all things were made through him." Therefore the Father did not make anything in such a way that the Son would see it being made and learn it thereby. But this is said in order to designate the communication of fatherhood to the Son through generation, which is fittingly designated by this word "shall have seen," because through sight and hearing knowledge is poured into us from another. For indeed through sight we receive knowledge from things, but through hearing from words. But the Son is nothing other than Wisdom, according to that word, Ecclesiasticus 24:5: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature." And thus the derivation of the Son from the Father is nothing other than the derivation of divine wisdom. Since, therefore, vision designates the derivation of knowledge and wisdom from another, the generation of the Son from the Father is rightly designated through vision, so that thus for the Son to see the Father doing is nothing other than to proceed by an intelligible procession from the Father who operates. But another reason can also be assigned concerning this matter, according to Hilary; namely, that by his saying "shall have seen," every imperfection may be excluded from the generation of the Son or the Word. For in material generation, that which is generated is led little by little, through increments of time, from the imperfect to the perfect; for a thing is not yet perfect when it begins to be generated. But this has no place in the eternal generation, since it is the generation of a perfect one from a perfect one. And therefore he says, "except what the Son shall have seen the Father doing." For since to see is the act of one who is perfect, it is manifest that the Son was begotten perfect at once, as one seeing at once, and is not led to perfection through increments of time. As to the second point, Chrysostom explains it — namely, in order to show the conformity of the Father to the Son as regards operation — in this way. I say that it is lawful for me to work on the Sabbath, because my Father too works continually, to whom I cannot work contrary; and this because "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc. For then does someone do a thing of himself, when in doing it he does not conform himself to another. But whoever is from another, if he is at variance with him, sins — below, John 7:18: "he who speaks of himself, seeks his own glory." Whoever, therefore, existing from another, works of himself, sins; but the Son is from the Father; therefore if he works of himself, he sins — which is impossible. By this, then, that the Lord says, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc., he intimates nothing other than that the Son cannot sin. As if he were saying: you unjustly persecute me for the breaking of the Sabbath, because I cannot sin, since I do not work contrary things to my Father. Now Augustine gives both explanations, namely that of Hilary and that of Chrysostom, though in different places. Next, when he says, "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner," the greatness of Christ's power is set forth, and he excludes in these words three things concerning his power: namely, particularity, diversity, and imperfection. Particularity: because, since there are diverse agents in the world, and the first universal agent has power over all agents, while the other agents, which are from it, are of a power the more particular, the more they are lower in the order of causality, someone might believe from this that, since the Son is not of himself, he has a particular power with respect to certain existing things, and not a universal power with respect to all things, as the Father has. And therefore, excluding this, he says, "for whatever things he" — that is, the Father — "shall have done" — that is, to all things to which the power of the Father extends, the power of the Son also extends. Above, John 1:3: "all things were made through him." Diversity, however: because sometimes one thing, existing from another, can indeed do whatever that from which it is does, and yet nonetheless the things which it does are not the same as those which the one from whom it is does. As if one fire, existing from another, can do whatever the other does, for instance to burn — yet this one burns certain things, and that one others, although the burning of each is the same according to species. Lest, therefore, you understand the operation of the Son to be thus diverse from the operation of the Father, he says "these" — that is, not diverse, but the same. Imperfection, however: because sometimes it happens that one and the same thing comes about from two agents, but from one indeed as from a principal and perfect agent, and from the other as from an instrument and an imperfect agent; but not in like manner, because the principal agent acts in one way, and the instrument in another, since the instrument acts imperfectly, inasmuch as it acts in the power of another. Lest, therefore, you understand in this way that the Son does whatever the Father does, he adds "in like manner" — that is, by the same power by which the Father acts, the Son also acts; because there is the same power and the same perfection in the Father and the Son; Proverbs 8:30: "I was with him forming all things." Next, when he says, "for the Father loves the Son," he assigns the reason for both — namely, of the origin and of the greatness of the power of the Son; and this reason indeed is assigned from the love of the Father, who loves the Son; hence he says: "for the Father loves the Son." But in order to know how the love of the Father for the Son is the reason for the origin, or for the communication of the power of the Son, it must be attended to that a thing is loved in two ways. For since only the good is lovable, some good can be related to love in two ways: namely, either as the cause of love, or as caused by love. In us, however, the good causes love; for the cause of our love toward someone is his goodness. For he is not good because we love him; rather we love him because he is good; hence in us love is caused by the good. But in God it is otherwise, because the very love of God is the cause of goodness in the things loved; for because God loves us, therefore we are good, for to love is nothing other than to will good to someone. Since, therefore, the will of God is the cause of things — because "whatever the Lord willed, he has done," as Psalm 113:3 says — it is manifest that the love of God is the cause of goodness in things. Hence Dionysius says, chapter 6 of On the Divine Names, that the divine love did not permit him to be without offspring. Therefore, if we consider the origin of the Son, let us see whether the love with which the Father loves the Son is the principle of that origin, or proceeds from it. Now love in divine things is taken in two ways: namely, essentially, according as the Father loves, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and notionally, or personally, according as the Holy Spirit proceeds as love. But in neither of these two ways can love, so called, be the principle of the origin of the Son. For insofar as it is taken essentially, it imports thus an act of the will. If, then, it were the principle of the origin of the Son, it would follow that the Father had begotten the Son by will, not by nature — which is erroneous. Likewise also not love taken notionally, insofar as it pertains to the Holy Spirit, because then it would follow that the Holy Spirit was the principle of the Son — which is erroneous; indeed no heretic has ever said this. For although love taken notionally is the principle of all the gifts which are given to us by God, nevertheless it is not the principle of the Son; rather it itself proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus, then, it must be said that this reason is not taken from love as from a principle, but as from a sign. For since likeness is the cause of love (for every animal loves its like), where the perfect likeness of God is found, there also the perfect love of God is found. Now the perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son, according to that word, Colossians 1:15: "who is the image of the invisible God"; Hebrews 1:3: "who, since he is the brightness, glory, and figure of his substance." Perfectly, therefore, is the Son loved by the Father; and therefore, because he loves him perfectly, it is a sign that the Father has shown him all things and has communicated to him his power and nature. And of this love it is said above, John 2:35: "the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand." And Matthew 3:17: "this is my beloved son." Concerning, however, what follows, "and he shows him all things which he himself does," it must be known that someone can show his works to another in two ways. Either as to sight, as a craftsman shows to his disciple the things which he makes; or as to hearing, as when he instructs him by word. In whichever of these two ways, then, "shows" is taken, a twofold unfitting consequence can follow — which, however, is not present in that showing by which the Father shows the Son. For if the Father is said to show the Son as to sight, first indeed it follows, in these lower things, that he first works something which he shows to another; and second, that he works it apart from the one to whom he shows it. But the Father does not show the Son things which he made beforehand, because the Son himself says, Proverbs 8:22: "the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything." Nor, likewise, things which he makes apart from the Son; because the Father works all things through the Son — above, John 1:3: "all things were made through him." But if the showing be taken as to hearing, two things seem to follow: for he who teaches by word first shows to one who is ignorant; and second, the word stands between the one showing and the one to whom the showing is made. But the Father shows the Son in neither of these ways: not indeed as to one ignorant, since the Son is the wisdom of the Father — 1 Corinthians 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God"; nor by some other word as intermediary, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father — above, John 1: "the Word was with God." The Father, therefore, is said to show the Son all things that he does, insofar as he communicates to him the knowledge of all his works; for thus a master is said to show his disciple, insofar as he gives him knowledge of the things which he does. Hence, according to Augustine, for the Father to show the Son is nothing other than for the Father to beget the Son. And for the Son to see what the Father does is nothing other than for the Son to be and to receive his nature from the Father. That showing, however, can be said to be similar to the visual kind, inasmuch as the Son himself is the brightness of the Father's vision, as it is said, Hebrews 1:3: for the Father, seeing and understanding himself, conceives the Son, who is the concept of this vision. It can also be similar to that which comes about through hearing, inasmuch as the Son proceeds from the Father as the Word. So that it might be said that the Father shows the Son all things, insofar as he produces him as the brightness, and the concept of his wisdom, and the Word. This, then, that he says "shows," is referred to what he said above: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he shall have seen the Father doing." But this, that he says "all things," is referred to what he said: "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner."”

“That all, &c. For the Jews who would not then honour the Son of God, or acknowledge Him to be such, when they shall see His Divine power and majesty in the day of judgment, will be compelled to acknowledge, honour, and adore Him as God. Digitized by V^rOOQie THE CHIEF ARTICLES OF FAITH. 179 Like as they honour the Father : the words like as signify equality 9 not similitude. He who honoureth not the Son , &c. Because by denying the Son he denies also the Father ; for father and son are correlative terms: and he who has not a son cannot be a father. With regard to God, he who denies that the Son is the Son of God, denies that God the Father is truly and properly the Father, and has begotten. Tacitly he asserts that He could not beget a consubstantial and co-equal Son. Moreover he dentes the Father, because the Father sent the Son into the world, that by Him He might be honoured, in such a manner that He should be acknowledged to be the Father properly so called, and to have begotten a Son of the same substance with Himself, and to be adored with the same latria as Himself. He therefore who denies that the Son is God, denies that the Father begat God, which is the highest blasphemy of the Father. For he deprives the Father of that offspring which is His equal, and worthy of Himself, and instead of a Divine and uncreated offspring assigns to Him one that is created and mean. Wherefore he denies Him to be a proper and Divine Father”

“That all men should honour the Son,.... This is the end of all judgment, and the exercise of all authority, and power being committed to him; namely, that he might have the honour given him by men that is due unto him: even as they honour the Father; that the same honour and glory may be given to the one, as to the other, which must never have been done was he not equal with him, since he gives not his glory to another, Isa 42:8. Indeed, all men do not honour the Father as they should; the Gentiles, who had some knowledge of God, glorified him not as God; and the Jews, who had an external revelation of the one, true, and living God, which other nations had not, yet were greatly deficient in honouring him, which made him complaining say, "if then I be a father, where is mine honour?" Mal 1:6. And Christians, who are favoured with a clearer revelation still of the Father of Christ, are much wanting in giving him his due glory; but in common he is honoured, though in an imperfect manner; nor is there so much danger of his losing his honour, as of the Son's losing his; the reason is this, though the Son is in the form of God, and equal with him, yet by taking upon him the form of a servant, by becoming man, he has veiled the glory of his divine person, and made himself of no reputation; and by reason of this was reckoned by many, or most, as a mere man: wherefore, by agreement, that judgment, power, and authority, which equally belonged to the Father, and the Son, the exercise of it is put visibly and openly into the Son's hands, that he might have his due honour and glory from all men, whether they will or not: from true believers in him he has it willingly, by their ascribing deity to him, by putting their trust in him, by attributing the whole of their salvation to him, and the glory of it, and by worshipping him: and he will be honoured by all men at the last day; they will be obliged to do it; for all judgment being committed to him, and he being Judge of all, every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord, to his own glory, and to the glory of God the Father; see Isa 45:23. He that honoureth not the Son; that denies his divine sonship, or his proper deity; that detracts from the dignity of his person or office; that shows no regard to him in point of salvation, or of obedience: honoureth not the Father which hath sent him; they are so the same in nature and perfections, in power, will, affections, and operations; and their interests and honours are so involved together, that whatever dishonour is done to one, reflects on the other: and indeed, whatever is done in a way of disrespect to the Son, as incarnate, and in his office capacity, highly reflects on his Father, that sent him in the fulness of time, in human nature, to obtain eternal redemption for his people, according to a rule often expressed by the Jews, "a man's messenger is as himself"; See Gill on Mat 10:40.”

“That all men should honor the Son, etc. - If then the Son is to be honored, Even As the Father is honored, then the Son must be God, as receiving that worship which belongs to God alone. To worship any creature is idolatry: Christ is to be honored even as the Father is honored; therefore Christ is not a creature; and, if not a creature, consequently the Creator. See Joh 1:3. He that honoureth not the Son - God will not receive that man's adoration who refuses to honor Jesus, even as he honors him. The Jews expected the Messiah as a great and powerful Prince; but they never thought of a person coming in that character enrobed with all the attributes of Godhead. To lead them off from this error, our Lord spoke the words recorded in these verses.”

“honour the Son as . . . the Father--As he who believes that Christ in the foregoing verses has given a true account of His relation to the Father must of necessity hold Him entitled to the same honor as the Father, so He here adds that it was the Father's express intention in making over all judgment to the Son, that men should thus honor Him. honoureth not the Father--does not do it in fact, whatever he may imagine, and will be held as not doing it by the Father Himself, who will accept no homage which is not accorded to His own Son.”