96 Ps. cxv. 3, which, however, in the English, runs: "He hath done whatsoever pleased Him."-Prayer-book.
97 Rev. i. 8, Rev. i. 17; Rev. ii. 8; Rev. iii. 14; Rev. xxii. 13; Isa. xli. 4; Isa. xliv. 6; Isa. xlviii. 12.
98 "And," we may add; "already was."-St. Ambrose refers to St. John viii. 25, but the reference is only justifiable by means of a defective rendering of the Greek; unless we suppose our Saviour to be alluding to what the prophets had said of Himself as well as to His own statements. Cf. Bk. III. vii. 49.
99 On the analogy of which, indeed, Arianism endeavoured to conceive of the Nature and Activities of God.
100 Or "a shining body"-lumen, not lux, as in other places of this passage. St. Ambrose probably was unaware that "radiance" or "effulgence" from an incandescent or otherwise shining body is clue to the presence of the atmosphere, so that his analogy requires modification when bodies shining in vacuo come into the account. But with regard to these it may be urged that the shining of the body may be taken as the sole object of consideration, whilst it is fully admitted that the brightness and the body, though separated for purposes of mental treatment and thought, are not so in fact and actual reality. In the Book of Wisdom, vii. 26, the Divine Wisdom is called "the brightness of everlasting Light" (ataugasma fwtoj aidiou)-These texts would naturally suggest the `Light of Light0' (fwj ek fwtoj,) of the Nicene Creed. The analogy of light and radiance is employed by many of the Fathers in maintaining the doctrine of the Church, see Alford's note on Heb. i. 3.
102 Or "before all worlds." Cf. Heb. i. 2, in the Greek, Latin, and English.
105 Or "by the Spirit," i.e. by the help, power of the Spirit, working indeed with his spirit.
108 i.e. that "such as the Father is, such is the Son."
117 1 Cor. xi. 26. St. Ambrose's term for "are transformed" is "transfigurantur."
121 Or "is discovered to be a certain unity, etc."
122 i.e. in respect of His Body of flesh and blood.
127 1 Cor. xv. 40. On this place H. observes: "As the Son, by reason of a nature numerically identical with the Father's, lives together with Him the same Divine Life, so we by virtue of a manhood specifically the same as Christ's have power to live the life which the Man Christ lives; which life indeed resides in its greatest fulness in Him as its Head and Fountain, and from His Person overflows into us, His members-yet not without a certain difference, for the comparison is incomplete, by reason, namely, of the reservation of prerogatives attaching to the Divine Nature or to the Lord's Incarnation. The Godhead is numerically One, the Life of the Father and the Life of the Son is numerically one, but Christ's Life and ours are not so. Moreover, this (Divine) Life subsistent in the Son is united to His Manhood in and by the unity of His Person, but is not communicated to us in so close an alliance, overflowing rather into us only by a certain participation. ...But perhaps the sainted Doctor's meaning here is that we live and abide in Christ by a corporal unity, because, Christ having Manhood specifically the same as ours, whatsoever is fittingly predicted of manhood as existing in Christ is applicable to all His fellow-men. The first construction, howevers explains St. Ambrose's analogy more fully."
128 St. Ambrose quotes the words from St. John vi. 58, thus: "propter Patrem." This seeming expression of dependence, he says, does not in the dleast disturb his belief in the co-eternity and co equality of the Son with the Father; which belief would indeded remain unshaken even though Christ's words had been still more expressive, to all appearance, of dependence and inferiority.
131 S. John xiii. 31, John xiii. 32.
137 Or "consist;" Lat.-constant; Greek-ta panta en autw sunesthken.
139 Lat.-familia. Cf. the expression "house of Israel."-Ps. cxv. 9.
140 Rom. ix. 5; cf. Rom. i. 3.
145 "You think, perhaps," St. Ambrose might have said to his Arian opponents, "that this text speaks of God the Father only, as it begins with `of Him.0' Very good. But whilst, in dealing with 1 Cor. viii. 6, you acknowledge that the Father is Omnipotent because `all things are of Him,0' you deny that the Son is Omnipotent, on the strength of the statement that all things are `through0' Hint Now here (Rom. xi. 36) we find that all things are said to be `through0' as well as `of0' One and the same Person-the Father. On your own showing, then, you must conclude that the Father is both Omnipotent (all things being `of0' Him) and not Omnipotent (all things being only `through0' Him) at the same time and in the same respect. Which is absurd and impossible. Clearly, then, the inference you want to draw from the difference of the expressions `of Him0' and `by Him0' will not stand, if you make Rom. xi. 36 a declaration regarding the Father only. But if you make it a declaration concerning the Son, or even including the Son in its reference, you upset your own position."
146 Rom. xi. 33-36. St. Ambrose's quotation of the passage in extenso shows us how texts ought to be used in argument-namely, not rent from their context, not as unrelated apophthegms.
148 "Approaching"-Lat. accedentem. An "accidentem" potius sit legendum?-ut Sapientia non sit accidens, sed proprium, Substantioe Divinoe.