Ambrose of Milan

No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father, no separation in power, no separation in wisdom because of the unity of the divine substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we often times find it written, yet not as sanctifying one who lacks sanctification or as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers but one power. Nor does Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads but one Godhead. We … shall be one in Christ through power received [from another] and dwelling in us. The letter [of the unity] is common, but the substance of God and the substance of humanity are different. We shall be one. The Father and the Son [already] are one. We shall be one by grace; the Son is so by substance. Again, unity by conjunction is one thing, unity by nature another. Finally, observe what it is that Scripture has already recorded: “That they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you.” Now notice that he did not say, “You in us, and we in you” but “You in me, and I in you.” In this way he sets himself apart from his creatures. Further, he added “that they also may be in us,” in order to separate here his dignity and his Father’s dignity from us so that our union in the Father and the Son may appear the result not of nature but of grace, while the unity of the Father and the Son is the Son’s, not by grace but by natural right of sonship.

There are some … who in their desire to deny the unity of the divine substance try to make light of the love of the Father and the Son, because it is written, “You have loved them, as you have loved me.” But when they say this, what else do they do but adopt a likeness of comparison between the Son of God and human beings? Can we indeed be loved by God as the Son is, in whom the Father is well-pleased? The Son is well-pleasing in himself; we are well-pleasing through him. For those in whom God sees his own Son after his own likeness, he admits through his Son into the favor of sons [children]. As we go through likeness unto likeness, in the same way, we are called to adoption through the generation of the Son. The eternal love of God’s nature is one thing; that of grace is another. And if they start a debate on the words that are written, “And you have loved them, as you have loved me,” and think a comparison is intended, they must think that the following also was said by way of comparison, “Be merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful.” It is also elsewhere said, “Be perfect, as my Father who is in heaven is perfect.” But if he is perfect in the fullness of his glory, we are but perfect according to the growth of virtue within us. The Son also is loved by the Father according to the fullness of a love that always remains in him, but in us growth in grace merits the love of God. You see, then, how God has given grace to humankind, and do you want to separate the natural and indivisible love of the Father and the Son? And do you still strive to make nothing of words, where you note the mention of a unity of majesty?

Mary the mother of our Lord stood before the cross of her Son. None of the Evangelists hath told me this except John. The others have related how that at our Lord's Passion the earth quaked, the heaven was overspread with darkness, the sun fled, the thief was taken into paradise after confession. John hath told us, what the others have not, how that from the cross whereon He hung, He called to His mother. He thought it a greater thing to show Him victorious over punishment, fulfilling the offices of piety to His mother, than giving the kingdom of heaven and eternal life to the thief. For if it was religious to give life to the thief, a much richer work of piety it is for a son to honour his mother with such affection. Behold, He saith, thy son; behold thy mother. Christ made His Testament from the cross, and divided the offices of piety between the Mother and the disciples. Our Lord made not only a public, but also a domestic Testamnet. And this His Testament John sealed, a witness worthy of such a Testator. A good testament it was, not of money, but of eternal life, which was not written with ink, but with the spirit of the living God: My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Ps. 45:1) Mary, as became the mother of our Lord, stood before the cross, when the Apostles fled, and with pitiful eyes beheld the wounds of her Son. For she looked not on the death of the Hostage, but on the salvation of the world; and perhaps knowing that her Son's death would bring this salvation, she who had been the habitation of the King, thought that by her death she might add to that universal gift.
But Jesus did not need any help for saving the world, as we read in the Psalm, I have been even as a man with no help, free among the dead. (Ps. 87) He received indeed the affection of a parent, but He did not seek another's help. Imitate her, ye holy matrons, who, as towards her only most beloved Son, hath set you an example of such virtue: for ye have not sweeter sons, nor did the Virgin seek consolation in again becoming a mother.

Mary, the mother of the Lord, stood by her Son’s cross. No one has taught me this but the holy Evangelist John. Others have related how the earth was shaken at the Lord’s passion, the sky was covered with darkness, the sun withdrew itself and how the thief was, after a faithful confession, received into paradise. John tells us what the others have not told, how the Lord while fixed on the cross called to his mother. He thought it was more important that, victorious over his sufferings, Jesus gave her the offices of piety than that he gave her a heavenly kingdom. For if it is the mark of religion to grant pardon to the thief, it is a mark of much greater piety that a mother is honored with such affection by her Son. “Behold,” he says, “your son.” … “Behold your mother.” Christ testified from the cross and divided the offices of piety between the mother and the disciple.…Nor was Mary below what was becoming the mother of Christ. When the apostles fled, she stood at the cross and with pious eyes beheld her Son’s wounds. For she did not look to the death of her offspring but to the salvation of the world. Or perhaps, because that “royal hall” knew that the redemption of the world would be through the death of her Son, she thought that by her death she also might add something to that universal gift. But Jesus did not need a helper for the redemption of all, who saved all without a helper. This is why he says, “I am counted among those who go down to the pit. I am like those who have no help.” He received indeed the affection of his mother but sought not another’s help. Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue. For neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

They affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth no one does him greater injury than those who choose to prune his commandments and reject the office entrusted to them. For the Lord Jesus himself said in the Gospel, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven to them, and whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” Who is it that honors him most, the one who obeys his bidding or the one who rejects it?The church holds fast its obedience on either side by both retaining and remitting sin. Heresy is on the one side cruel and on the other disobedient. It wishes to bind what it will not loosen and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be the same, and he sanctioned each by a similar condition. So whoever does not have the power to loose does not have the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord’s word, the one who has the power to bind also has the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as those who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the church; neither is allowed to heresy. For this power has been entrusted to priests alone. It is only right, therefore, that the church, which has true priests, claims it. Heresy, which does not have the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power.

There are some … who think a blessed life is impossible in this body, weak and fragile as it is. For we have to suffer pain and grief, weeping, illness—all in this body.… It is not a blessing to be in the midst of suffering. But it is a blessing to be victorious over it and not to be bullied by the power of temporal pain. Suppose that things come that are considered terrible because of the grief they cause, such as blindness, exile, hunger, violation of a daughter, loss of children. Who will deny that Isaac was blessed, who did not see in his old age, and yet gave blessings with his benediction? Was not Jacob blessed who, leaving his father’s house, endured exile as a shepherd for pay, and mourned for the violated chastity of his daughter and suffered hunger? Were they not blessed on whose good faith God received witness, as it is written: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”? A wretched thing is slavery, but Joseph was not wretched. In fact, clearly he was blessed when, while a slave, he checked the lusts of his mistress. What shall I say of holy David, who bewailed the death of three sons, and, what was even worse than this, his daughter’s incestuous connection? How could he be unblessed from whom the author of blessedness himself sprung who has made many blessed? For “blessed are they who have not seen yet have believed.” All these felt their own weakness, but they bravely prevailed over it. What can we think of as more wretched than holy Job, either in the burning of his house, or the instantaneous death of his ten sons or his bodily pains? Was he less blessed than if he had not endured those things whereby he really showed himself approved?It is true that in these sufferings there is something bitter and that we cannot use mind over matter to hide this pain. I should not deny that the sea is deep because in shore it is shallow, or that the sky is clear because sometimes it is covered with clouds, or that the earth is fruitful because in some places there is only barren ground or that the crops are rich and full because they sometimes have wild oats mingled with them. So, too, count it as true that the harvest of a happy conscience may be mingled with some bitter feelings of grief. In the sheaves of the whole of a blessed life, if by chance any misfortune or bitterness has crept in, is it not as though the wild oats were hidden or as though the bitterness of the tares was concealed by the sweet scent of the corn?