Book One: On the True Divinity of Christ (page 6)
Chapter One: the Opinion of the New Samosatans is Expounded
Chapter Two: the Opinion of the New Arians is Explained
Chapter Three: that God is One in Number is Proved from Scripture and the Fathers
Chapter Four: the Divinity of the Son of God is Established. First Class of Arguments: from both Testaments
Chapter Five: Second Class: from the Old Testament
Chapter Six: Third Class: from the New Testament
Chapter Seven: Fourth Class: from the Names of the True God
Chapter Eight: Fifth Class: from the Attributes
Chapter Nine: Sixth Class: from the Works
Chapter Ten: Seventh Class: from the Fathers
Chapter Eleven: Eighth Class: from the Sibyls
Chapter Twelve: Ninth Class: from the Divine Testimonies of Visions and Miracles
Chapter Thirteen: the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is Demonstrated
Chapter Fourteen: the First Argument of the Heretics is Dissolved
Chapter Fifteen: the Second Argument is Solved
Chapter Sixteen: the Third Argument is Solved
Chapter Seventeen: the Fourth Argument is Solved
Chapter Eighteen: the Fifth Argument is Solved
Chapter Nineteen: the Sixth Argument is Solved
Chapter Twenty: the Objections against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit are Solved
Chapter One: The Opinion of the New Samosatans is Expounded.
The author of the new Samosatans was Michael Servetus who began to be known in the year 1532, on the evidence of Surius, and in the year 1555 he was burnt at the stake in Geneva. His followers are now mainly located in Transylvania, whose chiefs are George Blandrata, who is still alive, and Franciscus David who, since he denied that Christ should be invoked or that he has care of the Church, was condemned by the prince of Transylvania to perpetual imprisonment, but a little afterwards went mad and died after two years. The opinion of the Servetians teaches three things and is put together from three ancient heresies. First, it asserts that there is no personal distinction in God, which was formerly taught by Hermogenes, Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius. Augustine mentions them all in Heresies. And then it was also taught by Paul of Samosata and by Photinus, on the evidence of Hilary in his book on Synods.
Second, it asserts that Christ before his incarnation was nothing save in the mind of God by way of Idea, which was formerly taught by Ebion and Cerinthus and by Paul of Samosata and by Photinus.
Third it asserts that divinity was communicated to Christ by God, not through eternal generation but through unction of grace and indwelling, and therefore Christ can be called God but a created and temporal God, not an eternal one. This same thing was formerly taught by Nestorius. In these matters indeed all the new Samosatans agree. They differ among themselves, however, over the invocation of Jesus Christ and are divided into three sects as it were. For Franciscus David and many of the Hungarian ministers teach that Christ is not to be invoked but only the Father who alone is true God and alone at this time takes care of the Church. The theses of Franciscus David on this matter are extant as well as his response to the reasons of Faustus Socinus who had confuted those theses. Faustus himself asserts that Christ can be invoked in prayers but yet he adds that it is a matter of greater perfection to go right to the Father. Next George Brandrata in his theses and the Polish ministers in the judgment they issued on the case of Franciscus David, teach that Jesus Christ is not only to be invoked but even should be invoked, nor is it an imperfection to have recourse to him. This dissension has happened very opportunely, not only because, as St. Hilary says, war among the heretics is peace for the Church, but also because each side has begun to be reduced to remarkable difficulties. For those who teach that Christ is to be invoked bring forward more than fifty testimonies from Scripture which they show that their adversaries are in conflict with; but those who say he is not to be invoked demonstrate with very sure reasons that their adversaries are in conflict with themselves since they do not wish to invoke the saints, because the saints are not true God
Chapter Two: the Opinion of the New Arians is Explained
As to the second, the opinion of Valentinus Gentilis and others, who were his companions or disciples, teaches three things. First, that there are three eternal spirits, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, essentials different in number. So teaches Gentilis himself and it is reported by Benedict Aretius, and it was once the opinion of the Perati, as Theodoret reports. For they said that the Trinity was three Gods, three minds, etc. It was also the opinion of John Philoponus, as is reported by the Suda and by Nicephorus who also says that Philoponus lived at the time of the Emperor Phocas about the year 504. The same thing was taught by a certain Gallus at the time of St. Anselm in the year 1090, against whom Anselm wrote his book on the Incarnation of the Word. The same seems also to have been taught by Abbot Joachim in 1190, for he asserted that the three persons were not one thing or one essence in number but only by collection, the way many faithful are said to be one Church. The thing is plain from the Lateran Council under Innocent III. Add last to these the Luxemburgians, on the authority of Bernard, and add also Raymond Lull in the year 1260, who taught that the three persons were three essences.
Secondly, Gentilis and his companions taught that these three persons are not equal but that the Father is far superior to the others, so that he should be called the ‘essen-‐cer’ and the other two the ‘essen-‐ted’. So Gentilis says that it is proper to the Father to be called the one and only God. Therefore the new Tritheists have already fallen away from Philoponus to Arius. For Arius was the first to teach that the Son was lesser than the Father, on the evidence of Epiphanius. Arius arose about the year 324, on the evidence of Theodoret.
Third they taught that the Son of God is not from nothing nor generated in time but from eternity, and from the substance of the Father. This opinion was that of the later Arians, for, as Augustine says, the later Arians conceded that the Son was eternal although Arius thought the opposite. Hence even Maximus, in Augustine, confesses that the Son is not from nothing but generated from the substance of the Father, according to the Council of Rimini. It will perhaps not be out of place to quote here some of the theses of Valentinus Gentilis so that the reader may more certainly know the opinion of the new Arians from their own words. “Thesis six: The Father is not an hypostasis or person in the one God but, on the evidence of the Apostle, he is the one God from whom are all things. Only the Father is the one God, that is, without principle or origin. Thesis eight: Only the Father is from himself, that is, essenc-‐ed from no higher divinity, but is God of himself. Thesis nine: He who distinguishes the one God into three properties or persons is either engaging in sleight of hand or is necessarily dividing and cutting up the substance of the one God. God had the power of generating or propagating because he wanted to; and therefore he generated the Word before time and propagated the Spirit. Thesis eleven: The eternal substance of the Word has principle and origin from God, insofar as he is generated and distinct, not insofar as he is, for he is not created from nothing or made from any non-‐existent matter but generated from the immense substance of the supreme God. Thesis twenty: The generated differs in number from the substantial generator, not in power, opinion, or diversity of nature. Thesis twenty one: The one God and his Word are two intelligents of the same substance of nature, that is, two eternal consubstantial 8 spirits, distinct in fitting degree, order, and property. Thesis twenty two: There cannot be several spirits of the immense substance. Thesis twenty four: Only the Father is ungenerated spirit, author of the universe, and of immense substance; but the Son is the spirit ineffably generated from God, executor of the paternal will, and by the manner of his generation describable as generated. Thesis thirty three: The confusion of the three into one and the same spirit in number was the foundation and origin of all errors.”
Chapter Three: That God is One in Number is Proved from Scripture and the Fathers.
The numerical unity of God is proved first from the Scriptures, in the law, Deuteronomy 4: “The Lord,” says Moses, “is God himself and there is no other beside him.” And a little later, “Know therefore today and think it in your heart that the Lord is God above and on earth below and there is no other.” Ch.6, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” And ch.32: “See that I alone am and there is no other beside me.” Nor can these words be referred to specific unity, for he who speaks in the Scriptures is not a universal God nor the species itself of God, but is a certain singular God, as is plain, since only singulars exist in reality and speak and act. But a singular God is saying falsely that he is one God alone and besides him there is no other if there are other individuals of the same species. For neither could Adam, after he generates children, truly say, ‘I alone am man and beside me there is no other etc.’
The same is proved from the historical books, I Kings ch.2, “There is none holy as the Lord is, for neither is there another beside you,” III Kings ch.8, “There is neither in heaven above nor on earth below a God like the God of Israel.” But how does the God of Israel not have a similar if there are two other individuals in the same species?
The same is proved from Psalm 17, “Who is God besides the Lord, or who is God besides our God?” Psalm 82, “You alone are most high in all the earth,” Psalm 85, “You are God alone.”
The same from the wisdom books, Wisdom ch.12, “There is no other God than you.” Ecclesiastes ch. 1, “The Most High is one.”
The same is plain from Matthew ch.4, “You will worship the Lord your God and him only will you serve.” Ch.12, “God is one and there is no other beside him.” John ch.17, “That they may know that you alone are God.” For the sense is, you have deity, which alone is true deity, therefore no other deity will be found.
Finally from I Corinthians ch.8, “We know that there is no God but one.” Again ibid. “Our God is one.” Galatians ch.5, “A mediator is not of one, but God is one.” Ephesians ch.4, “One God and father of all.” I Timothy ch.2, “One God and mediator of God and men.” Ibid. ch.6, “Who alone is the mighty King of kings and Lord of lords.”
So from these all and singly it is plainly gathered that God is one in number not one in species, and it can be understood from like passages. For we would not rightly say of some one man that he alone is true man and beside him there is no man, or that he is man and no other; the reason for which can only be that human nature is not in one individual alone but in many. But most rightly of the sun, for which there is only one individual, do we say that it alone is true sun, there is one sun in the world, besides it there is no sun, etc. 9
Secondly it is proved from the Fathers. And firstly all the Fathers everywhere say that God is one, as Justin, Augustine, and others. And of this there is no doubt; but because the heretics could reply that the Fathers, when they say that God is one, are speaking of specific unity, not numerical, therefore we will show from many places from the doctrine of the Fathers that God is one in number.
First if there were many divine individuals, as the heretics wish, then they could indeed be called one God, that is one in divine species, as Porphyry says that many men are one man, that is, one human species, and it could not be denied but that many Gods could also be spoken of, as we say rightly that Adam, Cain, and Abel are three men. But the Fathers always deny that the three persons are three Gods; therefore they mean that God is one in number.
That they do so deny is plain from Athanasius’ creed, “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; and yet not three Gods but one God.” Cyril on John, “there is the same substance of deity, therefore we preach not three Gods but one.” Basil wrote an oration against those who tell the slander that we say there are three Gods. Gregory of Nyssa wrote a book to Ablabius that one should not say three Gods. Augustine says, “Hold with the Catholic faith that the Father is not who the Son is, and the Son is not who the Father is. But God is Father and God is Son; however both together are not two Gods but one.” And in the same place he says that the Arians did not dare to say there were two Gods, though they thought this; “But,” he says, “although you do not deny that two Gods are worshipped by you, yet you do not dare to confess it. For you realized that Christian ears could not bear to hear that two Gods are to be worshipped.” But why can Christian ears not bear it if there are truly two Gods in number? Ambrose, “God is in God, but there are not two Gods.” And he often repeats that the divinity of the Father and Son is altogether the same, and he adds that nature itself proclaims that God is one as the world is one. Like things will be found in all the Fathers.
Secondly, the Fathers deny that number is found in Divinity, but they only admit number in personal properties. But certainly it would be false that Divinity cannot be numbered if Divinity were not one in number. Gregory of Nazianzen says, “These three are one if you regard Divinity; and the one is three if you have the idea of the properties.” Fulgentius says, “Trinity is referred to the persons, unity to the nature.” Certainly this Trinity is numerical, not specific, even according to the adversaries; therefore it is opposed to numerical unity. Athansius in his creed, “But this is the Catholic faith, that we venerate Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.” And at once he explains that the Trinity is of the persons but Unity of the divinity. Basil says that all number is to be rejected from the essence of God. Where however note that when he says God is not one in number he means to say that God is not composite so as to contain in himself a true number consisting of many units. Gregory of Nyssa says, “To extend the number of Deities to a multitude is done only by those who labor under the error of a multitude of Gods.” Ambrose, “Unity of power excludes quantity of number, because unity is not a number.” Hormisdas says, “Although the idea of persons admits of number, yet unity does not admit a separation of essence.” The Council of Toledo, “In the relations of persons number is seen, but in the substance of divinity is not understood anything that is numbered.” Anastasius of Antioch says, “We assert a Trinity of persons not of essences, for we 10 glorify one God, not in number of persons, but in nature; for what is of God is altogether one in number.” And later, “Therefore the Holy Trinity is in essence indeed one God, but in number a Trinity.”
Third, the Fathers often say God is singular or that his nature is individual. Justin, proving “from the poets of the gentiles” that there is one God, says, “first Aeschylus pronounces a word about the singular God.” And in the very title of his book on the Monarchy of God Justin sufficiently shows that he acknowledges one singular God. For monarchy cannot be said of the rule of many of the same species, but only of one singular. Again Athenagoras says, “But since reason and our profession celebrates God singular and one;” Gregory Nazianzen says, “the nature of the supreme God is individual.” Augustine says, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one because of the same individual nature.” Ambrose says, “Since the Lord pours out rain from the Lord, acknowledge the unity of divinity; for unity of operation does not make for plural divinity.” Fourth the Fathers not seldom deny that God is one in species. Cyril, after saying that the Apostles are consubstantial among themselves and likewise that the Father and Son are, adds, “although the consubstantiality is not said in the same way of us and of the Father and the Son.” But about us consubstantiality is said specifically truly and properly. Therefore it is not said specifically but numerically of the divine persons. Augustine asks whether the divine essence is genus or species, and he denies both; and that for two reasons.
The first reason is that although a genus, as animal, is divided into species, as man, horse, lion, and although a species, as man, is divided into individuals, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all other singular men, yet one man and one animal are singular and cannot be divided into lower groupings; but the essence of God is said to be one essence, and God is said to be one God. Therefore God is not divided through several individuals.
The second reason is that three men are worth more than two and two than one, but three persons in God are not more than two persons or than one; therefore the three persons are not three Gods of the same species.
Third, the Fathers say that it is an ineffable mystery how three persons are one God; but if God were one in species, there would be no mystery. Gregory Nazianzen tries to show by many likenesses how a single and simple nature is common to three. Would there be any question if the divine nature was one in species? He says again, “But hold now to teaching Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, whose division and union is plainly admirable.” Augustine says, “the ineffable and exalted union of the Trinity shows one God, one Lord.” Again elsewhere after long disputing how three persons are one essence and removing all likenesses he concludes, “if it cannot be grasped by the intellect, hold it by faith.” Sixth the Fathers, as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose say that Sabellius belongs to the Jews and Arius to the pagans, but the Church holds a middle way, namely that it believes neither one person with the Jews nor many natures with the Gentiles. But the Church will not truly hold the middle if it multiplies the divine nature, for thus it will have nothing in common with the Jews and will plainly agree with the Gentiles, most of whom worship Gods of the same species, as Jove, Mars, Mercury etc.
Add that the Fathers teach that the Gentiles, although they worship many Gods in public practice, yet could have naturally recognized the one God, just as in fact the philosophers recognized one God, and to this extent were naturally Christians. But if the Fathers spoke of one God not in number but in species they would say nothing. For the vulgar crowd made the heavenly Gods to be not only of the same species but also of the same family. Hence comes that often repeated remark of Virgil, taken from Homer, “Father of Gods and men, etc.”
This is plain first from the many and very clear testimonies of the old poets, from which Justin composed his book on the Monarchy of God, and he says in his Apology that Socrates and Plato were to this extent Christians. Athenagoras shows the same, also adducing many testimonies of the old pagans. Irenaeus says that all can naturally recognize that there is one God. Tertullian says that even the worshippers of idols, when they are in difficulty, raise their eyes to heaven and, forgetting the Gods, naturally call upon the one God. The same is taught by Cyprian, and by Arnobius who says, “Give a true judgment and he who observes all these things we see will doubt rather whether the other Gods exist than be driven to the God whom we all naturally know to exist either when we exclaim ‘O God’ or when we bring God to witness against the wicked and, as if he sees us, we raise our face to heaven.” And elsewhere he says that many Greeks and Latins among the Gentiles rejected a multitude of Gods, and among these Cicero very effectively demonstrated in his book on the Nature of the Gods that there cannot be many Gods, so that there were not lacking some who thought that the book should be banned by senatorial decree. Lactantius says that there is no one who, if he consults reason, does not understand there is one God, and he proves it from Plato and from other philosophers. See similar things in Clement, Eusebius, Theodoret. Finally Orosius says that it is the common opinion of the wise that there is only one true God, but that the rest that are called Gods are nothing save servants and ministers of that one God; and the same is written by Prudentius in one of his hymns, “Consider the madnesses of bearded Plato, consider the hirsute Cynics, the cycles in twisting circles that Aristotle fancies and strings together. Although the doubtful labyrinth and surrounding error drives them all, although they themselves are wont to offer a cock or hen in sacrifice, so that the medical God may deign to give justice when they die, yet when they come to the norm of reason and art, their clouded sense and arguments of broken knots come to the conclusion that there is one God.”
Third, the same is proved by reason. The first reason is that he is the supreme being, as is plain from Exodus ch.3, “I am who am.” Therefore God is supremely one. For one is a property of being and therefore the more something is a being the more too is it one. Again, the more perfectly something has being the further it is from non-‐being, and therefore from division, which is the way to non-‐ being; therefore God is one, not in species, but in number. For that unity is greatest which is not a unity with a second divisible thing.
The second reason is that God is his own being, as is plain from the same passage of Exodus, “I am who am.” First because God, by the agreement of all, lacks all composition, and therefore in God being and essence are the same, therefore the nature of God is not multipliable or divisible into many individuals; for the proper being of one thing cannot be in any way divided so as to belong to many; but the 12 being of this God is the very essence of God, and so neither is the essence of God in any way divisible among many.
You will say that by this argument is only proved that the essence of this God cannot be multiplied, but not the essence of God in general.
I reply that it is also proved of the essence of God in general. Note therefore that being or existence is not something that can be abstracted from logical subordinates, as nature can, nor is it anything determinable by differences nor does it determine as a difference does. From which it follows that in creatures, where being and essence are not altogether the same, one of them can be multiplied without the other; for the common nature can be abstracted from singulars while the singulars each remain in their singular existence. But in God, where being and essence are altogether the same, as it is proper to this God to be this God, so is being God proper to him, nor can a common nature be abstracted.
Third, God is most high, as the Scriptures everywhere teach, as Psalm 82, “You alone are most high,” and Ecclesiastes ch.1, “The most high is one.” Therefore he is only one; for if there were several they would be equally high and so none would be above all; or one would be higher than the rest, and thus it alone would be the one true God.
Fourth, God is the final end of all things, Proverbs ch.16, “The most high made all things for himself,” Apocalypse ch.1, “I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.” Therefore there is only one God. For if there were several Gods either they would all be related to one and this alone would be true God, or they would not be and then there would be no final end of all things.
Fifth, God is infinite in essence, power, wisdom, etc. Therefore he is one in number, for the infinite comprehends all things, Psalm 144, “And of his greatness there is no number.”
Sixth, if there were several Gods either they are all without beginning or one is from another. The first is impossible because then there would be many disparate first principles and they would draw the world apart in different directions, at least because they would not necessarily agree in one and the same will, but one of them could will one thing and another another. Hence even the heathens called Jove the parent of the Gods. But if one of them is from another then either by creation or generation. If by creation, then the second of the two is a creature. Therefore it is not God. And hence it is that the recent Arians and Tritheists do not say that the Son is created, since they want him to be God. Although in fact they are in conflict with themselves, since they make him uncreated God and yet want him to be a God other than the true God.
If by generation then either the whole substance is given or a part; if a part then God is divisible, if the whole then they have a deity the same in number.
Seventh, God is ruler of the world, Wisdom ch14, “But you, Father, rule all things by your prudence.” But simple monarchy is the best regime, when a good and wise prince can be found, as is plain from the consent of all; the same is taught by Christians, as by Justin, and Cyprian who proves that God is one by this argument, that monarchy is the best regime, and by Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory. 13
And by the Jews, as Philo, and by the Gentiles, as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Homer, Isocrates, Nicocles, Herodotus, John Stobaeus who adduces many others. Therefore God is a monarch, that is, one and supreme Prince of all created things; and therefore the true God is one and sole.
And by these things must certain places of the Fathers be understood that otherwise seem rather hard. For Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and sometimes others compare the three divine persons to three men or three angels. But they mean to teach nothing other than that there are three true supposits or persons of the same nature. Further, that the identity of nature in the three persons is far greater than in three men or three angels those Fathers never deny though they do not always say it, and elsewhere they do say it, as we showed above.
Chapter Four: the Divinity of the Son of God is Established
As to the fourth point, one must prove that the Son of God is true God, and is therefore one God in number with the Father. For no one denies that the Father is true God, and the thing is plain from John ch.17, “so that they may know you the only true God.” Now this point must be very diligently proved, for it is denied at this time both by the new Arians and by the new Samosatans, and further by all the Jews and Mohamedans. We propose nine classes of arguments. First from the Old and New Testaments. Second from the Old Testament. Third from the New Testament. Fourth from the names of God. Fifth from the works. Sixth from the attributes. Seventh from the Fathers. Eighth from the Sibyls. Ninth from the miracles.
First Class of Arguments: from both Testaments
First we will bring forward testimonies that are contained in the Old Testament about the sole and true God of Israel and that are expounded in the New Testament of Christ; to which argument no solution can be made up. Numbers ch.21, Moses said, “the people say against the Lord and Moses, ‘why have you led us out of Egypt etc.? Wherefore has the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people etc.?’” Here by the consent of all the true and supreme God, whom only the Jews knew, is being dealt with. But the Servetians and Gentilians hold as an axiom that the God of Israel is the true God and is the only Father. But in I Corinthians ch.10 Paul says that this very God is Christ, “Let us,” he says, “not tempt Christ as some of them tempted him and were destroyed by serpents.” Therefore it is necessary that Christ is true God and altogether one God with the Father. The second place is Exodus ch.20 and the epistle of Jude. For in Exodus it is said, “I am the Lord your God, who led you out of the land of Egypt;” and Deuteronomy ch.32, “the Lord alone was his God, and there was no foreign God with him.” But Jude says, “Jesus, in saving the people from Egypt, then secondly destroyed those who did not believe, but the angels etc.” Bede on this place also noted this argument. The third place is Psalm 67 where it is said of the God of Israel, “the chariot of God is a thousand times a thousand of presences, the Lord in them, in Sinai in the holy place, ascended on high, took captivity captive, received gives among men.” And this Paul attributed to Christ Ephesians ch.4, “To each of us,” he said, “is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ, because of what is said: ‘ascending on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men’.” The fourth and fifth place are Psalm 96, “All his angels worship the Lord,” and Psalm 101, “You Lord founded the earth at the beginning, and the heavens are the works of your hand; they will perish but you will remain etc.” Both places Paul applies to Christ in Hebrews ch.1, where he proves Christ is greater than the angels, because according to Psalm 96 the angels are held to worship Christ, and according to Psalm 101 Christ is said to be the creator of heaven and earth, which in no way belongs to angels. The sixth place is Isaiah ch.6, “I saw the Lord sitting on a high and elevated throne and what was under him filled the temple. Seraphim were standing over him, six wings to one and six wings to another, with two they veiled his face and with two they veiled his feet, and with two they flew, and they called one to another, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabaoth, the earth is full of his glory.” And later, “And the Lord said to me, say to this people, blind their eyes and make their heart heavy etc.” The majesty of the supreme God could not be more clearly described. And although the adversaries attribute this to the Father alone, yet John ch.11 expounds it of Christ. For after he has quoted the words of Isaiah ch.6, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes etc.” he subjoins, “These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory and spoke of him.” Wherefore the same John in the Apocalypse ch.4 says he heard them exclaiming, “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty, who was and who is to come.” But who is to come but Christ? The seventh place is Isaiah ch.8, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts, he is your fear, and he is your terror; and he will be to you for sanctification; but for a stone of offense and a rock of scandal to the two houses of Israel, for a snare and a ruin to the inhabitants of Israel, and many will offend and fall and be trodden down.” Here most openly, even by the confession of all the Jews, is the supreme God and Lord of hosts called for some sanctification, for some a stone of offense, a rock of scandal, a snare and a ruin. But this very thing is attributed to Christ by Luke, Peter, Paul, for in Luke ch.2 Simeon says of Christ, “he is set for the ruin and rise of many.” And Romans ch.9, “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles who did not pursue justice have attained justice, but the justice that is of faith. But Israel by following the law of justice did not reach the law of justice. Why? Because not from faith, but as if were from works. For they offended on the stone of offense, as it is written: ‘Behold I place in Zion a stone of offense and a rock of scandal.” I Peter ch.2, “Honor to you who believe, but a stone of offense and a rock of scandal to those who do not believe.” The eighth place is Isaiah ch.40, “A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, make right in the desert the paths of our God.” These things are said of the God of Israel by Isaiah. For the Jews did not call any other Lord and God absolutely their Lord and God but the one true God, and especially so did the Prophets and other holy men; and yet this voice is John who prepared the way of Christ, as is testified by all the Evangelists. Therefore Christ is the Lord and God of Israel, whom the adversaries make to be the Father alone.
The ninth place is from Isaiah ch.45, “I am God and there is no other, I have sworn on myself, because every nation will bow to me their knee.” Romans ch.14, “We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, ‘I live, says the Lord, because every nation will bow to me their knee.” You see how, on the evidence of the Apostle, Christ is the God besides whom there is no other God. The tenth place is Isaiah chs.41, 44, 48, “I am the first; I am the last.” These things are said everywhere of the God of Israel. In Apocalypse ch.1, “I am the alpha and the omega.” And later, “I am the first and the last and alive and was dead, etc.” The eleventh place is Malachi ch.1, “Behold I send my angel and he will prepare the way before my face.” Here too the God of Israel speaks. For all the codices, Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, Latin, have “before my face.” And yet Christ himself in Matthew ch.11 says that this angel is John the Baptist, who prepared the way before the face of Christ. And in Luke ch.1 Zachariah says, “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.” What is clearer? Since for whom did John prepare the way but Christ? But it will be worthwhile to see what the adversaries respond. For although they do not respond to them all, yet they have tried to reply to some. So the Transylvanians generally respond that what is said of God can be expounded of Christ, because God has communicated his deity to Christ. Then in particular: To the first they reply that the sense is, Let us not tempt our Christ as they tempted their God. Or let us not tempt Christ in fact as they tempted the same Christ in figure. For in the same place it is said, “All things happened to them in figure.” To the second I have not seen a response. To the third Franciscus David and Blandrata respond that those words (“ascending on high”) are a prophecy about the future Christ, but this is not said of the God of Israel. To the fourth Franciscus David and Blandrata respond that Christ is to be adored, because God has ordered it, not however as the most high but as the Son of the most high. To the fifth the Transylvanian ministers and Franciscus David respond that those words (“and you Lord founded the earth at the beginning”) should be understood of the Father alone, even for the Hebrews at the first; for Paul wished to show that Christ is the Son of the true God, and therefore he made an address to the Father by saying, “and you Lord etc.” And they prove this because otherwise Paul would be in conflict first with the Apostles’ Creed, where the Father alone is called creator of heaven and earth; second he would be in conflict with Christ, who very often calls his Father the creator of heaven and earth, Matthew ch.11, “I confess to you, Father of heaven and earth, etc.”; third because he would be in conflict with himself, because he already said the world was made through the Son, therefore the Son did not make heaven but the Father did through the Son; fourth because he would ineptly compare the Son with the angels if the Son were the creator, since between creator and creature there is no comparison. To the sixth, from Isaiah ch.6 and John ch.12, a certain Basil responds that this was a vision in figure. For no one has even see God as he is himselft, and therefore nothing is thereby proved.
To the ninth Franciscus David insinuates a solution when he says that every nation will bow the knee to Christ, not because the most high God speaks in Isaiah ch.45, but because God has exalted the man Christ and given him the name that is above every name, Philippians ch.2, that is, the name Jehovah, and that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend. To the tenth from the words, “I am the first and the last,” Franciscus David responds that the words are not taken in the same way when they are said of God in Isaiah ch.48 and when they are said of Christ in the Apocalypse ch.1. For in the Apocalypse they are understood of the man Christ, because of the words that follow “and I was dead etc.” Therefore Christ is called first because he is exalted above all things; last because he is the completion of the works of God. But all these things are easily refuted. And first the reason that what is said of the God of Israel in the Old Testament is said of Christ cannot be that the God of Israel communicated his divinity to Christ. For if, as they say, Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary, and thus God made Christ to be God in time, then what is said of God cannot be accommodated to Christ before that time. But Paul says in I Corinthians ch.10 that Christ was tempted by the Jews in the wilderness when they returned from Egypt. Further, I ask how God gave divinity to Christ. For he did not give it by generating him from eternity. For that they deny, but he gave it, as they say, by indwelling and nourishing; but in this way God gives his divinity to angels and men, and yet what is said of God in the Scriptures cannot be expounded of them Besides, the indwelling of God in Christ cannot make Christ God; otherwise even a royal palace would be a king. But unction does not give that true divinity, but a certain created participation, as is known; therefore what is said of the one and sole true God of Israel cannot be attributed to him who is only God by unction. Nor is the solution of the first place valid, for Paul refers their tempting and ours to the same Christ; we cannot therefore distinguish and say that they tempted God and we Christ. And what they about figure is nothing. For the figures of the Old Testament are true histories literally, although they signify something else in addition, as is plain from the whole of chapter 10 of Corinthians. For the children of Israel are said to have fornicated and worshipped idols, and for that reason they were punished in various ways by God, and in all these things they bore the figure of the Christian people who will be likewise punished if they do like sins, but certainly and properly to the letter the Jews fornicated and worshipped idols and were punished; therefore also properly and to the letter one must understand that they tempted Christ. Add that the Transylvanians only flee to figures for this reason, that they not be compelled to admit that Christ existed before he was born of the Virgin. But Paul in the same place very clearly says that along with Moses Christ (as God, namely, not as man) was present to the Jews in the wilderness. “They drank,” he says, “of the spiritual rock that followed them; but that rock was Christ,” that is, the Jews in the wilderness drank water from the rock, but it was not the material rock which of its own power provided drink, but it was some other invisible and spiritual rock that was always with them and accompanied them and provided all things for them; but that rock was Christ; and so do all expound, nor can any other sense be easily thought up.
The solution of the third place has no validity. For David too in Psalm 67 prophesies the future ascension of Christ; and yet he says of the same Christ there that he descended formerly on mount Sinai and passed with the people through the wilderness and other things that cannot fit someone who did not exist before his incarnation. Hence rightly do Jerome and Theodoret say when expounding this place that David wanted to signify that he who formerly descended on mount Sinai in the presence of the Jews is one and the same as he who afterwards ascended to heaven in the presence of the Apostles. The solution of the fourth place is not solid, because we do not argue from adoration but from the fact that Paul said that what is clearly written in Psalm 96 of the God of Israel is written of Christ. For we do not reason that because Christ is commanded to be adored by the angels therefore he is true God (although this argument too is a good one and is used by St. Paul), but our argument is as follows: David says in Psalm 96 that the God of Israel should be adored by the angels; but Paul affirms that Christ is he who ought, by the sentence of David, to be adored by the angels; therefore David, on the evidence of Paul, asserts that Christ is the God of Israel. The solution of the fifth place is a mere corruption of Scripture; for Paul does not make an address to the Father but cites various places about Christ, and this place among others, as is plain from the conjunctive particle ‘and’. “To the angels he says, ‘Who makes angels his spirits and his ministers a flame of fire’, but to the Son he says, ‘Your throne, God, is for ever and ever, and you Lord founded the earth at the beginning’ etc.” But the reasonings of the Transylvanians are very slight, and it is a wonder they were not refuted by Peter Melius. To the first and second I say that the Father of Christ is creator, but not without his Word, since just as he is one God along with him so is he also one creator. To the third I say that being creator and being him through whom God the Father creates are not in conflict. For the same Christ said in John ch.5, “My Father works and I work;” and yet he also says in John ch.14, “the Father who is in me himself does the works.” Therefore both create, because both have omnipotence in themselves and the same omnipotence; but the Father is said to create through the Son and not the Son through the Father, because God created the world by his power and wisdom, but the Son is called the “power and wisdom of God” by Paul in I Corinthians ch.1, and “the arm of the Lord” from Isaiah ch.53. The solution of the sixth place has no validity, because although Isaiah did not see the essence of God, yet the appearance that he did see represented the God of Israel; and since John says that Christ is shown in that appearance, it follows that Christ is the God of Israel. The solution of the ninth place is no solution, because Paul in Romans ch.14 says not only that all knows must bow to Christ, as he says in Philippians ch.2, but he adds that it is written down, and he cites the place of Isaiah where the God of Israel speaks about himself. From which it is very clearly plain that Christ is the very God of Israel. Nor is that an objection which is said in Philippians ch.2, “He gave him a name which is above every name,” for according to the commentary of Ambrose God gave the Son a name above every name by eternal generation; according to all 18 others he gave to the man Christ after his resurrection a name above every name, that is, the name of the true God, not because he did not have it before but because he was not recognized; but God so glorified him that the whole world knew that that crucified man is true God. And that this place should be understood of the manifestation of the name is plain, because Christ asked for it, John ch.17, “Father glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world came to be.” Besides in Philippians ch.2 the point is explained when it is said, “And every tongue may confess etc.” Lastly even before his death Christ is called the Son of the living God, Matthew ch.16 and John ch.11, and everywhere he is called Lord, John ch.13, “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.” It was not the name then of Son of God or Lord that he acquired because of his death but the manifestation of it. See Cyril who excellently treats of this place. The solution of the tenth place is like the preceding ones. For the words in the Apocalypse “I am the first and the last” should not for this reason be taken otherwise than in Isaiah, that it is said in the Apocalypse “and I was dead,” but we contend this, that he who was dead in the form of man is also true God, eternal, first and last, in the form of God, as Isaiah said; for John looked back to the words of Isaiah. Besides, Christ is called absolutely first and last, as the letters alpha and omega are absolutely first and last. But if Christ is only first among creatures and the completion of the works of God, he will not be simply first and last but only in a certain respect. For God alone is simply first beginning and last end of all things.
Chapter Five: Second Class: from the Old Testament
The first place is Psalm 2, which psalm is understood of Christ, both because Rabbi Solomon and the other Rabbis expound it of the Messiah, and also because it is understood of Christ in Acts chs.4 and 13 and Hebrews ch.1, and certainly Paul in Hebrews would not adduce from this psalm an argument against the Hebrews unless he knew the Hebrews were wont to understand this psalm of Christ. In this psalm therefore is said, “You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” And lest we think the Messiah is Son of God by adoption, the way even Israel is said to be God’s first born, there is subjoined, “And now kings understand, be wise you who judge the earth, learn discipline etc.” Note here that in the Hebrew source, which the adversaries always demand, it says “kiss the Son”, that is, kiss the hand or foot of the Son in sign of submission.
Nor is it an obstacle that the Septuagint translates “learn discipline”, for it has respect to the sense not to the words; for then do we truly adore Christ when we receive his doctrine. Note further in the following words “lest the Lord be angered” that in the Hebrew there is not ‘Lord’ but the words are referred to the Son, “lest the Son be greatly angered.” From which we understand that the word ‘Lord’, added by the Septuagint, is to be referred to the Son; from which too is necessarily understood what follows, “Since his anger burns in a moment, blessed are all who trust in him.” Hence there is now an argument that the Messiah is the Son of God, to be adored by all kings; all will utterly perish against whom he is angered, and they will be blessed who trust in him; therefore the Messiah is true God. For only the true God 19 has the empire of life and death, I Kings ch.2. Again in the Scriptures it is everywhere said that one should trust in the sole true God, as Jeremiah ch.17, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man,” and later, “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.” The second place is Isaiah ch.48, “Hear me, Jacob and Israel, whom I call. I am he, and I am first and I am last; my hand too founded the earth, my right hand measured the heavens.” And later, “Come to me and hear this; I did not speak from the beginning in the dark; from the time before they came to be I was there, and now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.” It is certain that the one sent is not the Father, both because the Father does not have one from whom he could be sent, and also because the Son testifies that he was sent by the Father, John ch.8, and by the Holy Spirit, Luke ch.4. And yet we see that the one sent is the Lord God who made heaven and earth, and who is first and last. Franciscus David responds to this place, which a certain Paul Thurius had raised in objection to him, and argues that the words, “and now the Lord God has sent me,” were said by the prophet about himself, and this explanation was taken from Vatablus, and Vatablus took it from the Rabbis. Franciscus David gives as proof of his opinion, first, that if this place were understood of Christ, Christ would have existed before the incarnation. But I John ch.4 says that it is the spirit of Antichrist who asserts that Christ was outside and before the flesh. Second, that Paul says in Hebrews ch.1 that God spoke last of all in the Son. In this place of Isaiah then it is not Christ who speaks; for he says he has spoken from the beginning. Third, the “I was there” is wont to be expounded by Catholics of mount Sinai. But in Galatians ch.3 it is said that the law was given on mount Sinai through angels, not through Christ. But these reasons prove nothing, and it is remarkable that Paul Thurius could not have refuted them. To the first, John does not say that Christ did not exist before the flesh, but that he who denies the incarnation of Christ is Antichrist, as Ebion and Cherinthus did at the time, and as now the Transylvanians do. For these are the words of John, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that dissolves Christ is not of God, and this is Antichrist.” But what is it to dissolve Christ save to divide the Word from the flesh and to say that the Son of God did not truly become Son of man but only dwelled in him as in a temple? And what is it for Jesus to have come in the flesh but that the Word of God has assumed true flesh in the unity of his hypostasis, and that, as thus made men, he came to men? To the second, Paul does not deny that the Word of God spoke before his incarnation, but he only says that God spoke in the last time by corporal mouth and voice through the incarnate Son, who formerly spoke through the mouths of the prophets. To the third I say that the law was given at Sinai by God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but by the ministry of angels. And that Isaiah is speaking literally of Christ is plain first from the Fathers; for we have in the first place the consent of the Fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Cyril, Augustine. Besides, the text itself proclaims it: “From the time before they were, I was there, and now the Lord God has sent me,” in the Hebrew it says “from the time of 20 being this, I am there, and now the Lord God has sent me,” that is, when they came to be, I was there; and the Septuagint translates as “even before the time of being this,” that is, as Jerome translates, “before it came to be, I was there.” But what is this “being this”? Some expound it of the heaven and earth, as Jerome does, and then the sense is, before they came to be, or, when the earth and heaven came to be, I was there. And this certainly cannot be true of the prophet. Others understand by the ‘this’ the law given at Sinai; and this too is not true of the prophet in his own person, since he was born many centuries after the giving of the law, not to say after the creation of heaven and earth. So these two explanations favor us most of all. Others expound it of this prophecy, and the sense is, when this prophecy came to be, I was there. But this is ridiculous; for who is not there when he speaks? Some could expound it of the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, for Isaiah was speaking of this matter a little earlier; but Isaiah was not there, that is, in Babylon when this happened; rather Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus 200 years after the death of Isaiah; and yet here he is speaking of a thing already done when he says, ‘when this came to be, or before this came to be’. It remains only for them to say that the prophet suddenly changes person, and although he had said in the person of God ‘before it came to be, I was there’, now he says in his own person ‘Now the Lord God has sent me’; but the copula ‘and’, which is in the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, stands in the way. For the copula requires us to understand everything of the same subject. For he who said ‘before it came to be, I was there’ subjoins ‘and now the Lord has sent me’. Otherwise, if it is permitted to change persons without reason, nothing certain could ever be gathered from the divine letters. The third place is from Isaiah ch.35, “God himself will come and will save us; then he will open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf will hear; then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongues of the dumb will be loosed.” It is plain this place is understood of Christ. First because the Lord in Matthew ch.11 responds to the disciples of John, “Go and tell John etc. the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, etc.” Second, because God never did these signs through any prophet. For those who performed miracles in the time of the Old Testament are Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah himself. But none of them cured the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, which are the signs Isaiah mentioned and that Christ everywhere did. Besides Isaiah is speaking of a future time; “God himself,” he says, “will come etc.”, but all those prophets who performed certain signs lived before the times of Isaiah. Hence the Lord says in John ch.15, “If I have not done the works that no other did etc.” Third, because the Fathers expound it thus, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Augustine, Athanasius. But that the Lord God, who is under discussion here, is the God of Israel is plain, because the prophet says absolutely that God himself will come, for the prophets never call Gods absolutely the Gods that are false and metaphorical; and above all the pronoun ‘himself’ indicates that the true God, and not some minister in his place, will come. The fourth place is Isaiah ch.52, “The Lord says, ‘my name is blasphemed continually all day, because of this my people will know my name in that day, 21 because, behold, I myself who was speaking am present’.” But it is certain that he who is speaking at the beginning is the Lord God, for he uses the ineffable name and complains that his name is blasphemed; and he names himself the God of Israel and calls the Jews his people; and then he says that he is the one who spoke through the prophets; all which things belong to the one true God. But the proof that he is Christ is that he says, “I myself who was speaking am present.” For when, I ask, was he who spoke formerly through the prophets present so that he should speak through himself, if not when Christ was born? Hence rightly is this prophecy read on the night of the feast of the birth of the Lord, and everything that follows coheres remarkably therewith. For the prophet, as if he saw Christ already walking the mountains of Judea and evangelizing, at once subjoins, “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who preaches peace, who preaches good?” Again, “they will see eye to eye.” And later, explaining the fruit of this coming, “the Lord has consoled his people, redeemed Jerusalem, prepared his holy arm in the eyes of all nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God.” And later, “The Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will gather you.” Lastly, thus is it expounded by the Fathers, Tertullian, Eusebius, Ambrose, Jerome, Cyril. The fifth place is Isaiah ch.45, “These things says the Lord, the labor of Egypt, the business of Ethiopia and Sabais, sublime men will pass over to you and will be yours; they will walk after you, they will march bound in manacles, and will adore you and will entreat you, ‘only in you is God and God is not without you. Truly you are a hidden God, God savior of Israel’.” These things are so manifestly said by the Lord God of his to be incarnated Son that Jerome writes on this place that there is no escape from the snares of this testimony. For although earlier it was speaking of Cyrus, yet because the words “God is not without you” do not agree with Cyrus, either these things are said of Cyrus as he is a reference to Christ or are said simply of Christ; nor can they be understood of the Father, since it is the Father himself who says about another person, “they will adore you and will entreat you.” And he subjoins the words of the entreaters, “only in you is God and God is not without you.” Add that it would not rightly be said to the Father ‘in you is God’. But all these things very correctly belong to Christ; for God is in him, since his humanity is as it were the temple of divinity; and without him there is no God, because he himself alone with the Father and Holy Spirit is true God. The sixth place is Baruch ch.2, “He is our God, and another will not be compared with him; he has found out every way of discipline and given it to Jacob his beloved; after this he was seen on earth and conversed with men.” Here the God of Israel is very clearly being dealt with, who alone does not have a like, and who, after he gave discipline to Israel, that is, the law, on mount Sinai, was at length made man and seen on earth and conversed with men. And thus do the Fathers expound it, Cyprian, Eusebius, Ambrose, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret. To this place the adversaries make no reply, save that the book is apocryphal because it is not possessed in Hebrew. But certainly the authority of so many Fathers, who cite this book as sacred and canonical, is far greater than the authority of a few heretics who reject the same book. 22 The seventh place is Zachariah ch.2, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, after glory he sent me to the Gentile nations who despoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of my eye, because behold I raise my hand over them and they will be booty for those who served him, and you know that the Lord of hosts has sent me. Give praise and be glad, daughter of Zion, because behold I come and will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord, and many nations will apply to the Lord in that day, and they will be to me for a people, and I will dwell in the midst of you; and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.” This place is very efficacious, as is noted by Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, Rupert. For truly the Lord of hosts is sent by the Lord of hosts, and the thing is frequently repeated. However Franciscus David replies that this place is not to the purpose, because it is a prophecy about the future, although the prophet speak in the past; for he is speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles, which happened after the ascension of Christ; and from this it cannot be proved that Christ existed before his incarnation. Further, Franciscus David denies that what is written is that Jehovah sent me Jehovah.
But on the contrary, we do not put much force on the past or future, but on the fact that he who is said to have been sent by the Lord of hosts also calls himself the Lord of hosts. And since it is clear that there is only one Lord of hosts, it follows that Christ is one and the same God as the Lord of hosts, along with his Father, although they are distinct in person. Now Franciscus David is impudent in denying that what is written is that Jehovah sent me Jehovah, for although it is not written in these words all at once, yet it is present in these words, though with others interposed that do not change the sense, as is plain. The eighth place is Zachariah ch.3, “The Lord showed me Jesus the great priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the devil was standing at his right hand to oppose him, and the Lord said to the devil, ‘the Lord rebuke thee, Satan. The Lord who chose Jerusalem’.” Here we very plainly see that the Lord, Adonai, says to the devil, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’, and from this it follows that the Lord, Adonai, is not one person but more. And that one of these persons is Christ is taught by Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and Rupert. And Theodoret gives the reason that it is the Son rather than the Holy Spirit who says, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’, namely because Satan opposed Jesus the son of Josedech, who bore the figure of Christ. Hence, since that Jesus, son of Josedech, could not of himself resist Satan, the Son of God, who was to be called Jesus, rebukes Satan for him, and signified along with this rebuke that he, when he took flesh, would rebuke the devil, which he did in Matthew ch.4 when he says, “Be off, Satan.” Someone might reply that in this place the angel, before whom Jesus was standing, is called the Lord, and that it is the angel who said, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’, for such is the exposition of Benedict Arias Montanus; and his exposition can be confirmed, both because in the epistle of Jude this word to Satan, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’, is attributed to the angel Michael, and also because in the Scriptures the angels are frequently called by the name of the Lord, because they were his legates and bore his person, as is plain in Genesis ch.18, Exodus ch.3, Jude v.6 and elsewhere. 23
But on the contrary, for Jude is not speaking of this rebuke but of another that was given by the angel when he contended with the devil over the body of Moses. Further, the angels are never called by the name of Adonai, but he is so called who spoke through the angels, who was true God; or at least an angel is called Adonai, not as angel, but as representing the Lord. But in this place either the Lord himself is speaking or an angel bearing the person of the Lord; yet in each case what is collected is that there are two persons, who are one Lord in number. For if the Lord were only one person the angel representing that person would not say, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’, but he himself would give the rebuke, as referring back to the person of the Lord. The ninth place is Zachariah ch.12, “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and of prayers, and they will look upon me whom they pierced.” This place is understood of Christ pierced on the cross, and yet the God of Israel is speaking, who alone can pour out on men the spirit of grace and of prayers. There is no need to cite the testimony of the Fathers. For John ch.19 says, “This was fulfilled when Christ was crucified and pierced with a lance,” and besides the thing itself proclaims it. For when, I ask, was God the author of grace pierced save when Christ, the true God and Lord of glory (as Paul says) was crucified? Or if this does not please, let the adversaries show where and when God the Father was pierced, so that he could truly say, “They will look upon me whom they pierced.” Chapter Six: the Third Class: from the New Testament The first testimony is the confession of Peter from the revelation of God the Father, Matthew ch.16, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Note here that Peter asserts that Christ is the true and natural Son of God, for that is why he added ‘living’, because it is proper to living things to generate for themselves something alike in nature. And it is confirmed from other places, for in John ch.3 Christ is said to be “the only begotten Son,” Romans ch.8 he is called “proper Son,” I John ch.5 he is called “true Son,” Colossians ch.1 and Hebrews ch.1 he is called “natural” for he is called the image or the type of the paternal hypostasis, which does not belong to adoptive sons. Again in the same place he is called a Son such that with respect to him the angels are called servants, who however are otherwise adoptive Sons of God, and indeed chiefly so. Next, Christ is accused of having preached that he was the Son of God, John 19, “For we have a law and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” And it is certain that he was not accused of having made himself adoptive or metaphorical Son of God, for even the Jews say, “We have one Father, God,” John ch.8. And yet Christ did not dilute this accusation but as it were admitted it, and in that confession he wished to die. But if he is true, proper, only begotten, natural Son, then he is begotten of the substance of the Father; but he did not receive a part of the substance, because God is without parts, therefore he received the whole of it, therefore he is one God in number with the Father. 24 The Transylvanian ministers and Blandrata reply that Christ is true and proper Son of God because he was conceived from the Holy Spirit, and they prove it from Luke ch.1 where it is said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the virtue of the Most High will overshadow you, and therefore the holy thing that is born from you will be called the Son of God.”
But on the contrary, for even Adam, Eve, and all the angels were not born of the seed of man but are directly the work of God. How then is he called only begotten Son? Second if for this reason Christ is Son of God because he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the work of the Holy Spirit, then he could be called the Son of the Holy Spirit; but Scripture never says this, nay on the contrary it says that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, John ch.15 and elsewhere. Third, this is not to be natural and true Son, for God did not generate Christ from his own substance in the womb of a virgin but from the substance alone of the Virgin; hence in Hebrews ch.7 Christ is said to be without father and without mother, that is, without father on earth and without mother in heaven, as all the Greeks and Latins expounded. To the place of Luke ch.1 I say with Ambrose, Gregory, Bede, Bernard that the virtue of the Most High is the Word of God which descended into the womb of the Virgin, and there put on flesh, and therefore the Son of Mary is called the Son of the Most High. It can also be said that conception from the Holy Spirit is a sign, not a cause, that Christ is called Son of God. For it was fitting that if the Son of God wished to become Son of Man he should be born only from a virgin, and if a virgin were to give birth, she should give birth only to God, as St. Bernard rightly said. Further, Jacob Palaeologus, who, although he was one of the chief doctors of the new Samosatans, at length at Rome, as we said above, was converted to the true faith, not only made no account of our argument but turned it back against us by means of this reasoning: any true Son of God cannot be true God; but Christ is true Son of God, therefore he is not true God. And this syllogism (as I have often heard from him) he used to boast was a very firm demonstration, even though I said to him that the major proposition of the syllogism is so false that the contrary is most true. For as the true son of man is true man, the true son of a lion is true lion, and in all others in like manner, so too the true Son of God must be true God. He used to reply that according to philosophy indeed a true son is of the same nature as his father, but not according to Scripture. For Scripture makes those to be true sons of God who are made by God his heirs, as is said of Christ in Hebrews ch.1; but he cannot be true God who is made heir by God. You do not, prudent reader, expect a refutation of these ineptitudes. For what? Is not Seth the true son of Adam according to the Scriptures, and Isaac of Abraham, and Ruben of Jacob? And were they not of the same nature as their fathers? Next, does not Scripture openly say that a man is heir because he is son, not son because he is heir? Romans ch.8, “But if sons then heirs, and heirs indeed of God but co-‐heirs with Christ.” And about Christ Hebrews ch.1 first says, “He spoke to us in his Son,” then it adds, “whom he made heir of all things.” Nor should you understand that he was made heir by temporal donation, but by eternal generation. 25 The second testimony is from Luke ch.1, “He will convert many sons of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and virtue of Elijah.” The Lord God of Israel is, by the judgment of all and especially by that of the heretics of this time, the sole true God. But the angel in this place calls Christ the Lord God of Israel. For thus is it interpreted by Irenaeus, Ambrose, Bede, Euthymius and others. Nor can it be otherwise understood; for the ‘and he will go before him’ can only be referred to the Lord God of Israel named just before. But it is clear that John went before Christ, not before God the Father. “The God of Israel,” says Paul in Acts ch.13, “brought forth a savior, Jesus, after John before the face of his coming preached the baptism of penitence.” The same is confirmed from the words, ‘He will convert many sons of Israel to the Lord their God’. For John tried to convert men only to Christ, for him he assiduously preached. Hence John ch.1, “When John saw Jesus he said, ‘Behold the lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world’.” And immediately on those words Andrew, who was John’s disciple, was converted to Christ and followed him. The third testimony is John ch.5, “The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” If Christ preached that he was equal to God the Father, then he was true God, eternal and most high etc. To this someone could say that Christ did not preach he was equal to God the Father, but that the Jews believed it; so the sense is that the Jews sought to kill him because in their opinion he not only broke the Sabbath but also made himself Son of God, making himself equal to God in their opinion. But it matters little whether the Evangelist is referring to the opinion of the Jews or is expounding what it was. For as Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine and all others say on this place, the opinion of the Jews was true, and this the Evangelist narrates, namely that they well understood that Christ was preaching that he was equal to God. For if the opinion of the Jews were false, as Chrysostom rightly noted, certainly Christ or the Evangelist would have warned us against erring in so great a matter; just as when the Lord had said, John ch.2, that he would rebuild the temple in three days, the Evangelist expounded that he said this of the temple of his body. And John last chapter, when the disciples had concluded from the words of the Lord that John would not die, John himself adds, “Jesus did not say, he does not die, etc.” But Christ not only did not correct the opinion of the Jews but even confirmed it, saying that he did the same works as his Father did, and that just as the Father raises up whom he will so also does the Son. See Cyril on the whole of this fifth chapter where he shows that Christ showed in many ways that he was equal to the Father. The fourth testimony is John ch.10, “I and the Father are one.” This testimony all the Fathers use against the Arians to prove that there is one essence of the Father and the Son. The Transylvanians and Franciscus David respond that this place is understood of the concord of charity by which the Father and Son were one. And the first proof they give is the authority of Erasmus and Calvin; they could also add Arius and Eunomius. The second proof is John ch.17 where it is said of the Apostles, “that they may be one as we also are one.” 26 But that this place is to be understood of the unity of essence I prove first with Basil and Chrysostom from the preceding words. For Christ, to prove his sheep will not perish, gives this argument, “No one can take them from my Father’s hands, because he is greater than all.” Therefore neither can anyone take my sheep from my hands. For I and the Father are one. Which argument proves nothing unless the ‘we are one’ signifies that the hand, that is, the power of the Father and Son, is one and the same; but if the power is the same certainly the essence is also the same. For in God there is no distinction between power and essence.
Second I prove it with Augustine and Chrysostom on the place, “Because when they heard this word the Jews took up stones to throw at him.” Therefore they understood by the ‘we are one’ that Christ is preaching that he is truly God along with the Father; for they would not have wanted to stone him if they believed only that Christ was saying he was one with the Father in concord of will. But since the Jews so understood it and yet Christ did not correct their opinion, it is plain that they understood rightly. Third, because Christ expounded what was meant by “I and the Father are one.” For when the Jews wanted to stone him for this he said, “You say, ‘you blaspheme’ because I said I am the Son of God,” therefore it is the same thing to say I and the Father are one and I am the Son of God. They are not therefore one with mere concord of will, which can exist between those who are not of the same family, but they are one the way father and son are one who have the same nature. But the heretics object, especially Franciscus David and the Transylvanian ministers. For Christ seems in the following words to correct the opinion of the Jews and to declare that he is God by grace alone, for he says as follows, “In your law it is written, ‘I said, ye are Gods’. If therefore he called them Gods to whom the word of God came, do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world ‘you blaspheme’ because I said I am the Son of God?” I reply with Hilary that Christ wanted to say that if they can be called Gods who participate in deity by gift of grace, because the word of God came to them, and they are established by God as princes of others having received authority from him, how much more can I be called truly God, though I am a man, since the Father has sanctified me with a singular gift, that is, has made me holy of holies, uniting in my very conception the hypostasis of his Word with my human nature? But because the Jews said, “For blasphemy we stone you, because you, though a man, make yourself God.” The Lord wished to show not only that he was God but that he, existing as a true man, was also true God. But he did it by explaining his outstanding and singular sanctification, not through created grace but through the grace of hypostatic union. But that his sanctification, by which he was true God, was indeed such, he proves from the works that are proper to the sole true God, for he says, “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.” And later, “So that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” For this mutual indwelling cannot be understood without identity of nature. It could also be said, as Chrysostom indicates, that Christ responded in two ways to the Jews. First in this way, even if I was pure man I have not for this reason blasphemed by saying that I am the Son of God, since many who are lesser than I are called Gods in the Scriptures. Second, having now repelled the calumny, he showed from the works that he was true God. Valentinus 27 Gentilis argued for his error from this very place, as Calvin testifies. For the Lord does not say, “I and the Father are one personal being,” but “we are one thing;” therefore they are of the same nature and divinity but are not one God in number; and he confirms it from John ch.17 where the Apostles are said to be one as the Father and the Son are one. Here the Apostles are said to be one and yet they differed in number. I reply that Christ could not have said ‘I and the Father are one personal being’, because then he would have confused the persons. For it is one thing to say ‘I and the Father are one thing, or one God, or one Spirit,’ and another to say, ‘I and the Father are one personal being’. For ‘I and the Father are one thing’ signifies that they are one being or one nature, which is not repugnant to plurality of persons. Likewise ‘we are one God’ signifies that they are one in deity, and this also is true, nor is it repugnant to distinction of persons; but ‘we are one personal being’ signifies that they are one hypostasis, and implies a contradiction. But that this place is not for Gentilis but against him is plain. First because although absolutely and universally ‘we are one thing’ does not signify one in number but one in essence, whether those things are one in species or in number, yet in God it necessarily signifies one in number because, as was proved above, the deity is only one in number. Second, the same is plain from the fact that, although Gentilis seems to say that the Father and Son are one in essence or species, yet he is compelled to confess that he is putting an essential difference between the Father and the Son, since he says in his writings that only the Father is immense, but the Son is circumscribed according to manner of generation. To the place of John ch.17 Augustine responds that in the Scriptures never is ‘they are one’ said of things of diverse natures. For it is not said, ‘so that the Apostles and God may be one’, but ‘so that they themselves might be one as the Father and Son are one’. And again, ‘so that they may be one in God etc.’ And yet this observation, although it is in some way true, does not seem necessary. For although the Apostles were of the same nature among themselves, yet when it is said by Christ that they might be one, the ‘one’ does not signify unity of nature but unity of concord. Further, why could not a prayer be made in the same way that angels and men be one? And yet the angels differ in species from men. Finally, as is said I Corinthians ch.6 “He who adheres to God is one spirit with him,” why could it not be said, ‘he who adheres to God is one with him’? For one spirit is one thing; one thing and one are the same. We can with Chrysostom and Cyril more easily say that Christ did not wish the Apostles to be altogether one as the divine persons are one, but he wanted the Apostles by the grace of God to be made one in concord of will, and in that way to imitate the divine persons who are naturally one in will and consent, and therefore also one in essence. For free agents cannot by nature will the same thing unless the have numerically the same nature. Further, even if it does not absolutely follow from the fact that the Father and Son are called one that they are one in essence, yet in John ch.10 it would necessarily follow for the reason that is stated in the words there, as we have already showed. 28 The fifth testimony is John ch.14, “You believe in God, believe also in me.” From this Augustine and the interpreters of this place deduce that Christ is the true God whom the Jews worshipped. For if he is not himself the true God he cannot claim for himself the faith that is due to God alone; nor should one be moved by the word ‘also’, as if Christ distinguishes himself from God and makes himself as it were a second God; for the word ‘also’ is added because of the human nature by which Christ is distinguished from God. The sense therefore is ‘if you believe in God you should also believe in me whom you see here as man. For I am not only man but also the God in whom you believe’. In the same place is said, “If you knew me you would also know my Father.” Again, “Philip, he who sees me sees the Father.” Cyril proves from this place that Christ is one God with the Father. For it cannot be true that Christ cannot be known without the Father being known unless there were one nature to both of them. Add that the Apostles well knew that Jesus was a good man, a wise prophet, Christ; and yet they hear, “If you knew me.” And again, “Have I been so long time with you and you do not know me?” It remained then for them to know that he is true God and one with the Father. For the other things they already knew. Finally Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and it suffices us.” For the Apostles knew that nothing could suffice for men for beatitude without the knowledge of the true God, which true God they did not doubt to be the Father. Christ therefore, when he replies to Philip, “Philip, he who sees me sees the Father,” would not have satisfied his question unless he had wished to signify that he was true God and one with the Father, and that in the knowledge of himself beatitude consists as in the knowledge of the Father. Franciscus David replies that the man Christ was the image of God and therefore he who saw Christ saw God in his image. On the contrary. For if Franciscus were to admit that Christ is the natural image of the Father and of the same essence, he would be speaking rightly; but he thinks that the visible and created form of Christ is the image of God. But such an image is very far distant from the original; for nothing created can be perfectly and expressly like God, as is said in I Kings ch.8, “There is none like you, God.” And Isaiah ch.40, “What image will you put on him?” But he who sees such an image cannot say that he has seen the original; nay when we see images very like the things, we are not for that reason content, but we are on fire to see the thing itself. But Christ rebukes Philip for thinking that the Father is not sufficiently seen by him who sees the Son. From which it is plain that Christ as God is altogether the same form and beauty as the Father. The sixth testimony is John ch.16, “Everything that my Father has is mine,” therefore the Son has the essence of the Father. But lest anyone think this is understood of things outside God, in the way we say that what a man has is his wife’s, and yet often the man has a wisdom that the wife does not have, the preceding words exclude this sense; for what precedes is “he will glorify me because he will take from what is mine.” That then is common to the Father and Son which the Holy Spirit receives from each. But what does the Holy Spirit receive from the Son? Without doubt knowledge; for he says, “he will take from what is mine and will announce it to you.” And above, “he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak.” The knowledge of the Father and the Son, then, is the same, but 29 knowledge and essence in God are the same, as even Aristotle recognized; therefore there is one essence to both persons. And thus do all Catholics expound this place, Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine and others. The seventh testimony is John ch.20, “My Lord and my God.” Which testimony is used as very effective by Augustine. And indeed it is certain that in this place Lord God signifies the true God of Israel, both because in the Greek there is the definite article, and because Thomas, an Israelite, knew no other Lord God than the God about whom was written in Deuteronomy ch.6, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God.” Chrysostom adds that when Thomas said this he fulfilled Psalm 76, “I sought God with my hands and was not deceived.” But there can be no doubt but that in this psalm the discussion is about the true God. The Nestorians said that the words “my Lord and my God” are referred to the Father by exclamation of Thomas when he marvels at the resurrection of Christ. But this is sheer corruption of Scripture; for in the Greek there is not the ‘Oh’ that is a sign of someone exclaiming, but there is the definite article; besides in the Gospel there precede the words “Thomas replied to him and said, ‘My Lord, and my God’ etc.” What does this ‘said to him’ signify? Did he not say it to Christ? For Thomas was speaking with Christ, not with the Father. In addition, it is certain that Thomas wanted by these words to confess what he had not sufficiently believed; and he had always believed that the Father was God, but about the divinity of the Son he had doubted not a little. Lastly, all commentaries refer these words to the divinity of Christ, even the commentary of Erasmus, which the Transylvanians make most of. The eighth testimony is Romans ch.9, “From whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed for ever.” This place is understood by Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Origen, Oecumenius, and all others in this way, that Christ is called true God, since there is nothing over all save the supreme God. Erasmus however tries in his notes on this place to break the argument, but with very flimsy conjectures. First he says the word ‘God’ is perhaps not in the text, because Cyprian and Hilary cite this place without the word ‘God’. But Cyprian, the Aldians and Morelians have the word ‘and God’; nor can it be lacking; for in this chapter Paul intends to call Christ God, and he adduces places of Scripture where he is called God. Hilary does not cite the place complete; for he also omits ‘according to the flesh’, although he cites this place with the word ‘God’ elsewhere. Lastly, even when the word ‘God’ is taken away the argument remains, because if Christ is above all he is certainly God. Second Erasmus says that the ‘who is God over all’ could be referred to the Father, that is, if a period is put after the words ‘from whom is Christ according to the flesh’, in the way he says that he read it in Chrysostom. But first in Chrysostom in the Greek I have found no period but a comma, as it is in all the Pauline codices, Greek and Latin. Next, could it be that because of one period in Chrysostom’s commentary, which could have been left by a fly sitting on it or have crept in by the fault of the writer, all the codices, Greek and Latin, should be corrected? Finally, if notwithstanding that period Chrysostom himself refers the words ‘who is God over all’ to the Son and if the same is done by all authors without 30 exception, what rashness is it to wish to invent now a new sense? For Erasmus has cited absolutely no one on his behalf, and we have, besides all the commentaries, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril, Gregory, Athanasius, Victorinus, Idacius, Cassianus. As to what Erasmus notes in the same place, that Paul did not write ‘who being’ but ‘being the’, it is too frigid. For who does not know that the article is often put for the pronoun and has, when joined to a participle, the force of a relative? At least in Matthew ch.6 (to pass over other places) we read the ‘Our Father’ as ‘the one in heaven’ and not ‘who art in heaven’. The ninth testimony is contained in Galatians ch.1, “I make known the Gospel to you that has been preached by me, that it is not according to man; for I did not receive it nor learnt it from man but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And at the beginning of the epistle, “Paul an Apostle, not by men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, etc.” Here Blessed Paul opposes Christ to men, and therefore teaches that Christ is not mere man, as the Transylvanians wish, but is also God, as is God the Father; nor does he oppose him only to men but also to angels, and so to all creatures. For he adds, “If we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other Gospel than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Therefore Paul in this place very clearly separates Christ from all creatures and conjoins him, as it were on the other side, to God the Father, and teaches he is the creator God. The tenth testimony is Philippians ch.2, “Who though he was in the form of God did not think equality with God something to be seized, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” Here seems very clearly to be explained that Christ is true God, since he has the form, that is, the nature of God, and according to this there is no seizing but a nature equal to God the Father. But the Arians and Transylvanians and Erasmus oppose this. However, so as to proceed clearly we must first explain what is meant by ‘though he was in the form of God’, and second what is meant by ‘did not think equality with God something to be seized’. On the first point Erasmus and Franciscus David contend that ‘form’ in this place signifies exterior works wherein the divinity shone forth, though they do not expound it in the same way. For Franciscus David means Christ is said to be in the form of God because he was a certain visible image in which the invisible God was seen. And that ‘form’ signifies external appearance he proves from Deuteronomy ch.4, “You heard the sound of the words, but you saw altogether no form.” But Erasmus means that Christ was in the form of God because he did such works exteriorly, so as plainly to show himself to be God. And that ‘form’ in this place signifies exterior works he proves first from the fact that the form of God is opposed to the form of servant which Christ is said to have taken up. But Christ did not take up the form of servant in substance, for he was always Son, not servant; but he took up the form of servant in exterior appearance, because he humbled himself and let himself be bound and scourged. He proves it secondly from the commentary of Ambrose. But the common exposition of all others, ancient and recent, is that ‘form of God’ signifies the essence of God. And, to begin with, the opinion of Franciscus David 31 is mere corruption of the text; for, first, he has no one on his side, not even Erasmus; for Erasmus proves from this place the divinity of Christ. Further, Paul does not say that Christ is the form of God but that he is in the form of God. Next, the opinion of Erasmus is openly false; for first the Greek word contained here (morphe) is never taken in Scripture for exterior form, or for work, as is plain if one runs through all the places. Nay, Chrysostom on this place says that it is never so taken even in other Greek writers. Indeed the word is sometimes taken by Aristotle for accidental form, although more often for substantial form, yet always for inherent and intrinsic form, never for exterior action. As for what Franciscus alleges from Deuteronomy ch.4, it is not to the purpose; for in the Greek there is not ‘form’ but ‘likeness’, as in the Hebrew, and elsewhere wherever there is the word ‘form’ the Greek is not morphe but eidos or typos or something else. Second, if to be in the form of God is to do divine works, namely miracles, then the Apostles too could be said to have been in the form of God, since they did very great miracles. Third, form of God is opposed to form of servant in this place; but the form of a servant, although it is human nature, is not some work; for when Paul explains what it is to receive the form of servant he subjoins, “made in the likeness of man and found as man in habit.” Therefore he received the form of a servant for this reason, that he appeared as man among men, like the rest even in exterior figure. For neither does habit in this place signify clothing but figure (as is plain from the Greek). Nor does Erasmus’ argument have any validity. For although Christ is Son, not servant, if we have regard to the hypostasis, yet by reason of human nature he is rightly called servant. For as he is called equal to and lesser than the Father because he is God and man, and immortal and mortal, creator and creature, so too he can be called Lord and servant, and so is he called by Isaiah ch.49. From which place Jerome teaches that Christ is rightly called servant by reason of his human nature. And the verse of Isaiah ch.42, “Behold my servant, I will take him up,” is expounded by Matthew of Christ in Matthew ch.12, and the Hebrew word properly signifies servant. Nay, does not Christ in John ch.20 say, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”? Add finally that all interpreters of this place, with the exception of Ambrose, about whose commentaries there is no little doubt whether they are really his, understand by form of God essence of God; and besides by the interpreters it is thus understood, by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, Cyril, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose. Hence it is made more probable that the commentaries on the epistles are not by Ambrose, although whoever the author is and although he expounds it less probably, nevertheless he does not favor the heretics since he very clearly says that Christ is true God and equal to the Father. Fifth, to the second part of this opinion, ‘not something to be seized etc.’ Franciscus David says that Christ is equal to the Father because God drew him up to his equality. But this, in the first place, is against Scripture, Isaiah ch.42, “I am the Lord, I will not give my glory to another.” And next it is impossible for a creature to become 32 equal to the creator since a creature is necessarily finite, temporal, etc. Hence Franciscus David, seeing that what he said before is not consistent, teaches that Christ is not equal to the Father in dignity, since Christ himself worships the Father; no, on the contrary, he is equal because he has omnipotence communicated to him by God. But I ask of him how Christ has omnipotence, whether intrinsically, so that as man Christ is omnipotent, or extrinsically by indwelling, because he has the omnipotent God dwelling in him. If in the first way, the first difficulty returns, because if this man has infinite power intrinsically then he has infinite essence, therefore he is the one God who is also Father. If in the second way then Paul would be saying nothing. For in this way all the just are equal to God, because they have God dwelling in them. Because this interpretation, therefore, does not square, the Transylvanian ministers say that Paul does not say that Christ is equal to God the Father but rather the contrary; for they want the sense to be this: he did not think it to be something seized, that is, he did not think he should do something to make himself equal to God. In this way Erasmus expounded the place and before him Maximus Arianus, in Augustine. And they give as first proof that the adversative particle (‘but’) seems to show this. For if we read thus, ‘Christ thought himself equal to the Father but emptied himself’, what will the sense be? But if you say, ‘Christ did not think equality something to be seized but on the contrary emptied himself’, the sense will be very good. Their second proof is from Tertullian who says, “although he remembered that he was God from God the Father, he never either compared or equated himself with God the Father.”
But on the contrary. For first all the Fathers above cited say that Christ was equal to the Father, not by seizing it, but because he was so by nature. Second, the place itself so indicates, unless it is violently dragged about in another way. Third, because if to be in the form of God is to be in the essence of God, as we said above, Paul could not say that the Son, whom he had said was in the form of God, was not equal to the Father. As to the point about the adversative particle, I reply that the word ‘but’ has a multiple sense. For sometimes it has the force of correcting, and in this way it is taken by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, for they, who rightly understand the Greek tongue, mean that ‘but’ is a mark of correcting, and the sense is as follows, that although Christ was in the form of God he thought being equal with God so much not to be a seizing that rather he did not hesitate to hide his divinity and in some way to lay aside the insignia of this equality, because he was certain that he could not lose it, since it was natural to him. They posit an example about a king and a tyrant. For he who knows himself to be true and legitimate king, and does not in any way fear for himself, easily takes off the purple and puts on plebeian clothing, either to please himself or to be safer in battle or for some other reason. For he does not fear that his kingdom would perish because of a change of dress. But a tyrant, who has seized royal power, does not dare even for a short time to appear without the purple and the scepter, lest, if he 33 appear in plebeian clothing, he may not be acknowledged for king and may little by little lose his kingdom, etc. The Latins accept that ‘but’ is adversative and is equivalent to the conjunction ‘however’, or ‘but however’. So Augustine takes it who wants the sense to be, since he was in the form of God he did not think equality with God something to be seized, but yet he emptied himself etc., that is, although he was equal with God yet he did not shrink from the form of a servant. So too the commentary of Ambrose: although he was equal to God, yet he did not defend his equality but emptied himself, that is, he did not wish, under the pretext of the equality with God which he naturally had, to refuse the humility of suffering and death. To the place from Tertullian I say, first, that the book in question is not his but rather Novatian’s, as Jerome asserts. Secondly I say that the opinion of this author is not against us, for he says that the Son refused to compare himself with the Father only because of the Father’s authority of origin, not because of any difference of nature. For in the same place he clearly asserts that the Son was in the form of God because he was in the nature of God and was above all, as the Father is; and yet, because he is from the Father, and not contrariwise, he deferred always in some respect to the Father. Nor is this the view of Tertullian alone, but of Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, who expound of the Son of God, not only as he is Son of man, but also as he is Son of God, the words “the Father is greater than I;” for they say that the Father is greater by reason of principle, and yet the Son, because of identity of nature, is not lesser. The eleventh place is from I John ch.5, “There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood.” By which place St. John means to show that Christ is true God and true man; and for that reason he adduces divine and human testimonies; for neither when he says ‘there are three who give testimony in heaven’ does he mean by ‘in heaven’ a heavenly place but the quality of the testimony; otherwise even the angels are in heaven and have not seldom given testimony to Christ, and yet John posits that there are only three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore by the witnesses who are in heaven are understood divine witnesses as distinct from human and created witnesses; and therefore too a little later he says, “If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater.” Just as, therefore, spirit, water, and blood are three earthly testimonies and proved the true humanity of Christ, namely when on the death of Christ the spirit flowed from his mouth and blood and water from his side; so too the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are three divine persons, and have given divine testimony of the true divinity of Christ, both often elsewhere and also in his baptism and transfiguration. But Gregory Blandrata objects, first, that the words ‘there are three who give testimony in heaven’ are read by no author save Jerome, who had too little shame. Second, the spirit, water, and blood are not otherwise sad to be one than the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit are; and therefore, as the spirit, water, and blood are not one 34 in number, nay and not in species either, so neither are the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit one in number, or in species, but only by agreement of will. I reply that Blandrata not only has too little shame but too much impudence when, imitating Erasmus, he says Jerome has too little shame; not only does Blandrata have too little shame, I say, but he is lacking in skill or is a liar when he says that only Jerome so read the passage. For it was so read by Hyginus, Cyprian, Idacius, Athanasius, Theophilus, the author of the dispute of the same Athanasius with Arius at the Council of Nicea, Fulgentius, Eugenius of Carthage.
But as to what concerns the words ‘and these three are one’, one must know that the words are not contained in many Latin codices where the discussion is about the spirit, water, and blood. For in the Louvain Bible there are noted in the margin fifteen manuscripts that do not have the words. Now the Greek codices do indeed have them but in different ways. For of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they say ‘and these three are one’, but of the spirit, water, and blood they say ‘and these three are in one’, where you openly see that the spirit, water, and blood are not one, but only conspire in one testimony.
The twelfth place is I John ch.5, the last words, “So that we may be in his true Son, this is true God and life eternal.” But the true God is one alone, John ch.17, “you the sole true God.” From this the Transylvanians say that the name ‘true God’ is proper to the Father; therefore Christ is the same God who is Father.
To this place the Transylvanians, the new Sarmosatans, and Servetus say that Christ is true God but a temporal God, because he received true divinity from God; but we have refuted this elsewhere, for divinity cannot be united to a creature save hypostatically if that creature is to be called true God; for divinity cannot be united accidentally so as to inhere intrinsically, as is known, because then it would depend on the subject; nor can it be united essentially, as soul to body and any substantial form to its matter, because then it would be a part; but intrinsic union does not suffice for being denominated God.
But Servetus objects Apocalypse ch.5, “The lamb is worthy to receive virtue and divinity.”
I reply that others read not ‘divinity’ but ‘riches’, as Primasius did, for in Greek it is ‘wealth’. But the Vulgate reading has a very good sense. For by divinity we can understand the manifestation of divinity, not divinity itself. Erasmus in his note on this place wants the ‘this is true God’ to be referred to the Father in this way, ‘so that we may be in his true Son’, namely he, the Father of this Son, is true God. But he should have adduced at least one author who thus clearly explained the phrase. For why does the demonstrative ‘this’ not point to the proximate person rather than the remote one? Especially since in the Greek text before the ‘this’ the name Jesus Christ immediately precedes.
Next, the Fathers expound the demonstrative of the Son. Hilary, after citing this place, adds ‘and since this is true Son of God for us and eternal life etc.’ where what he cites, ‘this is true God and eternal life’ he expounds of the Son when he says he is eternal life. Jerome on Isaiah ch.95 ‘he will swear on God Amen,’ says not only that the Father is God Amen, that is, true God, but also the Son, and he proves it from this place, ‘this is true God and eternal life’. Augustine says, “And the Son is not only God but is true God, because John in his epistle very openly says, ‘We know that the 35 Son of God has come and has given us understanding etc. This is true God etc.’” Cyril, after adducing this place, says, “What will the heretics say to these words of Blessed John, in which very openly the Son is called true God? For if he is true God substantially, he is not this by participation, as creatures are; but he who is true God is by nature God.” Bede and Oecumenius expound this place likewise.
The Eunomians, being formerly convicted by the evidence of this testimony, admitted, as Gregory Nazianzen reports, that the Father was true God and that likewise the Son was true God, but equivocally, as the heavenly and earthly dog are equivocally called dogs, though each properly and truly.
But it is easy to refute this solution. For Eunomius is either speaking of perfect equivocation or of some analogy. If of perfect equivocation then the Father will not be more God or a prior God than the Son, just as Judas Iscariot is not more man, or a greater man, than Judas Thaddeus. Besides, there would then be several true Gods, as Judas Iscariot and Judas Thaddeus are several true men. But Scripture teaches that there is only one God. If of some analogy, either the Father or the Son will not be truly or properly or simply God, as a picture of a man is not simply and truly and properly a man, nor is the heavenly dog properly and truly a dog, but it is called so because it represents the earthly dog. But Christ is true God and likewise the Father, therefore the Son is not God by analogy alone.
The thirteenth place is John ch.1, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Again, “All things were made through him.” From this place three arguments are taken.
The first is taken from the name ‘Word’; for ‘Word’ or logos is the offspring or knowledge or concept of the mind. And although the concept of the mind is not in us called son, because it is an accident, yet its production is very similar to generation; for the thinking mind bears the office of father, but the object that of mother; the species is as it were the matter of generation which the mother supplies; and thence from the union of mind and object, through the mediation of the species, knowledge or word proceeds.
But one must note that in God, as even Aristotle teaches, knower, intellect, intellection, and intelligible species (with the exception, however, of the mutual relations of producer and produced) are the same. From which it follows that ‘the Word of God is necessarily the same as God’, that is, of the same substance and nature in number. But Christ is the Word of God, for “the Word was made flesh,” therefore Christ has the same nature in number as the Father.
The second argument is taken from the fact that the Word is called God. For in this place the Word of God, which is Christ, is expressly called God, and without doubt the same God as the Father also is. For John in almost the whole of this chapter is always repeating at the beginning of the sentence what he had put at the end of the preceding one. “In the beginning,” he says, “was the Word;” then he subjoins, “and the Word was with God.” Here you see the same name put at the end of the first sentence and the beginning of the second; in this way too, because in the second he had said “and the Word was with God,” in the third he says, “and God was the Word.” Here both he with whom was the Word and he who was the Word himself are said to be the same God. This very thing can be seen in the following, “In 36 him was life and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it etc.”
The third argument is in the words, “Everything was made through him.” For from this follows, as Augustine gathers, that the Word was not made and therefore is not a creature, and therefore is one God with the Father, for there is nothing save God and his creatures.
But the Transylvanian ministers respond to the first that the Word in this place signifies Christ the man, and he is called Word because he announced the words of God to us; and the proof they give is that when it is said, “the Word was made flesh,” there is in the Greek “he came to be,” which signifies he was or became, as is plain from similar places; for in this chapter it is said, “There was a man sent from God,” in the Greek, “there came to be.” Likewise in Luke ch.1, “There was in the days of Herod a priest,” and Luke last chapter, “Who was a prophet etc.” and everywhere there is in Greek “there came to be.” Therefore the sense is not that the Word was made man through incarnation, but that the Word, about which so many illustrious things are said, is nothing other than flesh, that is, a certain man; just as John is called a voice, not because he was voice incarnate, but because he was a man crying in the wilderness.
To the second Franciscus David and the Transylvanian ministers respond that Christ is rightly called God but not the same God as the Father; but when there is added, “and God was the Word,” if the name ‘God’ were taken in the same way it would signify that the Son is the Father.
But to the “everything was made through him,” they reply that it must be understood of the reparation made by Christ, which is also wont to be called a new creation, II Corinthians ch.5, “If then there is any new creature in Christ, the old has passed away, and behold all things are made new.” Ephesians ch.1, “To renew all things in Christ, both those in heaven and those on earth.” And ch.2, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, in good works.” And Psalm 50, “Create a clean heart in me, O God.”
But they err. And first their opinion about the Word is similar to the error of Eunomius whom Cyril refuted. For Eunomius said that the Word, which is Christ, is not anything eternal in God, or anything subsistent, but it is something created; but it is called Word, because it was similar to, and as it were the image of, the internal word, and because he heard the words of God and announced them to us.
There is a refutation of both errors. First from the following words, because this Word, which was made flesh, was God and God the creator of all things; not therefore created. Second, because this Word was in the beginning with God, before the world came to be, nor is it ever said in Scripture to have been made. Third, because if Christ is the image of the eternal and internal Word, which is in God, John in ch.10 should not have said, “He who sees me sees the Father also,” but ‘he sees the Word also’. See the many things in Cyril on this place.
But to the argument about the Greek ‘came to be,’ I reply that this phrase is ambiguous and signifies both ‘to be’ and ‘to be made’; hence in John ch.3, “A marriage was made” (Greek ‘came to be’), and ch.1, “the world was made through him” (Greek ‘came to be through him’), and later, “the water made wine” (Greek ‘the water come to be wine’). But in this place it signifies ‘come to be’ not ‘is’; and it is 37 plain first from what was said; for if the Word was before the creation of the world, it was certainly before the flesh; for the flesh too is one of the creatures. It is not then that the Word is flesh but that it was later made to come to be flesh when it assumed flesh.
Second, because if John had wanted to signify ‘be’ and not ‘come to be’ he would not have said ‘came to be’ but ‘was in being’ or ‘is in being’, that is, he would not have said ‘was’ but ‘is being’ or ‘was being’. For ‘was’ is said only of what now is not. But Christ is also flesh now.
Third, because the Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, knew well the force of the Greek vocabulary, and yet they all expound ‘was made’ in the way it is also contained in the version of Erasmus and that is extant in the Vatabilis Bible, to which the adversaries are wont to attribute very great weight.
As to the second argument, we have already said that John in this chapter is wont very often to repeat the same thing twice, at the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next. So here therefore the name ‘God’ is put twice in the same signification, and the sense is “the Word was with God,” that is, with the Father who is God; “and God was the Word,” that is, and the same God was also the Word. Or, as others wish, who make ‘God’ the predicate and ‘Word’ subject, and the Word was the same God.
Nor is it an obstacle that in the “with God” the Greek has the definite article but in the “and God was the Word” there is no definite article before the name ‘God’. From this Origen argued that the Father is greater than the Son. For, as Chrysostom notes, God when taken for the Father often does not have the definite article, as in this chapter, “there was a man sent by God,” and later, “no one has seen God at any time etc.,” and sometimes God, taken for the Son, does have the definite article, as in I John ch.5, “He is the true God,” and Titus ch.2, “The coming of the glory of the great God.” But to the “all things were made through him,” I say first that the explanation of the adversaries is so new that it came into the mind of none of the ancients, as is plain to anyone reading Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Theophylact, Bede, Rupert, Euthymius. I say second that Scripture should not be expounded metaphorically at will, but only then when Scripture itself gives the occasion; otherwise we could pervert all the Scriptures, and we could, with the same reason, say that in Genesis ch.1 not the creation of things but their renewal is described. Nor are the places adduced to the contrary an obstacle; for in them there is always open mention of renewal, as is plain to anyone who reads those places.
But here is said simply, “all things were made through him and without him was not anything made.” I say third that, although this place would bear both senses, yet the adversaries cannot prove that it should be expounded of renewal rather than of first creation. For the reasons they adduce have no validity.
Their first proof that creation is not being dealt with is that Christ was not then born when the world was created. But we deny that Christ was not then born of God the Father, although he was not born of his mother. But when the adversaries assume what they should prove, do they not beg the question? 38
Their second proof is that the Scriptures everywhere attribute the work of creation to the Father. But in fact they attribute it not to the Father alone but also to the Son. Proverbs ch.8, “I was with him putting all things together,” and in this chapter 1 of John, “and the world was made through him.”
Their third proof is that after John had said in this place, “all things were made through him and without him was not anything made,” he at once restricts it saying, “that was made,” as if he were to say that not everything absolutely was made through Christ but all those things only that pertained to his office, and that were made through him.
A restriction to these things would be ridiculous. For it would be as if he said, “all things were made through him that were made through him.” But John does not say this but he says, “without him was not anything made that was made,” that is, there is no thing that was made that was not made through him, which John added because of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be thought to be among the ‘all things’ that were made through the Word. Add that the reading is more probable which Augustine follows, that the words (“that was made”) do not pertain to the preceding sentence but to the following one, in this fashion: “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made. What was made was in him life; and the life was the light of men.” And by this reading is the argument of the adversaries plainly destroyed. Is then the common explanation of the Fathers to be abandoned for such slight and false reasonings?
I say fourth that this place is explained a little later, when it is said, “he was in the world and the world was made through him and the world did not know him.” For we have that the world was made through Christ, which world did not know Christ. But if the making of the world were not creation but renewal it would be false to say “the world did not know him,” since renewal is made through the faith and knowledge of Christ.
The adversaries most stubbornly respond that the sense is this: “he was in the world,” that is, Christ man conversed as man among men, “and the world did not know him,” that is, and men at that beginning did not know him, “and the world was made through him,” that is, and yet he illumined men and made them new creatures.
But on the contrary. For in the first place the adversaries change the order of the words, for they want the world first not to know him and then to have been made. But the Evangelist says first, “the world was made through him,” then he notes its ingratitude saying, “and the world did not know him.”
Further the world in the Scriptures signifies either the substance of heaven and earth, as in Ecclesiastes ch.3, “he handed over the world to their disputation,” or men who are impious lovers of the world, John ch.12, “the prince of this world will be thrown out,” John ch.17, “I pray for them, not for the world.” Therefore when it is said, “the world was made through him,” either the substance of heaven and earth is signified, as all the Fathers expound, or the sense will be that men were made impious through Christ, which is an enormous blasphemy; for the world when taken as the impious was not made by Christ but destroyed by Christ, so as to make a new creation.
The fourteenth place is contained in Colossians ch.1, “In him were made all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, 39 whether principalities or powers; all things were created through him and in him, and he himself is before all things, and all things stand together in him.” This place is clearer than the previous one, for it explains what all those things are that Christ created and preserves, and they are said to be all things altogether, earthly and heavenly, up to the supreme angels. From which it follows that Christ is not a creature but true God.
However the Transylvanians and Franciscus David reply that in the whole of this chapter creation is said to be the spiritual reparation that was made through Christ. Their first proof is that thus did Procopius expound it. The second that Paul does not say that earth and heaven were made through Christ but the things that are in heaven and earth, that is, angels and men whom Christ is said to have created because he pacified them and reconciled them together among themselves.
But on the contrary. First all interpreters understand this place of the first creation. Hence the adversaries, when they went around all the libraries could only find one author, Procopius, a better orator than a theologian, and one who does not interpret this epistle, but by the by, when he was writing on Genesis, cited for his purpose one sentence from this epistle without regard to what preceded it or what followed it. And lest nevertheless they should glory they have found one colleague for their error, one must note that the same Procopius, in the preceding pages when expounding the words “let us make man in our image and likeness,” very bitterly inveighs against those who deny that there are three persons of the same essence, and he even says a little later, “Christ put on flesh so that man, whom he had created, he might restore and cure.” When therefore he says a little later that all things were made through Christ according to the Apostle in Colossians and expounds it as restored, he means to say that Christ restored what he had before created. Second I prove it from the preceding words, for he had said that Christ was “the first born of every creature,” that is, begotten by the Father before any creature was made, as Chrysostom rightly expounds it. Next the Apostle adds, as going to prove it, “for in him were made all things etc.” But if ‘make’ signifies ‘renew’ Paul is proving nothing; for this inference does not hold, “he renewed all creatures,” therefore he existed before all creatures; for how often do architects restore buildings that had been erected many years before they themselves were born? So in order for Paul rightly to prove that Christ is the first born before all creatures, the fact that he himself made all things should not be interpreted as that he renewed all things, but that he simply created them.
Third I prove it from the following words. For after Paul had said that all things were created through Christ, he subjoined other praises of Christ, saying that he is the head of the Church, and the first born of the dead, and through him all things were renewed, and through his cross peace was made between angels and men. Unless therefore we are to make Paul an inept babbler, who is always repeating the same things, we must admit that in the first part of the chapter he is dealing with creation and in the second with renewal.
Fourth I prove it from the context itself. For he says that all things were created through Christ, even thrones and dominions; but the angels were not renewed through Christ, because they were not made old through sin. They are 40 indeed said to have been set at peace with men, but to set at peace is not to make and create, nor can any example in Scripture be adduced.
Nor does the place of Ephesians ch.1 stand in the way, where all things are said “to be renewed through Christ, things in heaven and things on earth,” for the Greek word for ‘renew’ means to recapitulate and to bring back to the heights, and the sense is that God wanted to unite angels and men in the one head, Christ.
But if we also take the Latin word ‘to renew’ in its proper signification, the sense will be, God wished to renew in heavenly places through Christ, not the angels themselves, who did not need renewal, but the number of the angels that was lessened by the fall of the demons, as Augustine expounds, where he says that Christ did not die for the angels, and where he says that men would not have been going to need a mediator and his blood had Adam not sinned. But here the angels themselves are said to have been made and created through Christ, therefore true creation is being treated of and not renewal.
The fifteenth place is Hebrews ch.1 where it is said of the Son, “through whom he made also the world.” And later, “and you established the earth at the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands.” Here we have very clearly what the adversaries were demanding in the two previous places, namely that Christ made heaven and earth, and therefore he is not a creature but the one creator along with the Father.
The Transylvanian ministers and Franciscus David reply that by the world is understood a new world, that is, the reparation of the human race.
On the contrary. For when Paul explains in ch.11 what it means to make the world he says, “by faith we understand that the world was fitted together by the Word of God, so that visible things came to be from invisible.” Which certainly cannot be understood save of the first creation of the heavens. See ch.4 above.
Chapter Seven: Fourth Class: from the Names of the True God
The first divine name is God, from which no slight argument can be taken; for Scripture is wont to call only the true God God absolutely, as Irenaeus notes, “Neither the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Apostles ever named him who was not God absolutely and definitively God unless he was true God… It has been manifestly shown that never did the prophets or the Apostles name another as God or call another Lord besides the true and sole God.”
And from this Erasmus notes that the Father is understood whenever God is named absolutely. But the saying of Erasmus is false, as will soon appear; but it pleased us to note his testimony to make it clear that, even by the testimony of an adversary, the term ‘God’ absolutely used agrees with the sole true God. And without the testimony of Irenaeus and Erasmus the thing itself proclaims it of itself. For since Scripture repeats nothing more often than that there is one God, how could Scripture not be repugnant with itself if it called God absolutely not only the true God but also something else? This name is already attributed absolutely to Christ, Isaiah ch.9, “His name will be called wonderful, God, mighty etc.” John ch.20 where Thomas says to Christ, “My Lord and my God.” Acts ch.20, “Attend to yourselves and the universal flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops to rule the Church of God which he obtained by his own blood.” Romans ch.9, “Who is 41 above all things God.” Apocalypse ch.4, “The Lord God omnipotent, who was, who is, and who is to come.” I John ch.3, “In this we know the charity of God, because he laid down his life for us.” How then is he not true God who so often in the Scriptures is pronounced God absolutely? And how, I ask, does the fact that Christ is so absolutely called God cohere with Exodus ch.20, “You will not have foreign Gods before me, etc.” and I Corinthians ch.8, “For us there is one God,” if Christ is not one God with the Father?
The second name, and indeed very proper to the true God, is Adonai, which the Greeks call the tetragrammaton; for thus do we read in Exodus ch.15, “Adonai is his name,” which our translator translates as ‘his name is omnipotent’. But in the Hebrew there is not properly ‘omnipotent’ but the ineffable name. The Transylvanians too are so persuaded that this name belongs properly to God that they say this name is proper to God the Father; but other names are communicated sometimes to Christ, the angels, and other created things.
We will prove then that this name proper to the sole true God belongs to Christ. Jeremiah ch.23, “And I will raise up for David a just seed, and he will rule as king and be wise.” And later, “And this is the name they will call him, Lord our just, or our justice – Adonai.” No one denies that this is understood of Christ.
But the Rabbis reply that it is not signified in this place that the name of Christ will be Adonai but that in the time of Christ and because of Christ himself men will know that the Lord God is our justice, as Exodus ch.13, “Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Lord my exaltation.” In Hebrew the word is Lord, for the sole true Lord, Adonai. Ezekiel last chapter, “And the name Jerusalem will be called Adonai” – Lord, here.
But this is easily refuted. For it is indeed true that Christ was not to be called ‘Lord our justice’ as if by a proper name, but yet from this place is deduced that he is truly Adonai, for of him is said “Lord our justice,” not of the Father; for he himself is the one who will satisfy the divine justice for us. Hence in Isaiah ch.53 it is said, “In his knowledge my just servant himself will justify many.” And I Corinthians ch.1, “Who was made wisdom and justice and redemption for us.”
Besides, neither the altar nor Jerusalem are called simply Adonai, but Christ is called Adonai in Isaiah ch.40, “A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare a way for the Lord.” For the word ‘Lord’ in the Hebrew is Adonai, and these words are understood of John the Baptist who prepared the way for Christ, as all the Evangelists testify. And Christ is named similarly in the very many places of Isaiah, Zachariah, and Psalms explained in the first and second class of arguments.
Besides, this name Adonai is deduced from the verse of Exodus, “I will be who I will be” or, as our translator has it, “I am who am.” For from this, with a formative letter added to the proper name, the word Adonai is made, and it signifies properly him who is the fount of being, and, since he does not have being from another, he bestows on all things the fact that they are. Wherefore some rightly teach that if this name should be in any way pronounced it would be better pronounced as Jahweh (‘I will be’) than as Jehovah, which has recently been thought up.
But we see that of Christ is said what this name signifies; therefore the name too belongs to him. Of Christ it is said in the Apocalypse chs.1, 4, 11, “Who is, who 42 was, and how is to come.” And John ch.13, “I tell you now before it happens, so that when it happens you will believe that I am.”
Lastly to this name there always corresponds in the Septuagint kyrios and in Jerome’s version Lord. Further the Evangelists everywhere absolutely call Christ Lord, as Matthew ch.21, “Because the Lord has need of them,” John ch.13, “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well for so I am.”
The name ‘Most High’ belongs to the sole true God, Psalm 82, “You are alone are most high in all the earth.” And the Transylvanians say that this is the name by which the Father, who alone is true God, is distinguished from the Son, which is the same as formerly the Arians said, on the evidence of Jerome.
But this very name is attributed to Christ by David in Psalm 86, “He is born a man in it, and he himself founded it, the most high.” For Jerome, Augustine, and other expositors understand it of Christ. The same name is attributed to Christ by Zachariah in Luke ch.1, as Bede evidences in his commentary; and the words themselves sufficiently openly indicate the fact, “You child will be called the prophet of the most high; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.” Here John is said to be the future prophet of the most high, because he will go before him to prepare his ways; but he went before Christ, not before someone else, as is evident.
Further, how is Christ given a name above every name, as Paul says Philippians ch.2, if he cannot be called most high? Next, the same Paul, when he writes in Romans ch.9 “From whom is Christ who is God above all things,” signifies nothing else than that Christ is the most high God, for only he who is most high is above all things.
The name ‘invisible’ is almost proper to the true God. For although we say in the creed that God is maker of things visible and invisible, yet in the Scriptures this is attributed to almost no one but God, I Timothy ch.1, “to the invisible, the only God, honor and glory,” and ch.6, “who dwells in unapproachable light.” Hence too this name is attributed to the Father alone by the Transylvanians, and formerly by the Arians. And truly only God is invisible, because he cannot be seen unless he manifests himself.
For the angels, although they are invisible, yet cannot hide themselves from other angels and from God himself. But the Son is simply invisible, as is also the Father. For Matthew ch.11 says, “No one knows the Son but the Father, nor does anyone know the Father save the Son and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” And Colossians ch.1 says, “the image of the invisible God,” for although the word ‘invisible’ is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek, yet for this reason is he called the image of the invisible God because even the image itself is invisible, for it is like the exemplar and therefore is of the same sort as it is. Apocalypse ch.19 says, “and he has a name written which no one knows save himself, and his name is the Word of God.” Therefore the Word of God is something invisible, since only he who is the Word of God knows what this is; and yet the Father and the Holy Spirit are not excluded, who have the same essence and knowledge as the Word.
Another name proper to God is ‘the God of glory, or also the King of glory.” For Acts ch.1 “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham” is understood by all of the God of Israel, but in I Corinthians ch.2 it is said of the Son, “If they had 43 known they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” And Psalm 23, “Raise your gates, princes, be raised up eternal gates, and the King of glory will enter” is expounded of the Messiah by Justin, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others on this psalm.
King of kings and Lord of lords are attributed to the sole true God, I Timothy ch.6, “who alone is powerful King of kings and Lord of lords.” And of the Son Apocalypse ch.17 says, “The Lamb will overcome them, since he is King of kings and Lord of lords.” And ch.19, “On his thigh is written King of kings and Lord of lords.” Lastly to God the Father is attributed by the Transylvanians that he is called one, true, sole, great, Father of all. For Deuteronomy ch.6 says, “the Lord your God is one Lord,” and John ch.17, “that they may know you the sole true God,” Deuteronomy ch.32, “See that I alone am,” namely Lord, Job ch.36, “Behold the great God, overcoming our knowledge,” Malachi ch.2, “Is there not one Father of us all?” But all these things are also said of the Son, I Corinthians ch.8, “For us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ,” I John ch.5, “He is true God,” Jude, “Denying the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
But this place is expounded by the Transylvanians in the following way, and they corrupt if so that they refer ‘only Lord’ to the Father and ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ to the Son.
But the nature of the Greek tongue opposes this. For there is one definite article for both names, and things conjoined by one definite article cannot be referred to two persons.
Titus ch.2, “Expecting the blessed hope and coming of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The Transylvanians, following Erasmus, refer the ‘great God’ to the Father. But here too the one article adjoined for both names is opposed. Wherefore Chrysostom, Jerome, and others expound it of the Son, because they saw that the Greek sentence can bear no other sense.
Besides, we do not expect the Father to come but the Son; but Paul says that we expect the coming of glory, that is the glorious coming (for this is the Hebrew phrase) of the great God. Therefore the Son is the great Lord. Lastly Isaiah ch.9, “A child is born for us, etc. and he will be called wonderful, counselor etc. and Father of the coming age.” Christ then is Father of us all. Hence John ch.14, “I will not leave you orphans,” and Matthew ch.10 and John ch.13 call the Apostles sons. Since therefore all the names of the true God belong to Christ, Christ is altogether the true God.
Diversos modos de emanación correspondientes a la diversidad de naturaleza.
Cuerpos inanimados: producidos por la acción de unos sobre otros. El fuego nace del fuego cuando éste altera un cuerpo extraño convirtiéndolo a su especie y cualidad.
Cuerpos animados: procede de dentro y lo que emana de ella, saliendo poco a poco, acaba por convertirse en algo totalmente extrínseco.
Alma sensitiva: emanación comienza en el exterior, termina interiormen y a medida que avanza la emanación, penetra en lo más íntimo. V.gr. lo sensible imprime su forma en los sentidos, pasa a la imaginación y después a la memoria.
Entendimiento: vuelve sobre sí mismo y puede entenderse. Aunque hay grados.
-Entendimiento humano: puede conocerse a sí mismo, pero toma del exterior el punto de partida para su propio conocimiento.
-Entendimiento angélico: no parte de algo externo para conocerse, porque se conoce en sí mismo. Pero no alcanza la última perfección, porque aunque la idea entendida sea en ellos totalmente intrínseca, sin embargo no es su propia substancia, puesto que en ellos no se identifican el entender y el ser.
-Dios: en quien no se distingue el entender y el ser; en Él se identifica la idea entendida con su esencia divina.
La "idea entendida" es lo que el entendimiento concibe en sí mismo sobre la cosa entendida.
En nosotros, esa idea no se identifica:
a) Ni con la cosa entendida: porque no es lo mismo entender la cosa que entender su idea, lo cual hace el entendimiento cuando vuelve sobre su operación.
b) Ni con la substancia de nuestro entendimiento: porque su ser consiste en su intelección, mientras que el ser de nuestro entendimiento es distinto de su propio entender.
sino que es una cierta semejanza de lo entendido concebido en el entendimiento y expresado por las palabras.
Pero en Dios, por la simplicidad divina, se identifican el ser y el entender; la idea entendida y el entendimiento. Son una misma cosa.
La idea se llama verbo. Por lo que el Verbo de Dios es Dios. Y en Dios, la generación divina se da solo como emanación intelectual del Verbo de Dios, que es Hijo de Dios.
Considerado todo esto, podemos ahora concebir de algún modo cómo hay que entender la generación divina. Porque es evidente que no es posible concebirla al igual que la generación que se da en las cosas inanimadas, en las cuales el engendrante imprime su especie en la materia exterior. Porque es preciso, según enseña la fe, que el Hijo, engendrado por Dios, tenga verdadera deidad y sea verdadero Dios.
. Además, tampoco podemos concebir la generación divina al igual que la generación que se da en las plantas, e incluso en los animales, los cuales tienen de común con ellas la virtud de nutrirse y de reproducirse. Porque en ellos, cuando engendran un semejante en especie, se desprende algo que estaba en la planta o en el animal, lo cual queda totalmente fuera del engendrante al terminar la generación. Ahora bien, nada puede desprenderse de Dios, porque es indivisible. Pues incluso el mismo Hijo, engendrado por Dios, no está fuera del Padre, que le engendra, sino en Él, según consta por los testimonios anteriores (c. 9, final). Tampoco puede entenderse la generación divina a la manera de la emanación que se da en el alma sensitiva, porque Dios, para poder influir en otro, no recibe nada de agente externo; pues, de lo contrario, no sería el primer ser. Además, las operaciones del alma sensitiva se llevan a cabo mediante instrumentos corporales, y es evidente que Dios es incorpóreo. Resulta, pues, que la generación divina se ha de entender a la manera de la emanación intelectual.
Y debe exponerse de este modo: Consta, por lo expuesto en el primer libro (c. 47), que Dios se entiende a sí mismo. Mas lo entendido, en cuanto tal, debe estar en quien lo entiende, porque entender es aprehender una cosa con el entendimiento. Por eso, incluso nuestro entendimiento, al entenderse, está en sí mismo, no sólo como identificado con su esencia, sino también como aprehendido. Luego es preciso que Dios esté en sí mismo como está lo entendido en el inteligente. Pero lo entendido en el inteligente es la idea o verbo. Luego en Dios, al entenderse a sí mismo, está el Verbo de Dios, como Dios entendido, tal como la idea de piedra, que está en el entendimiento, es la piedra entendida. Por esta razón se dice: “El Verbo estaba en Dios.”
Mas, como el entendimiento divino no pasa de la potencia al acto, sino que está siempre en acto, según se probó en el libro primero (c. 55 ss.), será absolutamente necesario que Dios se haya entendido siempre. Y, por el hecho de entenderse, es necesario que su Verbo esté en Él, como se demostró. Luego es necesario que el Verbo haya existido siempre en Dios. Por tanto, su Verbo es coeterno con Dios y no le sobrevino en el tiempo, tal como a nuestro entendimiento le sobreviene el verbo concebido interiormente, que es la idea entendida. Por esto se dice en San Juan: “Al principio era el Verbo”.
Y como el entendimiento divino no sólo está siempre en acto, sino que es también él mismo acto puro, según se probó en el libro primero (c. 16), es preciso que la substancia del entendimiento divino sea su mismo entender, que es el acto del entendimiento. Es así que el ser del Verbo concebido interiormente -o de la idea entendida- es su propio entenderse. Luego el ser del Verbo divino y el del entendimiento divino se identifican, y, en consecuencia, también el ser del mismo Dios, que es su entender. Ahora bien, el ser de Dios es su propia esencia o naturaleza, la cual es el mismo Dios, como se probó en el libro primero (c. 22). Luego el Verbo de Dios es el ser divino, y la esencia de Dios, y el mismo Dios verdadero. -En cambio, con el verbo del entendimiento humano no sucede lo mismo; porque, cuando nuestro entendimiento se entiende a sí mismo, su ser y su entender no se identifican, ya que la substancia del entendimiento era inteligente en potencia antes de entender en acto. De esto se sigue que el ser de la idea entendida y el del entendimiento son distintos, ya que el de la idea entendida es su misma intelección. Por eso es preciso que el verbo interiormente concebido por el hombre que se entiende a sí mismo no sea un hombre verdadero, con el ser natural de hombre, sino solamente un “hombre entendido”, como una semejanza del hombre verdadero aprehendida por el entendimiento. Sin embargo, el Verbo de Dios, puesto que es Dios entendido, es verdadero Dios, teniendo naturalmente ser divino; porque, según dijimos, el ser natural de Dios y su entender se identifican. Por esto se dice: “El Verbo era Dios”. Lo cual, como se dice en absoluto, demuestra que se ha de entender que el Verbo de Dios es verdadero Dios. Sin embargo, el verbo del hombre no puede llamarse simple y absolutamente hombre, sino en cierto sentido, es decir, “hombre entendido”. De ahí que esta afirmación sería falsa: “El hombre es el verbo”; sin embargo, podría ser verdadera ésta: “En hombre entendido es el verbo”. Luego, cuando se dice: “El Verbo era Dios”, se demuestra que el Verbo divino no sólo es la Idea entendida -como nuestro verbo-, sino también que es una cosa que existe y subsiste en la naturaleza. Porque el Dios verdadero es una cosa subsistente, pues es por excelencia el Ser por sí (l. 1, c. 13).
Sin embargo, en el Verbo no está la naturaleza de Dios como si fuera específicamente una y numéricamente diferente, pues el Verbo posee la naturaleza divina tal como el entender de Dios es su mismo ser, según se dijo. Ahora bien, si el entender se identifica con el ser divino, resultará que el Verbo tiene la misma naturaleza divina, idéntica no sólo específicamente, sino también numéricamente. Además, la naturaleza que es una específicamente no se divide en muchas numéricamente si no es por la materia. Es así que la naturaleza divina es totalmente inmaterial. Luego es imposible que la naturaleza divina sea una en especie y diferente en número. Por tanto, el Verbo de Dios coincide con Dios en una naturaleza numéricamente idéntica. -Y por esto el Verbo de Dios y Dios -del cual es Verbo- no son dos dioses, sino uno solo. Pues si, en nosotros, dos que tienen la naturaleza humana son dos hombres, es porque la naturaleza humana se divide numéricamente en dos. Pero en el libro primero demostramos (c. 31) que lo que está dividido en las criaturas, en Dios es absolutamente uno; por ejemplo, en las criaturas se distinguen la esencia y la existencia; y en algunas también es distinto lo que subsiste en su esencia y su esencia o naturaleza; por ejemplo, este hombre no es su humanidad ni su ser; sin embargo. Dios es su esencia y su existencia.
Y, aunque todas estas cosas se unifiquen ciertísimamente en Dios, no obstante, en Él está cuanto pertenece al concepto de subsistente o de esencia o de su misma existencia, pues a Él le conviene el no estar en otro, en cuanto que es subsistente, el ser algo, en cuanto que es esencia, y el estar en acto, en cuanto que es su mismo existir. Luego, como en Dios se identifican el sujeto que entiende, el entender y la idea entendida -que es su Verbo-, es preciso que con muchísima verdad esté en Dios lo que pertenece a los conceptos de inteligente, de entender y de idea entendida o verbo. Ahora bien, al verbo interior, que es la idea entendida, le corresponde naturalmente el proceder del inteligente conforme a su entender, pues es como el término de la operación intelectual; porque el entendimiento, entendiendo, concibe y forma la idea o razón entendida, que es el verbo interior. Luego es necesario que de Dios proceda su Verbo en conformidad con su propio entender. Por tanto, el Verbo de Dios es, comparado con Dios inteligente, del cual es Verbo, como el término respecto de su principio; lo cual pertenece a la naturaleza de todo verbo. En consecuencia, como en Dios son una sola cosa esencialmente el inteligente, el entender y la idea entendida, o Verbo -y por eso es necesario que cada una de esas cosas sea Dios-, sólo queda lugar para una distinción de relación, según la cual el Verbo es término respecto de quien lo concibe. De aquí viene que el evangelista, como dijese “el Verbo era Dios”, con el fin de que no se creyera que no cabía distinción alguna entre el Verbo y Dios, quien pronuncia o concibe el Verbo, añadió: “Él estaba al principio en Dios”; como si dijera: Este Verbo, que dije era Dios, es distinta de algún modo de Dios, que lo pronuncia, para que pudiera afirmarse que “estaba en Dios”.
El Verbo, pues, concebido interiormente, es cierta explicación y semejanza de la cosa entendida. Ahora bien, la semejanza de algo que existe en otro tiene o el carácter de “ejemplar”, si se considera como principio, o más bien el de “imagen”, si se considera respecto de aquello que representa como con relación al principio. Podemos ver claramente un ejemplo de ambas cosas en nuestro entendimiento. En efecto, como la imagen de la obra, que existe en la mente del artífice, es el principio de la operación con que se lleva a cabo dicha obra, se compara con ella como el ejemplar con lo ejemplarizado; sin embargo, la imagen de una cosa natural concebida en nuestro entendimiento, comparada con la cosa que representa, es como el término comparado con su principio; pues nuestro entendimiento empieza por los sentidos, los cuales son impresionados por las cosas naturales. Pero como Dios, al entenderse, se entiende a sí mismo y a todas las cosas, según se demostró en el libro primero (c. 47 ss.), su entender es el principio de las cosas entendidas por Él, puesto que son causadas por su entendimiento y voluntad; pero, respecto al inteligible -que es El mismo-, es como el término comparado con su principio, pues éste inteligible se identifica con el entendimiento que entiende, del cual es una emanación el Verbo concebido. Luego es necesario que el Verbo de Dios sea respecto de las demás cosas entendidas como el “ejemplar”, y respecto a Dios, como su “imagen”. Por eso se dice del Verbo de Dios que es “la imagen de Dios invisible”.
Mas hay una diferencia entre el entendimiento y el sentido; pues el sentido aprehende la cosa en cuanto a sus accidentes exteriores, que son el color, el sabor, la cantidad, etc.; en cambio, el entendimiento penetra en el interior de ella. Y como todo conocimiento se completa atendiendo a la semejanza que hay entre el que conoce y lo conocido, es preciso que en el sentido haya una semejanza de la cosa sensible en cuanto a los accidentes de la misma y que en el entendimiento haya una semejanza de la cosa entendida en cuanto a la esencia de ésta. Por tanto, el verbo concebido en el entendimiento es la imagen o el ejemplar de la substancia de la cosa entendida. Luego, siendo el Verbo de Dios la imagen de Dios, según se ha demostrado, es preciso que sea la imagen de Dios en cuanto a la esencia divina. Por eso dice el Apóstol que es “la imagen de la substancia de Dios”.
Pero la imagen de una cosa cualquiera es doble, porque hay alguna imagen que no coincide en naturaleza con aquello que representa, bien sea su imagen en cuanto a los accidentes exteriores -como la imagen de bronce es la imagen de un hombre, pero no es hombre-, o bien sea su imagen en cuanto a la substancia de la cosa; pues la idea de hombre, que está en el entendimiento, no es el hombre, porque, según dice el Filósofo, “la piedra no está en el alma, sino la representación de la piedra”. Sin embargo, la imagen que tiene la misma naturaleza que aquello que representa es como el hijo del rey, en quien aparece la imagen del padre, y es de la misma naturaleza que él. Si, pues, se demostró que el Verbo de Dios es la imagen de quien lo pronuncia en cuanto a su misma esencia, y que comunica en naturaleza con quien lo pronuncia, síguese que el Verbo es no sólo imagen, sino también “Hijo”. Porque, tratándose de vivientes, es imposible que quien es imagen de alguien y tiene su misma naturaleza no pueda llamarse hijo; pues lo que procede de un viviente, reproduciendo su especie, dícese hijo suyo. Por esto se dice en el salmo: “El Señor me dijo: Tú eres mi Hijo”.
Se ha de tener también en cuenta que, como en cualquier naturaleza la procedencia del hijo respecto del padre es natural, es preciso que el Verbo de Dios, por el hecho de llamarse Hijo de Dios, proceda naturalmente del Padre. Y esto está en consonancia con lo ya dicho, sirviéndonos de claro ejemplo lo que sucede en nuestro entendimiento. Pues nuestro entendimiento conoce algunas cosas naturalmente, por ejemplo, los primeros principios de lo inteligible, cuyos conceptos inteligibles -que se llaman verbos internos- existen en él y de él proceden naturalmente. Hay, además, algunos inteligibles que el entendimiento no conoce naturalmente, sino por medio del raciocinio, cuyos conceptos no están en nuestro entendimiento naturalmente, sino que los adquiere trabajosamente. Pero es manifiesto que Dios se entiende naturalmente -como existe también naturalmente-, pues su entender es su ser, según probamos en el libro primero (c. 45). Luego el Verbo de Dios, que se entiende a sí mismo, procede naturalmente de Él. Y, como el Verbo de Dios es de la misma naturaleza que Dios, que lo pronuncia, y es su imagen, resulta que este proceso natural se realiza de modo semejante a aquel en que se da la procedencia con identidad de naturaleza. Ahora bien, lo esencial de la verdadera generación en los seres vivientes es que el engendrado proceda del engendrante como imagen suya y teniendo la misma naturaleza. Luego el Verbo de Dios es verdaderamente “engendrado” por Dios, que lo profiere, y su procedencia puede llamarse “generación” o “nacimiento”. Por eso se dice en el salmo: “Hoy te he engendrado yo”, o sea, en la eternidad, que siempre es presente y no incluye la razón de pasado o de futuro. -Esto demuestra la falsedad de lo que dijeron los arrianos, que el Padre por su voluntad engendró al Hijo. Pues lo que se realiza por voluntad no es natural.
(Aquí casi toda la tradición interpone, sin razón, dos párrafos. Cf. ed. Leonina, t. 15, en este lugar y p. XXIV, a.)
También hay que tener en cuenta que lo engendrado, mientras permanece en el engendrante, se dice que está “concebido”. Pero el Verbo de Dios es de tal manera engendrado por Él, que permanece inseparablemente en Dios, como consta por lo dicho. Luego con razón se puede llamar al Verbo de Dios “concebido por Dios. Por eso, la Sabiduría divina dice: “Antes que los abismos ya era concebida yo”. Sin embargo, hay una diferencia entre la concepción del Verbo de Dios y la material que se da en los animales que nos rodean. Pues la prole, mientras está concebida y encerrada en el útero, carece de la última perfección para subsistir por sí misma, como distinta del engendrante en cuanto al lugar; por eso, en la generación corporal de los animales es preciso distinguir entre “concepción” de la prole engendrada y “parto”, mediante el cual también se separa localmente la prole del engendrante, saliendo de su útero. Sin embargo, el Verbo de Dios, estando en el mismo Dios, que lo profiere, es perfecto subsistiendo en sí mismo y distinto del Dios que lo profiere, pues en este caso no cabe la distinción local, sino que se distinguen por la sola relación, como se ha dicho. Luego en la generación del Verbo de Dios se identifican la concepción y el parto. Y por esto, después que por boca de la Sabiduría se dijo: “Ya era concebida yo”, casi inmediatamente se añade: “Antes que los montes yo era dada a luz”. Mas como la concepción y el parto de los seres corpóreos suponen movimiento, es necesario que en ellos haya sucesión, siendo el término de la concepción la estancia de lo concebido en quien lo concibe, y siendo, por el contrario, el término del parto el existir del parido, como distinto de quien lo pare. Luego es necesario que en las cosas corpóreas lo que se concibe aun no exista, y lo que se da a luz, en el dar a luz no se distinga de quien lo da a luz. Pero la concepción y el parto del verbo inteligible no es con movimiento ni con sucesión; por eso, al mismo tiempo que es concebido, existe, y, al mismo tiempo que es dado a luz, es distinto; así como lo que es iluminado, al mismo tiempo que se le ilumina, queda iluminado, porque en la iluminación no hay sucesión alguna. Y si esto se encuentra en nuestro verbo inteligible, mucho más compete al Verbo de Dios, no sólo porque es la suya una concepción y un parto inteligible, sino porque ambas cosas existen en la eternidad, en la cual no puede haber ni antes ni después. De aquí viene que, después de haber dicho por boca de la Sabiduría: “Antes que los collados yo era dada a luz”, con el fin de que no se entienda que, mientras no era dada a luz, no existía, se añadiese: “Cuando fundó los cielos, allí estaba yo”. De modo que, así como en la generación carnal de los animales primero se concibe algo, después es dado a luz, y, por último, quédase lo engendrado por conveniencia propia con el parturiente, como consociado con él, pero distinto de él, así también en la generación divina se han de suponer estas cosas, pero como existiendo simultáneamente; pues el Verbo de Dios es simultáneamente concebido, dado a luz y presente. Y como lo que se da a luz procede del seno, así como se llama “parto” a la generación del Verbo de Dios, para insinuar su perfecta distinción del engendrante, por la misma razón se la llama “generación del seno”, según aquello del salmo: “En mi seno te he engendrado antes que el lucero”. Pero como entre el Verbo y quien lo profiere no se da una distinción tal que impida esté en quien lo profiere, según se ve por lo dicho; así como, para insinuar la distinción del Verbo, se dice que es dada a luz o que es engendrado del seno, así también, para demostrar que tal distinción no excluye que el Verbo esté en quien lo profiere, se dice que está “en el seno del Padre”.
Mas hay que tener en cuenta que la generación carnal de los animales se lleva a cabo por una virtud activa y otra pasiva: por la activa, alguien se llama padre, y por la pasiva, alguien se llama madre. Y por eso algunos requisitos de la generación se aplican al padre y otros a la madre, pues el dar la naturaleza y la especie de la prole compete al padre, mas el concebir y dar a luz compete a la madre, como paciente y recipiente. Ahora bien, como la procedencia del Verbo se da cuando Dios se entiende a sí mismo, y el divino entender obedece a una virtud, no pasiva, sino cuasi activa -porque el entendimiento de Dios está solamente en acto y no en potencia-, síguese que en la generación del Verbo de Dios no cabe el concepto de madre, sino sólo el de padre. Lo que se atribuye separadamente al padre y a la madre en la generación carnal, atribúyenlo totalmente las Sagradas Escrituras al Padre en la generación del Verbo. Pues se dice que el Padre “da la vida al Hijo” y que “lo concibe y da a luz”.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario