Nor does the Apostle (Rom. i, 3) say absolutely that the Son of God was 4 made/ but that He was made of the seed of David according to the Jiesb by the assumption of human nature. Hence the following words, who was predestinated Son of God, apply to the Son in His human nature: for that union of human nature with the Son of God, which made it possible for a man to be called Son of God, was not due to any human merits, but to the grace of God predestinating. J CHAPTER V-RejeEtion of the Opinion of Sabellius concerning the Son of God% BECAUSE it is a fixed idea in the mind of all who think rightly of of God, that there can be but one God by nature, some, conceiving from the Scriptures the belief that Christ is truly and by nature God and the Son of God, have confessed that Christ, the Son of God, and God the Father are one God; and yet have not allowed that there was any c God the Son,' so called according to His nature from eternity, but have held that God received the denomination of Sonship from the time that He was born of the Virgin Mary. Thus all things that Christ suffered in the flesh they attri- buted to God the Father. This was the opinion of the Sabellians, who were also called c Patripassians/ because they asserted that the Father had suffered, and that the Father Himself was Christ. The peculiarity of this do6trine was # Or, on St Paul's showing (Phil, ii, 9), that According to the maxim, 'The king never dies,' Christ as man had now received all power on a new Charles II was king the instant his father's head fell, title, the title of the redemption which He had just January 29, 1648: he came into possession of his wrought out in His blood (Apoc. v, 9). kingdom when he entered London, May 29, 1660.
t Still this text, Acts ii, 36, does not refer to the \ F or predestinated the Greek is opitrQcvroc, marked time of the Incarnation, but to that of the Resurrec- out, declared, a better reading.
tion. In the Resurrection, God gave to His Incarnate $ Sabellius, an African from the neighbourhood Son for the first time the full glory of Messiahship of Cyrene, in the early third century, an anti-Triniand Lordship, the glory of the Only-begotten (John i, tarian, taught that one and the same divine Being as 14), which was His by right, but was not actually giving the Old Law was called the Father, as born enjoyed by Him, in the time of His voluntary of Mary was called the Son, as given to the Apostles kenosis (Phil, ii, 7), in the days of his flesh (Heb. v, 7). was called the Holy Ghost, so that there were three Similarly St Paul (Acts xiii, 32, 33) interprets the manifestations, but not what we should call three text, This day haye I begotten thee (Ps. ii, 7), to Persons; and that when God was under one of these mean, ' This day of thy resurrection have I shown manifestations, He was not under either of the other thee forth for my Son.' — An example from history, two.
the tenet that the term ' Son of God ' does not denote any existing Person, but a property supervening upon a pre-existing Person.
The falsity of this position is manifest from Scripture authority. For Christ in the Scriptures is not only called the Son of the Virgin, but also the Son of God. But it cannot be that the same person should be son of him- self, or that the same should give existence and receive it. We observe also that after the Incarnation the Father gives testimony of the Son: This is my beloved Son (Matt, iii, 17): thereby pointing to His person. Christ therefore is in person other than His Father.* CHAPTER Vl-Of the Opinion of Arius concerning the Son o/Goc/f WHEREAS it is not in accordance with sacred dodtrine to say with Photinus that the Son of God took His beginning from Mary; or, with Sabellius, that the eternal God and Father began to be the Son by taking flesh; there were others who took the view, which Scrip- ture teaches, that the Son of God was before the Incarnation and even before the creation of the world; but because the Son is other than the Father, they accounted Him to be not of the same nature with the Father: for they could not understand, nor would they believe, that any two beings, distinct in per- son, had the same essence and nature. And because, according to the doctrine of faith, alone of natures the nature of God the Father is believed to be eternal, they believed that the nature of the Son was not from eternity, although the Son was before other creatures. And because all that is not eternal is made out of nothing and created by God, they declared that the Son of God was made out of nothing and is a creature. But because they were driven by the authority of Scripture to call the Son also God, they said that He was one with God the Father, not by nature, but by a union of wills, and by parti- cipation in the likeness of God beyond other creatures. Hence, as the highest creatures, the angels are called in Scripture c gods ' and c sons of God,' — e.g., Where werst thou* when the morning stars praised me, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job xxxviii, 4-7:) God stood in the assembly of gods (Ps. lxxxi, 1 ): — they considered that He should be called ' Son of God 9 and c God ' pre-eminently above others, inasmuch as through Him the Father created every other creature.J CHAPTER VII- Reje&ion of Arius s Position HOLY Scripture calls Christ c Son of God ' and the angels c sons of God,' yet not in the same sense. To which of the angels did he ever say: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? (Heb. i, 5.) 2. If Christ were called ' Son ' in the same sense as all the angels and saints, He would not be Only-begotten, however much, for the excellence of His nature above the rest, He might be called first-born (Ps. lxxxviii, 27). But the Scripture declares Him to be the Only-begotten (John i, 14).
# St Athanasius {Expos, fide\y II) tells us that \ The Arian ' Word ' is the Platonic * Heaven,' Sabellius expressed his heresy in a word of his own first of creatures in time and dignity and containing coining, vioTrdruip, Son-Father. all others. See the Tm<eusy 30C-31D, where it is t Arius, priest of Alexandria, condemned at the called " this one present only-begotten Heaven, that Council of Nice in 325, died in 336. has been made."
5. Of whom is Christ according to the fleshy who is over all things, God blessed for ever (Ronuix, 5): * Expecting the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (Tit. ii. 13): 1 will raise up to David a just branchy and this is what they shall call him, the Lord our just one (Jcrcm. xxiii, 5, 6), where in the Hebrew we find the tetragrammaton, the name of God alone.f 7. No creature receives the whole fulness of the divine goodness: but in Christ there dwells all the fulness of the Godhead (Col. ii, 9).
8. An angel's mind falls far short of the divine mind: but the mind of Christ in point of knowledge does not fall short of the divine mind: for in Him are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. ii, 3).
9. All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: All mine are thine, and thine are mine (John xvi, 15: xvii, 10). [Cf. Luke xv, 31.] Therefore there is the same essence and nature of the Father and the Son.
10. In Phil, ii, 7, 8, by the form of God is understood no other than the nature of God, as by the form of a servant is understood no other than human nature.
1 1. The JeWs sought to fill him because he said that Qod Was his Father, making himself equal to God (John v, 18). This is the narrative of the evangelist, whose testimony is true (John xix, 35): nor is it doubtful to any Christian but that what Christ said of Himself is true.
13. No created substance represents God in His substance: for whatever appears of the perfection of any creature is less than what God is: hence through no creature can the essence of God be known. But the Son repre- sents the Father; for the Apostle says of Him that He is the image of the invisible God (Col. i, 15). And lest He should be accounted an image falling short of and failing to represent the essence of God; or an image whence the essence of God could not be known, even as man is said to be the image of God (1 Cor. xi, 7), He is declared to be a perfect image, representing the very substance of God, the splendour of bis glory, and figure of his substance 19. Our final happiness is in God alone; and to Him alone the honour of latria is to be paid (B. Ill, Chap. CXX). But our happiness is in God the Son: This is Ife everlasting, that they fyoW thee, and him Whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ (John xvii, 3). And it is said: That all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father (John v, 23); and again, Adore him, all ye angels (Ps. xevi, 8), which the Apostle (Heb. i, 6) quotes as applying to the Son.
Taught by these and similar evidences of Holy Scripture, the Catholic Church confesses Christ to be the true and natural Son of God, co-eternal and equal with the Father; true God, of the same essence and nature with the Father; begotten, not created, nor made. Hence it appears that the faith of the Catholic Church alone truly confesses generation in God, refer- ring the generation of the Son to the fadl of His receiving the divine nature of the Father. Other teachers heretically refer this generation to a nature extraneous to Godhead, — Photinus and Sabellius to a human nature; Arius not to a human indeed, but still to a created nature, more honourable • Notes on St Paul, p. 389. altar. On which considerations Fr Knabenbauer, t The Hebrew is Takneh our justice: this whole Cursus S. Scripture auBoribus S.J. presbyteris, in h.Ly phrase is the name, not Tahweh only. But in Jerem. p. 290, writes: Quare consifium erit ad divinam Messut xxxiii, 16 (heb.), the same name is given to the city naturam probandam argumenta conquiri alia et mefiora et of Jerusalem: in Gen. xxxii, 20 (heb.), Exod. xvii, clariora.
1 5 (heb. and LXX), a similar name is given to an than other creatures. Arius further differs from Sabellius and Photinus in asserting that this generation was before the creation of the world, while they say that it was not before the Virgin birth. Sabellius however differs from Photinus in this, that Sabellius confesses Christ to be true God by nature, which neither Photinus nor Arius confesses; but Photinus says that He was a mere man, Arius that He was a sort of compound super-excellent creature, at once divine and human. Photfnus and Arius confess that the person of the Father and of the Son is different, which Sabellius denies. The Catholic faith therefore, taking the middle course {media Ivia incedens) confesses, with Arius and Photinus against Sabellius, that the person of the Father and of the Son is different, the Son being begotten, the Father absolutely unbe- gotten; but with Sabellius against Photinus and Arius, that Christ is true God by nature, and of the same nature with the Father, — albeit not of the same person. Hence we gather some inkling of the truth of the Catholic position: for to the truth, as the Philosopher says,* even false opinions testify; whereas false opinions are at variance, not only with the truth, but with one another.
CHAPTER Will-Explanation of the Texts which Arius used to allege for himself THAT they may fyufto thee^ the only true God (John xvii, 3) is not to be taken to mean that the Father alone is true God, as though the Son were not true God, but that the one sole true Godhead belongs to the Father, without however the Son being excluded from it. Hence John, interpreting these words of the Lord, attributes to the true Son both these titles which here our Lord ascribes to His Father: That We may {now the true God, and be in his true Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and life ever- lasting (1 John v, 20). f But even though the Son had confessed that the Father alone is true God, He should not for that be understood Himself as Son to be excluded from Godhead; for since the Father and the Son are one God, whatever is said of the Father by reason of His Divinity is as though it were said of the Son, and conversely. Thus the Lord's saying: No one knoweth the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father but the Son (Matt, xi, 27), is not to be understood as excluding the Father from know- ledge of Himself, or the Son either.
# Something of the sort is in Etb. Nic. I, 8: " All existing fads are in harmony with truth, but truth quickly shows itself out of harmony with false- hood." A false opinion on a complex issue is never wholly false: it must be borne out by some measure of fads; and these fads ultimately fall in with the true opinion, and the true opinion with them.
t The text in the Epistle evidently points to that in the Gospel. The question is whether it outruns the Gospel in explicitness, as St Thomas argues, or keeps close within the textual lines of the former writing. The Vulgate, which St Thomas follows, differs from the Greek text in three particulars, (a) For the true God, the Greek is simply tov akrflwov, him wbo is true, (b) For and be, the Greek is *ac kafUv, and we are. (c) For in his true Son, the Greek is cv rf a\rj$iv<a, iv t$ v«j> avrov, in him who is true, in his Son. The literal rendering of the Greek, // sumus in vero, in filio ejus, would easily slip into the present Vulgate, et sumus in vero fitio ejus. Critically, the Greek is the true reading. It means, ' and we are united with Him who is true, by being united with His Son/ or, * through His Son.' But in the next clause, Hie est verus Deus, what is the antecedent of the pronoun this? The Fathers, in controversy with the Arians, refer the pronoun to bis Son Jesus Cbrist. Others take the clause for a summing up and repeti- tion of what has been said, much in the manner of St John. They refer the pronoun olroq therefore to tov aXrflivov and r§ ak-qOwf, him wbo is true. They point to the next clause, Keep yourselves jrom idols, and will have it that St John is not occupied here with the divinity of the Son, but with the divinity of the one true God in contradiction with idols, by worshipping which tbe whole world then lay in the power of tbe eyil one. A Catholic's faith in the divinity of his Lord is not all staked on one pronoun. He can afford to be just, or even generous, to an Arian.
2. In the text, Whom in his own time be will show forth, who is blessed and alone powerful \ King of Kings and Lord of Lords (i Tim. vi, 1 5), it is not the Father that is named, but that which is common to the Father and the Son. For that the Son also is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is manifestly shown in the text: He Was clad in a garment sprinkled with bloody and his name T0as called, the Word of God: n4nd he hath on his garment and on his thigh Writ- ten. King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Apoc. xix, 13, 16).
3. The sense of the text, the Father is greater than I (John xiv, 28), is taught us by the Apostle (Phil, ii, 6). For since 'greater' is relative to Mess/ this must be understood of the Son according as He is made less; and He was made less in His taking the form of a servant, yet withal being equal to God the Father in the form of Qod. And no wonder if on this account the Father is said to be greater than Him, since the Apostle says that He was even made less than the angels: That Jesus, who Was made a little less than the angels, TPe hate seen crowned with glory and honour for his suffering of death (Heb. ii, 9: 4. Then the Son also himself shall be subjeft to him who subjected to him all things.* The context here shows that this is to be understood of Christ as man: for as man He died, and as man He rose again: but in His divinity, doing all things that the Father does (John v, 19), He too has subje&ed to Himself all things: for We look for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will reform the body of our lowliness, made conformable to the body of his glory, by the act of his power of subjecting all things to himself (Phil, iii, 20).
5. By the Father being said to gh>e to the Son (John iii, 3 5: Matt, xi, 27), nothing else is understood than the generation of the Son, whereby the Father has given the Son His own nature. And this may be gathered from the con- sideration of that which is given: for the Lord says: That which my Father hath gfoen me is greater than all (John x, 29): where that which is greater than all is the divine nature, wherein the Son is equal to the Father.f 6. Hence it appears how the Son is said to be taught (John v, 20: xv, 1 5), although He is not ignorant. It has been shown above that, in God, under- standing and being are the same (B. I, Chap. XLV): hence the communica- tion of the divine nature is also a communication of intelligence. But a communication of intelligence may be called a * showing,' or 4 speaking,' or * teaching.' By the fadl then of the Son having received the divine nature of His Father at His birth, He is said to have 'heard' from His Father, or the Father to have 'shown' Him: not that the Son was in ignorance before, and afterwards the Father taught Him: for the Apostle confesses Christ the power of God and wisdom of God (1 Cor. i, 24); and wisdom cannot be ignorant, or power weak.
7. The text, The Son cannot do anything of himself (John v, 19), argues no weakness in the Son; but since with God to aft is no other thing than to be, it is here said that the Son cannot a<5t of Himself, but has His adtion of the Father, as He cannot be of Himself, but only of the Father. Were He to be 4 of Himself,' He could not be the Son. But because the Son receives # For a detailed study of this glorious passage, would be: 'The eledt are stronger than all the world 1 Cor. xv, 24-28, see Notes on St Paul, pp. 1 21-124. beside/ — the sentiment of 1 John v, 4: All that is t So the text is explained by SS. Hilary, Ambrose born of God overcometk the world. In this interpretation, and Augustine. But from passages in the same gospel, our Lord speaks, not as the Eternal Son, but as Man where the phrase That which my Father hath giyen me and Redeemer: in which capacity many understand recurs (John vi, 37, 39: xvii, 2, II, 12, 24: xviii, Him to speak also in the other passages, John iii, 3 5: 9), it is argued to mean the ele&. The meaning then Matt, xi, 27.
the same nature that the Father has, and consequently the same power, therefore though He neither is *of Himself' (a se) nor a<5ls of Himself, still He is 4 by Himself (per se) and a£ts by Himself, since He at once is by His own nature, which He has received from the Father, and a<5ls by His own nature received from the Father.* Hence, to show that though the Son does not a<5t 4 of Himself/ nevertheless He a<5ls * by Himself/ the verse goes on: Whatsoever things he (the Father) doeth, these the Son also doeth in lify manner.
8. All the texts about the Father giving commandment to the Son, and the Son obeying the Father, or praying to the Father, are to be understood of the Son as He is subject to His Father, which is only in point of the humanity which He has assumed (John xiv, 31: xv, 10: Phil, ii, 8), as the Apostle shows (Heb. v, 7: Gal. iv, 4).
10. His saying, To sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give youy but to them for whom it is prepared (Matt, xx, 23), does not show that the Son has no power of distributing the seats in heaven, or the participation of life everlasting, which He expressly says does belong to Him to bestow: I gfte them life everlasting (John x, 27); and again it is said: The Father hath given all judgement to the Son (John v, 22): He will set the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left (Matt, xxv, 33): it belongs then to the power of the Son to set any one on His right or on His left, whether both designations mark different degrees of glory, or the one refers to glory, the other to punishment. We must look to the context, whereby it appears that the mother of the sons of Zebedee rested on some confidence of kindred with the man Christ. t The Lord then by His answer did not mean that it was not in His power to give what was asked, but that it was not in His power to give to them for whom it was asked: J for it did not belong to Him to give inasmuch as He was the Son of the Virgin, but inasmuch as He was the Son of God; and therefore it was not His to give to any for their connexion with Him according to fleshly kindred, as He was the Son of the Virgin, but it belonged to Him as Son of God to give to those for whom it was prepared by His Father according to eternal predestination.
1 1. Nor from the text: Of that day and hour no one {noWeth, no, not the angels of healren, nor the Son, but the Father alone (Mark xiii, 32):§ can it be understood that the Son did not know the hour of His coming, seeing that in Him are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. ii, 3), and seeing that He perfectly knows that which is greater still, namely, the Father (Matt, xi, 27): || but the meaning is that the Son, as a man in His place amongst men, behaved Himself after the manner of one ignorant in not revealing that day to His disciples. For it is a usual mode of speaking # This is the usual style of the Fathers and of St namely the title of personal friendship and family Paul, appropriating ii to the Father and Sia to the connexion.
Son, 1 Cor. viii, 6: Rom. xi, 36. § St Thomas (Chap. VI), or his editor, quotes tThe 'kindred' is not easy to trace: but on this as Matt, xxiv, 36, where in the Sinaitic and John xix, 25, some take his mother's sister to be the Vatican manuscripts, and in the Revised Version, mother of the sons of Zebedee of Matt, xxvii, 56, i.e., the clause, nor the Son, appears. Salome, Mark xv, 40. If there was not kindred, there || Without denial of the fulness of knowledge in was certainly friendship, which is enough for the the divine nature of Christ, there is a well-known argument. current speculation as to how far His human nature X This would emphasise the pronoun, to giye to participated in His divine knowledge, and whether you. Unfortunately that pronoun is absent in the any shade of ignorance was permitted to rest upon Greek, which may be rendered: // is not mine to give: His human soul, as part of the self-imposed genesis it is only jor them for whom it is prepared. We may per- mentioned in Phil, ii, 7. This idea of J^encsis may be haps accommodate St Thomas thus: 'It is not in my wrong, but it is not Arianism. There never was power to give on the title on which it is asked,' — {enosis of the Eternal Son, as such.
in Scripture for God to be said to know a thing, if He makes it known: thus, Now I know that thou fearest the Lord (Gen. xxii, 12), means * I have made it known.' And contrariwise the Son is said not to know that which He does not make known to us.
CHAPTER Xll-How the Son of God is called the Wisdom ofQod WISDOM in man is a habit whereby our mind is perfe&ed in the knowledge of the highest truths: such are divine truths. Wisdom in God is His knowledge of Himself. But because He does not know Himself by any presentation of Himself other than His essence, and His a6l of understanding is His essence, the wisdom of God cannot be a habit, but is the very essence of God. But the Son of God is the Word and Concept of God understanding Himself. The Word of God, thus conceived, is properly called 4 begotten Wisdom': hence the Apostle names Christ the wisdom of God (1 Cor. i, 24). This Word of wisdom, conceived in the mind, is a manifestation of the wisdom of the mind which thereby understands: as in us adts are a manifestation of habits. Also the divine wisdom is called 'light,' as consisting in a pure a£t of knowledge; and the manifestation of light is the brightness thence proceeding: the Word of divine wisdom there- fore is fittingly called the 'brightness of light,' according to the text: being the brightness of his glory (Heb. i, 3).* But though the Son, or Word of God, is properly called * conceived wisdom,' nevertheless the name of Wisdom, when used absolutely, must be common to the Father and the Son; since the wisdom that is resplendent through the Word is the essence of the Father, and the essence of the Father is common to Him with the Son.
CHAPTER XVII- That the Holy Qhost is true Qod A TEMPLE is consecrated to none but God: hence it is said: The Lord in his holy temple (Ps. x, 5). But there is a temple appointed to the Holy Ghost, as it is said: Know ye not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost? (1 Cor. vi, 19.) The Holy Ghost then is God, particularly since our members, which the text says are the temple of the Holy Ghost, are the members of Christ: for the writer had said before: Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? (v. 15.) Seeing that Christ is true God, it would be inappropriate for the members of Christ to be the temple of the Holy Ghost, unless the Holy Ghost were God.
2. The service of latria (B. Ill, Chap. CXX) is paid by holy men to God alone (Deut. vi, 13). But holy men pay that service to the Holy Ghost: for it is said: We Who serlpe the Spirit as Qod {qui spirit ui Deo serln'mus. — Phil, iii, 3). And though some manscripts have, We who serTre in the spirit of the Lord (qui spiritu Domini seryimus [showing the reading Otov])> yet the Greek* manuscripts and the more ancient Latin ones have, We who serve the Spirit as God (qui spiritui Deo servimus); and from the Greek itself [xarpcWw] it appears # The brightness oflight is nothing else than its imagination, disciplined by modern science, continuintensity; or as we might say, its adequacy. Thus the ally fail to correspond. To understand the ancients, Son is adequate, or equal, to the Father. But in these we must leave our science behind, and dwell in the metaphors the imagination, and consequently the prima facie region of sense and first impressions, meaning, of the ancients who first used them, and our that this is to be understood of the service of latria, which is due to God alone.* 3. To sanctify men is a work proper to God: / am the Lord *toho sanctify you (Levit. xxii, 9). But it is the Holy Ghost who sanctifies, according to the words of the Apostle: Ye are Voashed and sanctified and justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. vi, 11).
4. As the life of the body is by the soul, so the soul's life of justice is by God: hence the Lord says: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so whosoever eateth me, the same shall also live by me (John vi, 58). But such life is by the Holy Ghost; hence it is added: // is the Spirit that giveth life (John vi, 63): and the Apostle says: If with the spirit ye mortify the deeds of khe flesh, ye shall live (Rom. viii, i8).f 7. "The Spirit searcheth all things, e^en the profound things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoVoeth but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. ii, 10, 11). But to comprehend all the profound things of God is not given to any crea- ture: for no one knoweth the Son but the Father, nor doth any one know the Father but the Son (Matt, xi, 27); and in the person of God it is said, My secret to me (Isai. xxiv, 16). Therefore the Holy Ghost is not a creature.
8. According to the above comparison, the Holy Ghost is to God as a man's spirit to man. But a man's spirit is intrinsic to man, not of a foreign nature, but part of him. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not of a nature extrinsic to Deity.
1 1. Evidently from Holy Scripture it was God who spoke by the prophets, as it is said: / will hear what the Lord God speaketh in me (Ps. lxxxiv, 9). But it is equally evident that the Holy Ghost spoke in the prophets: The Scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost foretold by the mouth of David (Acts i, 16). The holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i, 21). Clearly then the Holy Ghost is God.
17. The Holy Ghost is expressly called God in the text: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?...Thou hast not lied to men, but to God (Acts, v, 3, 4).