Chapter XIII. One Divine Essence, Containing Three Persons; Taught In The

Scriptures From The Beginning.

What is taught in the Scriptures concerning the immensity and spirituality

of the essence of God, should serve not only to overthrow the foolish

notions of the vulgar, but also to refute the subtleties of profane

philosophy. One of the ancients,(191) in his own conception very shrewdly,

said, that whatever we see, and whatever we do not see, is God. But he

imagined that the Deity was diffused through every part of the world. But,

although God, to keep us within the bounds of sobriety, speaks but rarely

of his essence, yet, by those two attributes, which I have mentioned, he

supersedes all gross imaginations, and represses the presumption of the

human mind. For, surely, his immensity ought to inspire us with awe, that

we may not attempt to measure him with our senses; and the spirituality of

his nature prohibits us from entertaining any earthly or carnal

speculations concerning him. For the same reason, he represents his

residence to be “in heaven;” for though, as he is incomprehensible, he

fills the earth also; yet, seeing that our minds, from their dulness, are

continually dwelling on the earth, in order to shake off our sloth and

inactivity, he properly raises us above the world. And here is demolished

the error of the Manichees, who, by maintaining the existence of two

original principles, made the devil, as it were, equal to God. This

certainly was both dividing the unity of God, and limiting his immensity.

For their daring to abuse certain testimonies of Scripture betrayed a

shameful ignorance; as the error itself evidenced an execrable madness.

The Anthropomorphites also, who imagined God to be corporeal, because the

Scripture frequently ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet,

are easily refuted. For who, even of the meanest capacity, understands

not, that God lisps, as it were, with us, just as nurses are accustomed to

speak to infants? Wherefore, such forms of expression do not clearly

explain the nature of God, but accommodate the knowledge of him to our

narrow capacity; to accomplish which, the Scripture must necessarily

descend far below the height of his majesty.

II. But he also designates himself by another peculiar character, by which

he may be yet more clearly distinguished; for, while he declares himself

to be but One, he proposes himself to be distinctly considered in Three

Persons, without apprehending which, we have only a bare and empty name of

God floating in our brains, without any idea of the true God. Now, that no

one may vainly dream of three gods, or suppose that the simple essence of

God is divided among the three Persons, we must seek for a short and easy

definition, which will preserve us from all error. But since some

violently object to the word Person, as of human invention, we must first

examine the reasonableness of this objection. When the Apostle denominates

the Son the express image of the hypostasis of the Father, he undoubtedly

ascribes to the Father some subsistence, in which he differs from the Son.

For to understand this word as synonymous with Essence, (as some

interpreters have done, as though Christ, like wax impressed with a seal,

represented in himself the substance of the Father,) were not only harsh,

but also absurd. For the essence of God being simple and indivisible, he

who contains all in himself, not in part, or by derivation, but in

complete perfection, could not, without impropriety, and even absurdity,

be called the express image of it. But since the Father, although

distinguished by his own peculiar property, hath expressed himself

entirely in his Son, it is with the greatest reason asserted that he hath

made his hypostasis conspicuous in him; with which the other appellation,

given him in the same passage, of “the brightness of his glory,” exactly

corresponds. From the words of the Apostle, we certainly conclude, that

there is in the Father a proper hypostasis, which is conspicuous in the

Son. And thence also we easily infer the hypostasis of the Son, which

distinguishes him from the Father. The same reasoning is applicable to the

Holy Spirit; for we shall soon prove him also to be God; and yet he must,

of necessity, be considered as distinct from the Father. But this is not a

distinction of the essence, which it is unlawful to represent as any other

than simple and undivided. It follows, therefore, if the testimony of the

Apostle be credited, that there are in God three _hypostases_. And, as the

Latins have expressed the same thing by the word _person_, it is too

fastidious and obstinate to contend about so clear a matter. If we wish to

translate word for word, we may call it _subsistence_. Many, in the same

sense, have called it _substance_. Nor has the word _person_ been used by

the Latins only; but the Greeks also, for the sake of testifying their

consent to this doctrine, taught the existence of three προσωπα (persons)

in God. But both Greeks and Latins, notwithstanding any verbal difference,

are in perfect harmony respecting the doctrine itself.

III. Now, though heretics rail at the word _person_, or some morose and

obstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since

they cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely

God, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is

it to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and

recorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only

our thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the

Scripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future

dissensions and disputes; for thus we weary ourselves with verbal

controversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires

in odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be

found in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law

which is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but

what is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if

by exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously

defended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of

which is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears

with its harshness, and seduces persons from the simplicity of the Divine

word, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we

ought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern

our thoughts of him; since all the thoughts that we entertain concerning

him merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd.

But there is a proper medium to be observed: we should seek in the

Scriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking; by which we

may regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our

mouths. But what forbids our expressing, in plainer words, those things

which, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and

obscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the

true sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not

without sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are

not wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was

absolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one

then censures the novelty of the words, may he not be justly considered as

offended at the light of the truth? as having no other cause of censure,

but that the truth is explained and elucidated?

IV. But such verbal novelty (if it must have this appellation) is

principally used, when the truth is to be asserted in opposition to

malicious cavillers, who elude it by crafty evasions; of which we have too

much experience in the present day, who find great difficulty in refuting

the enemies of pure and sound doctrine: possessed of serpentine lubricity,

they escape by the most artful expedients, unless they are vigorously

pursued, and held fast when once caught. Thus the ancients, pestered with

various controversies against erroneous dogmas, were constrained to

express their sentiments with the utmost perspicuity, that they might

leave no subterfuges to the impious, who availed themselves of obscure

expressions, for the concealment of their errors. Unable to resist the

clear testimonies of the Scriptures, Arius confessed Christ to be God, and

the Son of God; and, as though this were all that was necessary, he

pretended to agree with the Church at large. But, at the same time, he

continued to maintain that Christ was created, and had a beginning like

other creatures. To draw the versatile subtlety of this man from its

concealment, the ancient Fathers proceeded further, and declared Christ to

be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Here

impiety openly discovered itself, when the Arians began inveterately to

hate and execrate the name ὁμοούσιος, (consubstantial.) But if, in the

first instance, they had sincerely and cordially confessed Christ to be

God, they would not have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father.

Who can dare to censure those good men, as quarrelsome and contentious,

for having kindled such a flame of controversy, and disturbed the peace of

the Church on account of one little word? That little word distinguished

Christians, who held the pure faith, from sacrilegious Arians. Afterwards

arose Sabellius, who considered the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

as little more than empty sounds; arguing, that they were not used on

account of any real distinction, but were different attributes of God,

whose attributes of this kind are numerous. If the point came to be

controverted, he confessed, that he believed the Father to be God, the Son

God, and the Holy Spirit God; but he would readily evade all the force of

this confession, by adding, that he had said no other than if he had

called God potent, and just, and wise. And thus he came to another

conclusion, that the Father is the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is the

Father, without any order or distinction. The good doctors of that age,

who had the interest of religion at heart, in order to counteract the

wickedness of this man, maintained, on the contrary, that they ought

really to acknowledge three peculiar properties in one God. And, to defend

themselves against his intricate subtleties, by the plain and simple

truth, they affirmed, that they truly subsisted in the one God; or, what

is the same, that in the unity of God there subsisted a trinity of

Persons.

V. If, then, the words have not been rashly invented, we should beware

lest we be convicted of fastidious temerity in rejecting them. I could

wish them, indeed, to be buried in oblivion, provided this faith were

universally received, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the one

God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the

Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar

property. I am not so rigidly precise as to be fond of contending for mere

words. For I observe that the ancients, who otherwise speak on these

subjects with great piety, are not consistent with each other, nor, in all

cases, with themselves. For what forms of expression, adopted by councils,

does Hilary excuse! To what extremes does Augustine sometimes proceed! How

different are the Greeks from the Latins! But of this variation, let one

example suffice: when the Latins would translate the word ὁμοούσιος, they

called it _consubstantial_, signifying the _substance_ of the Father and

the Son to be one, and thus using _substance_ for _essence_. Whence also

Jerome, writing to Damasus, pronounces it to be sacrilege to say that

there are three _substances_ in God. Yet, that there are three

_substances_ in God, you will find asserted in Hilary more than a hundred

times. But how perplexed is Jerome on the word _hypostasis_! For he

suspects some latent poison in the assertion, that there are three

_hypostases_ in God. And if any one uses this word in a pious sense, he

refrains not from calling it an improper expression; if, indeed, he was

sincere in this declaration, and did not rather knowingly and wilfully

endeavour to asperse, with a groundless calumny, the bishops of the East,

whom he hated. He certainly discovers not much ingenuousness in affirming

that, in all the profane schools, οὐσία (essence) is the same as

ὑπόστασις, (hypostasis,) which the trite and common use of the words

universally contradicts. More modesty and liberality are discovered by

Augustine, who, though he asserts that the word _hypostasis_, in this

sense, is new to Latin ears, yet leaves the Greeks their usual

phraseology, and even peaceably tolerates the Latins, who had imitated

their language; and the account of Socrates, in the sixth book of his

Tripartite History, seems to imply, that it was by ignorant men that it

had first been improperly applied to this subject. The same Hilary accuses

the heretics of a great crime, in constraining him, by their wickedness,

to expose to the danger of human language those things which ought to be

confined within the religion of the mind; plainly avowing that this is to

do things unlawful, to express things inexpressible, to assume things not

conceded. A little after, he largely excuses himself for his boldness in

bringing forward new terms; for, when he has used the names of nature,

Father, Son, and Spirit, he immediately adds, that whatever is sought

further, is beyond the signification of language, beyond the reach of our

senses, beyond the conception of our understanding. And, in another place,

he pronounces that happy were the bishops of Gaul, who had neither

composed, nor received, nor even known, any other confession but that

ancient and very simple one, which had been received in all the churches

from the days of the Apostles. Very similar is the excuse of Augustine,

that this word was extorted by necessity, on account of the poverty of

human language on so great a subject, not for the sake of expressing what

God is, but to avoid passing it over in total silence, that the Father,

Son, and Spirit are three. This moderation of those holy men should teach

us, not to pass such severe censures on those who are unwilling to

subscribe to expressions adopted by us, provided they are not actuated by

pride, perverseness, or disingenuous subtlety. But let them also, on the

other hand, consider the great necessity which constrains us to use such

language, that, by degrees, they may at length be accustomed to a useful

phraseology. Let them also learn to beware, since we have to oppose the

Arians on one side, and the Sabellians on the other, lest, while they take

offence at both these parties being deprived of all opportunity of

evasion, they cause some suspicion that they are themselves the disciples

either of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius confesses, “that Christ is God;”

but maintains also, “that he was created, and had a beginning.” He

acknowledges that Christ is “one with the Father;” but secretly whispers

in the ears of his disciples, that he is “united to him,” like the rest of

the faithful, though by a singular privilege. Say that he is

_consubstantial_, you tear off the mask from the hypocrite, and yet you

add nothing to the Scriptures. Sabellius asserts, “that the names Father,

Son, and Spirit, are expressive of no distinction in the Godhead.” Say

that they are three, and he will exclaim, that you are talking of “three

gods.” Say, “that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of

Persons,” and you will at once express what the Scriptures declare, and

will restrain such frivolous loquacity. Now, if any persons are prevented,

by such excessive scrupulousness, from admitting these terms, yet not one

of them can deny, that, when the Scripture speaks of one God, it should be

understood of a unity of substance; and that, when it speaks of three in

one essence, it denotes the Persons in this trinity. When this is honestly

confessed, we have no further concern about words. But I have found, by

long and frequent experience, that those who pertinaciously contend about

words, cherish some latent poison; so that it were better designedly to

provoke their resentment, than to use obscure language for the sake of

obtaining their favour.

VI. But, leaving the dispute about terms, I shall now enter on the

discussion of the subject itself. What I denominate a Person, is a

subsistence in the Divine essence, which is related to the others, and yet

distinguished from them by an incommunicable property. By the word

_subsistence_ we mean something different from the word _essence_. For, if

the _Word_ were simply God, and had no peculiar property, John had been

guilty of impropriety in saying that he was always _with God_.(192) When

he immediately adds, that _the Word_ also _was God_, he reminds us of the

unity of the essence. But because he could not be _with God_, without

subsisting in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, although

inseparably connected with the essence, has a peculiar mark, by which it

is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences

has a relation to the others, but is distinguished from them by a peculiar

property. We particularly use the word _relation_, (or _comparison_,)

here, because, when mention is made simply and indefinitely of God, this

name pertains no less to the Son and Spirit, than to the Father. But

whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the property peculiar to

each distinguishes him from the other. Thirdly, whatever is proper to each

of them, I assert to be incommunicable, because whatever is ascribed to

the Father as a character of distinction, cannot be applied or transferred

to the Son. Nor, indeed, do I disapprove of the definition of Tertullian,

if rightly understood: “That there is in God a certain distribution or

economy, which makes no change in the unity of the essence.”

VII. But before I proceed any further, I must prove the Deity of the Son

and of the Holy Spirit; after which we shall see how they differ from each

other. When the Scripture speaks of _the Word of God_, it certainly were

very absurd to imagine it to be only a transient and momentary sound,

emitted into the air, and coming forth from God himself; of which nature

were the oracles, given to the fathers, and all the prophecies. It is

rather to be understood of the eternal wisdom residing in God, whence the

oracles, and all the prophecies, proceeded. For, according to the

testimony of Peter,(193) the ancient Prophets spake by the Spirit of

Christ no less than the Apostles and all the succeeding ministers of the

heavenly doctrine. But, as Christ had not yet been manifested, we must

necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before the

world began. And if the Spirit that inspired the Prophets was the Spirit

of the Word, we conclude, beyond all doubt, that the Word was truly God.

And this is taught by Moses, with sufficient perspicuity, in the creation

of the world, in which he represents the Word as acting such a conspicuous

part. For why does he relate that God, in the creation of each of his

works, said, Let this or that be done, but that the unsearchable glory of

God may resplendently appear in his image? Captious and loquacious men

would readily evade this argument, by saying, that the _Word_ imports an

order or command; but the Apostles are better interpreters, who declare,

that the worlds were created by the Son, and that he “upholds all things

by the word of his power.”(194) For here we see that the _Word_ intends

the nod or mandate of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential

Son of the Father. Nor, to the wise and sober, is there any obscurity in

that passage of Solomon, where he introduces Wisdom as begotten of the

Father before time began, and presiding at the creation of the world, and

over all the works of God. For, to pretend that this denotes some

temporary expression of the will of God, were foolish and frivolous;

whereas God then intended to discover his fixed and eternal counsel, and

even something more secret. To the same purpose also is that assertion of

Christ, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”(195) For, by affirming

that, from the beginning of the world, he had continually coöperated with

the Father, he makes a more explicit declaration of what had been briefly

glanced at by Moses. We conclude, therefore, that God spake thus at the

creation, that the Word might have his part in the work, and so that

operation be common to both. But John speaks more clearly than all others,

when he represents _the Word_, who from the beginning _was God with God_,

as in union with the Father, the original cause of all things. For to the

Word he both attributes a real and permanent essence, and assigns some

peculiar property; and plainly shows how God, by speaking, created the

world. Therefore, as all Divine revelations are justly entitled _the word

of God_, so we ought chiefly to esteem that substantial Word the source of

all revelations, who is liable to no variation, who remains with God

perpetually one and the same, and who is God himself.

VIII. Here we are interrupted by some clamorous objectors, who, since they

cannot openly rob him of his divinity, secretly steal from him his

eternity. For they say, that the Word only began to exist, when God opened

his sacred mouth in the creation of the world. But they are too

inconsiderate in imagining something new in the substance of God. For, as

those names of God, which relate to his external works, began to be

ascribed to him after the existence of those works, as when he is called

the Creator of heaven and earth, so piety neither acknowledges nor admits

any name, signifying that God has found any thing new to happen to

himself. For, could any thing, from any quarter, effect a change in him,

it would contradict the assertion of James, that “every good gift and

every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of

lights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning.”(196) Nothing,

then, is more intolerable, than to suppose a beginning of that Word, which

was always God, and afterwards the Creator of the world. But they argue,

in their own apprehension most acutely, that Moses, by representing God as

having then spoken for the first time, implies also, that there was no

Word in him before; than which nothing is more absurd. For it is not to be

concluded, because any thing begins to be manifested at a certain time,

that it had no prior existence. I form a very different conclusion; that,

since, in the very instant when God said, “Let there be light,”(197) the

power of the Word was clearly manifested, the Word must have existed long

before. But if any one inquires, how long, he will find no beginning. For

he limits no certain period of time, when he himself says, “O Father,

glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee

before the world was.”(198) Nor is this omitted by John; for, before he

descends to the creation of the world, he declares that the Word “was in

the beginning with God.”(199) We therefore conclude again, that the Word,

conceived of God before time began, perpetually remained with him, which

proves his eternity, his true essence, and his divinity.

IX. Though I advert not yet to the person of the Mediator, but defer it to

that part of the work which will relate to redemption, yet, since it

ought, without controversy, to be believed by all, that Christ is the very

same Word clothed in flesh, any testimonies which assert the Deity of

Christ, will be very properly introduced here. When it is said, in the

forty‐fifth Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” the Jews

endeavour to evade its force, by pleading that the name Elohim is

applicable also to angels, and to men of dignity and power. But there

cannot be found in the Scripture a similar passage, which erects an

eternal throne for a creature; for he is not merely called God, but is

also declared to possess an eternal dominion. Besides, this title is never

given to a creature, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses

should be “a god to Pharaoh.”(200) Some read it in the genitive case, “Thy

throne is of God,” which is extremely insipid. I confess, indeed, that

what is eminently and singularly excellent, is frequently called Divine;

but it sufficiently appears from the context, that such a meaning would be

uncouth and forced, and totally inapplicable here. But, if their

perverseness refuse to yield this point, there certainly is no obscurity

in Isaiah, where he introduces Christ as God, and as crowned with supreme

power, which is the prerogative of God alone. “His name,” says he, “shall

be called the Mighty God, the Father of eternity,” &c.(201) Here also the

Jews object, and invert the reading of the passage in this manner: “This

is the name by which the mighty God, the Father of eternity, shall call

him,” &c.; so that they would leave the Son only the title of Prince of

peace. But to what purpose would so many epithets be accumulated in this

passage on God the Father, when the design of the prophet is to

distinguish Christ by such eminent characters as may establish our faith

in him? Wherefore, there can be no doubt that he is there denominated the

Mighty God, just as, a little before, he is called Immanuel. But nothing

can be required plainer than a passage in Jeremiah, that this should be

the name whereby the Branch of David shall be called “Jehovah our

righteousness.”(202) For since the Jews themselves teach, that all other

names of God are mere epithets, but that this alone, which they call

ineffable, is a proper name expressive of his Essence, we conclude, that

the Son is the one eternal God, who declares, in another place, that he

“will not give his glory to another.”(203) This also they endeavour to

evade, because Moses imposed this name on an altar which he built, and

Ezekiel on the city of the new Jerusalem. But who does not perceive, that

the altar was erected as a monument of Moses having been exalted by God,

and that Jerusalem is honoured with the name of God, only as a testimony

of the Divine presence? For thus speaks the prophet: “The name of the city

shall be, Jehovah is there.”(204) But Moses expresses himself thus: He

“built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah‐nissi,” (my

exaltation.)(205) But there is more contention about another passage of

Jeremiah, where the same title is given to Jerusalem in these words: “This

is the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our

righteousness.”(206) But this testimony is so far from opposing the truth

which we are defending, that it rather confirms it. For, having before

testified that Christ is the true Jehovah, from whom righteousness

proceeds, he now pronounces that the church will have such a clear

apprehension of it, as to be able to glory in the same name. In the former

place, then, is shown the original cause of righteousness, in the latter

the effect.

X. Now, if these things do not satisfy the Jews, I see not by what cavils

they can evade the accounts of Jehovah having so frequently appeared in

the character of an angel. An angel is said to have appeared to the holy

fathers. He claims for himself the name of the eternal God. If it be

objected, that this is spoken with regard to the character which he

sustains, this by no means removes the difficulty. For a servant would

never rob God of his honour, by permitting sacrifice to be offered to

himself. But the angel, refusing to eat bread, commands a sacrifice to be

offered to Jehovah. He afterwards demonstrates that he is really Jehovah

himself. Therefore Manoah and his wife conclude, from this evidence, that

they have seen, not a mere angel, but God himself. Hence he says, “We

shall surely die, because we have seen God.” When his wife replies, “If

the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received” a sacrifice

“at our hands,”(207) she clearly acknowledges him to be God, who before is

called an angel. Moreover, the reply of the angel himself removes every

doubt: “Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is wonderful?” So much

the more detestable is the impiety of Servetus, in asserting that God

never appeared to Abraham and the other patriarchs, but that they

worshipped an angel in his stead. But the orthodox doctors of the church

have truly and wisely understood and taught, that the same chief angel was

the Word of God, who even then began to perform some services introductory

to his execution of the office of Mediator. For though he was not yet

incarnate, he descended, as it were, in a mediatorial capacity, that he

might approach the faithful with greater familiarity. His familiar

intercourse with men gave him the name of an angel; yet he still retained

what properly belonged to him, and continued the ineffably glorious God.

The same truth is attested by Hosea, who, after relating the wrestling of

Jacob with an angel, says, “The Lord (Jehovah) God of hosts; Jehovah is

his memorial.”(208) Servetus again cavils, that God employed the person of

an angel; as though the prophet did not confirm what had been delivered by

Moses,—“Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?” And the

confession of the holy patriarch, when he says, “I have seen God face to

face,”(209) sufficiently declares, that he was not a created angel, but

one in whom resided the fulness of Deity. Hence, also, the representation

of Paul, that Christ was the conductor of the people in the wilderness;

because, though the time of his humiliation was not yet arrived, the

eternal Word then exhibited a type of the office to which he was

appointed. Now, if the second chapter of Zechariah be strictly and coolly

examined, the angel who sends another angel is immediately pronounced the

God of hosts, and supreme power is ascribed to him. I omit testimonies

innumerable on which our faith safely rests, although they have little

influence on the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, “Lo, this is our

God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is Jehovah;”(210)

all who have eyes may perceive that this is God, who arises for the

salvation of his people. And the emphatical repetition of these pointed

expressions forbids an application of this passage to any other than to

Christ. But still more plain and decisive is a passage of Malachi, where

he prophesies, that “the Lord, who was then sought, should come into his

temple.”(211) The temple was exclusively consecrated to the one Most High

God; yet the prophet claims it as belonging to Christ. Whence it follows,

that he is the same God that was always worshipped among the Jews.

XI. The New Testament abounds with innumerable testimonies. We must,

therefore, endeavour briefly to select a few, rather than to collect them

all. Though the Apostles spake of him after he had appeared in flesh as

the Mediator, yet all that I shall adduce will be adapted to prove his

eternal Deity. In the first place, it is worthy of particular observation,

that the apostle represents those things which were predicted concerning

the eternal God, as either already exhibited in Christ, or to be

accomplished in him at some future period. The prediction of Isaiah, that

the Lord of Hosts would be “for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of

offence to both the houses of Israel,”(212) Paul asserts to have been

fulfilled in Christ.(213) Therefore he declares, that Christ is the Lord

of Hosts. There is a similar instance in another place: “We shall all

stand,” says he, “before the judgment‐seat of Christ. For it is written,

As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue

shall confess to God.”(214) Since God, in Isaiah,(215) declares this

concerning himself, and Christ actually exhibits it in his own person, it

follows, that he is that very God, whose glory cannot be transferred to

another. The apostle’s quotation from the Psalms also, in his Epistle to

the Ephesians, is evidently applicable to none but God: “When he ascended

up on high, he led captivity captive:”(216) understanding that ascension

to have been prefigured by the exertions of the Divine power in the signal

victories of David over the heathen nations, he signifies, that the text

was more fully accomplished in Christ. Thus John attests that it was the

glory of the Son which was revealed in a vision to Isaiah; whereas the

prophet himself records that he saw the majesty of God.(217) And those

praises which the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ascribes to the

Son, beyond all doubt most evidently belong to God: “Thou, Lord, in the

beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the

works of thine hands,” &c. Again, “Let all the angels of God worship

him.”(218) Nor is it any misapplication of them, when he refers them to

Christ; since all that is predicted in those Psalms has been accomplished

only by him. For it was He who arose and had mercy upon Zion; it was He

who claimed as his own the dominion over all nations and islands. And why

should John, after having affirmed, at the commencement of his

Gospel,(219) that the Word was always God, have hesitated to attribute to

Christ the majesty of God? And why should Paul have been afraid to place

Christ on the tribunal of God,(220) after having so publicly preached his

Divinity, when he called him “God blessed for ever?”(221) And, to show how

consistent he is with himself on this subject, he says, also, that “God

was manifest in the flesh.”(222) If he is “God blessed for ever,” he is

the same to whom this apostle, in another place, affirms all glory and

honour to be due. And he conceals not, but openly proclaims, that, “being

in the form of God,” he “thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but

made himself of no reputation.”(223) And, lest the impious might object,

that he is a sort of artificial God, John goes further, and affirms, that

“This is the true God, and eternal life;”(224) although we ought to be

fully satisfied by his being called God, especially by a witness who

expressly avers that there are no more gods than one; I mean Paul, who

says, “though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in

earth; to us there is but one God, of whom are all things.”(225) When we

hear, from the same mouth, that “God was manifested in the flesh,” that

“God hath purchased the Church with his own blood,”—why do we imagine a

second God, whom he by no means acknowledges? And there is no doubt that

all the pious were of the same opinion. Thomas, likewise, by publicly

confessing him to be “his Lord and God,” declares him to be the same true

God whom he had always worshipped.(226)

XII. If we judge of his Divinity from the works which the Scriptures

attribute to him, it will thence appear with increasing evidence. For when

he said, that he had, from the beginning, continually coöperated with the

Father, the Jews, stupid as they were about his other declarations, yet

perceived, that he assumed to himself Divine power; and, therefore, as

John informs us, they “sought the more to kill him; because he not only

had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making

himself equal with God.”(227) How great, then, must be our stupidity, if

we perceive not this passage to be a plain assertion of his Divinity! To

preside over the world by his almighty providence, and to govern all

things by the rod of his own power, (which the Apostle attributes to

him,)(228) belongs exclusively to the Creator. And he participates with

the Father, not only in the government of the world, but also in all other

offices, which cannot be communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims, by

the prophet, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, for

mine own sake.”(229) According to this declaration, when the Jews thought

that Christ committed an injury against God, by undertaking to forgive

sins,(230) he not only asserted in express terms, that this power belonged

to him, but proved it by a miracle. We see, therefore, that he hath not

the ministry, but the power of remission of sins, which the Lord declares

shall never be transferred from himself to another. Is it not the

prerogative of God alone to examine and penetrate the secret thoughts of

the heart? Yet Christ possessed that power; which is a proof of his

Divinity.

XIII. But with what perspicuity of evidence does it appear in his

miracles! Though I grant that the Prophets and Apostles performed miracles

similar and equal to his, yet there is a considerable difference in this

respect, that they, in their ministry, dispensed the favours of God,

whereas his miracles were performed by his exertions of his own power. He

sometimes, indeed, used prayer, that he might glorify the Father; but, in

most instances, we perceive the manifest displays of his own power. And

how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, by his own

authority, committed the dispensation of them to others? For the

Evangelists relate, that he gave his Apostles power to raise the dead, to

heal the leprous, to cast out devils, &c.(231) And they performed that

ministry in such a manner, as plainly to discover, that the power

proceeded solely from Christ. “In the name of Jesus Christ,” says Peter,

“arise and walk.”(232) It is no wonder, therefore, that Christ should

bring forward his miracles,(233) to convince the incredulity of the Jews,

since, being performed by his own power, they afforded most ample evidence

of his Divinity. Besides, if out of God there be no salvation, no

righteousness, no life, but Christ contains all these things in himself,

it certainly demonstrates him to be God. Let it not be objected, that life

and salvation are infused into him by God; for he is not said to have

received salvation, but to be himself salvation. And if no one be good but

God alone,(234) how can he be a mere man who is, I will not say good and

righteous, but goodness and righteousness itself? Even from the beginning

of the creation, according to the testimony of an Evangelist, “in him was

life; and the life” then existed as “the light of men.” Supported by such

proofs, therefore, we venture to repose our faith and hope on him; whereas

we know that it is impious and sacrilegious for any man to place his

confidence in creatures. He says, “Ye believe in God, believe also in

me.”(235) And in this sense Paul interprets two passages of

Isaiah—“Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Again, “There

shall be a root of Jesse, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in

him shall the Gentiles trust.”(236) And why should we search for more

testimonies from Scripture, when this declaration occurs so frequently,

“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”?(237) The invocation,

arising from faith, is also directed to him; which, nevertheless,

peculiarly belongs, if any thing peculiarly belongs, to the Divine

majesty. For a prophet says, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord

(Jehovah) shall be delivered.”(238) And Solomon, “The name of the Lord is

a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”(239) But the

name of Christ is invoked for salvation: it follows, therefore, that he is

Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of such invocation in Stephen, when

he says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”(240) And afterwards in the whole

Church, as Ananias testifies in the same book: “Lord, I have heard by many

of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints—that call on thy

name.”(241) And to make it more clearly understood, that “all the fulness

of the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ,” the Apostle confesses that he

had introduced among the Corinthians no other doctrine than the knowledge

of him, and that this had been the only subject of his preaching.(242)

What a remarkable and important consideration is it, that the name of the

Son only is preached to us, whereas God commands us to glory in the

knowledge of himself alone!(243) Who can dare to assert that he is a mere

creature, the knowledge of whom is our only glory? It must also be

remarked, that the salutations prefixed to the epistles of Paul implore

the same blessings from the Son as from the Father; whence we learn, not

only that those things, which our heavenly Father bestows, are obtained

for us by his intercession, but that the Son, by a communion of power, is

himself the author of them. This practical knowledge is unquestionably

more certain and solid than any idle speculation. For then the pious mind

has the nearest view of the Divine presence, and almost touches it, when

it experiences itself to be quickened, illuminated, saved, justified, and

sanctified.

XIV. Wherefore the proof of the Deity of the Spirit must be derived

principally from the same sources. There is no obscurity in the testimony

of Moses, in the history of the creation, that the Spirit of God was

expanded on the abyss or chaos;(244) for it signifies, not only that the

beautiful state of the world which we now behold owes its preservation to

the power of the Spirit, but that, previously to its being thus adorned,

the Spirit was engaged in brooding over the confused mass. The declaration

of Isaiah bids defiance to all cavils: “And now the Lord God, and his

Spirit, hath sent me.”(245) For the Holy Spirit is united in the exercise

of supreme power in the mission of Prophets, which is a proof of his

Divine majesty. But the best confirmation, as I have remarked, we shall

derive from familiar experience. For what the Scriptures ascribe to him,

and what we ourselves learn by the certain experience of piety, is not at

all applicable to any creature. For it is he who, being universally

diffused, sustains and animates all things in heaven and in earth. And

this very thing excludes him from the number of creatures, that he is

circumscribed by no limits, but transfuses through all his own vigorous

influence, to inspire them with being, life, and motion: this is clearly a

work of Deity. Again, if regeneration to an incorruptible life be more

important and excellent than any present life, what must we think of him

from whose power it proceeds? But the Scripture teaches, in various

places, that he is the author of regeneration by a power not derived, but

properly his own; and not of regeneration only, but likewise of the future

immortality. Finally, to him, as well as to the Son, are applied all those

offices which are peculiar to Deity. For he “searcheth even the deep

things of God,”(246) who admits no creature to a share in his councils. He

bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech;(247) whereas the Lord declares

to Moses, that this can only be done by himself.(248) So through him we

attain to a participation of God, to feel his vivifying energy upon us.

Our justification is his work. From him proceed power, sanctification,

truth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive; since there is but

one Spirit, from whom every kind of gifts descends. For this passage of

Paul is worthy of particular attention: “There are diversities of gifts,

and there are differences of administrations, but the same Spirit;”(249)

because it represents him, not only as the principle and source of them,

but also as the author; which is yet more clearly expressed a little after

in these words: “All these worketh that only and the self‐same Spirit,

dividing to every man severally as he will.” For if he were not a

subsistence in the Deity, judgment and voluntary determination would never

be ascribed to him. Paul, therefore, very clearly attributes to the Spirit

Divine power, and thereby demonstrates him to be an hypostasis or

subsistence in God.

XV. Nor does the Scripture, when it speaks of him, refrain from giving him

the appellation of God. For Paul concludes that we are the temple of God,

because his Spirit dwelleth in us.(250) This must not be passed over

without particular notice; for the frequent promises of God, that he will

choose us for a temple for himself, receive no other accomplishment, than

by the inhabitation of his Spirit in us. Certainly, as Augustine

excellently observes, “If we were commanded to erect to the Spirit a

temple of wood and stone, forasmuch as God is the sole object of worship,

it would be a clear proof of his Divinity; how much clearer, then, is the

proof, now that we are commanded, not to erect one, but to be ourselves

his temples!” And the Apostle calls us sometimes the temple of God, and

sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, both in the same signification.

Peter, reprehending Ananias for having “lied to the Holy Ghost,” told him

that he had “not lied unto men, but unto God.”(251) And where Isaiah(252)

introduces the Lord of hosts as the speaker, Paul(253) informs us that it

is the Holy Spirit who speaks. Indeed, while the Prophets invariably

declare, that the words which they utter are those of the Lord of hosts,

Christ and the Apostles refer them to the Holy Spirit; whence it follows,

that he is the true Jehovah, who is the primary author of the prophecies.

Again, God complains that his anger was provoked by the perverseness of

the people; Isaiah, in reference to the same conduct, says, that “they

vexed his Holy Spirit.”(254) Lastly, if blasphemy against the Spirit be

not forgiven, either in this world or in that which is to come,(255)

whilst a man may obtain pardon who has been guilty of blasphemy against

the Son, this is an open declaration of his Divine majesty, to defame or

degrade which is an inexpiable crime. I intentionally pass over many

testimonies which were used by the fathers. To them there appeared much

plausibility in citing this passage from David, “By the word of the Lord

were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his

mouth;”(256) to prove that the creation of the world was the work of the

Holy Spirit, as well as of the Son. But since a repetition of the same

thing twice is common in the Psalms, and in Isaiah “the spirit of his

mouth” means the same as “his word,” this is but a weak argument.

Therefore I have determined to confine myself to a sober statement of

those evidences on which pious minds may satisfactorily rest.

XVI. As God afforded a clearer manifestation of himself at the advent of

Christ, the three Persons also then became better known. Among many

testimonies, let us be satisfied with this one: Paul connects together

these three, Lord, Faith, and Baptism,(257) in such a manner as to reason

from one to another. Since there is but one faith, hence he proves that

there is but one Lord; since there is but one baptism, he shows that there

is also but one faith. Therefore, if we are initiated by baptism into the

faith and religion of one God, we must necessarily suppose him to be the

true God, into whose name we are baptized. Nor can it be doubted but that

in this solemn commission, “Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of

the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Christ intended to testify, that the

perfect light of faith was now exhibited. For this is equivalent to being

baptized into the name of the one God, who hath clearly manifested himself

in the Father, Son, and Spirit; whence it evidently appears, that in the

Divine Essence there exist three Persons, in whom is known the one God.

And truly, since faith ought not to be looking about hither and thither,

or to be wandering through the varieties of inconstancy, but to direct its

views towards the one God, to be fixed on him, and to adhere to him,—it

may easily be proved from these premises, that, if there be various kinds

of faith, there must also be a plurality of gods. Baptism, being a

sacrament of faith, confirms to us the unity of God, because it is but

one. Hence, also, we conclude, that it is not lawful to be baptized,

except into the name of the one God; because we embrace the faith of him,

into whose name we are baptized. What, then, was intended by Christ, when

he commanded baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and of

the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but that one faith ought to be exercised

in the Father, Son, and Spirit? and what is that but a clear testimony,

that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one God? Therefore,

since it is an undeniable truth, that there is one God, and only one, we

conclude the Word and Spirit to be no other than the very Essence of the

Deity. The greatest degree of folly was betrayed by the Arians, who

confessed the Divinity of the Son, but denied him to possess the substance

of God. Nor were the Macedonians free from a similar delusion, who would

explain the term “Spirit” to mean only the gifts of grace conferred upon

man. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of

the Lord, proceed from him, so he alone is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence,

fortitude, and piety. Nor is he himself divided according to the

distribution of his graces; but, as the Apostle declares, how variously

soever they are divided, he always remains one and the same.(258)

XVII. On the other hand, also, we find in the Scriptures a distinction

between the Father and the Word, between the Word and the Spirit; in the

discussion of which the magnitude of the mystery reminds us that we ought

to proceed with the utmost reverence and sobriety. I am exceedingly

pleased with this observation of Gregory Nazianzen: “I cannot think of the

_one_, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendour of the _three_;

nor can I clearly discover the _three_, but I am suddenly carried back to

the _one_.” Wherefore let us not imagine such a trinity of Persons, as

includes an idea of separation, or does not immediately recall us to the

unity. The names of Father, Son, and Spirit, certainly imply a real

distinction; let no one suppose them to be mere epithets, by which God is

variously designated from his works; but it is a distinction, not a

division. The passages already cited show, that the Son has a property, by

which he is distinguished from the Father; because the Word had not been

with God, or had his glory with the Father, unless he had been distinct

from him. He likewise distinguishes the Father from himself, when he says,

“that there is another that beareth witness of him.”(259) And to the same

effect is what is declared in another place, that the Father created all

things by the Word; which he could not have done, unless he had been in

some sense distinct from him. Besides, the Father descended not to the

earth, but he who came forth from the Father. The Father neither died nor

rose again, but he who was sent by the Father. Nor did this distinction

commence at the incarnation, but it is evident, that, before that period,

he was the only begotten in the bosom of the Father.(260) For who can

undertake to assert, that the Son first entered into the bosom of the

Father, when he descended from heaven to assume a human nature? He,

therefore, was in the bosom of the Father before, and possessed his glory

with the Father. The distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father is

announced by Christ, when he says, that he “proceedeth from the

Father.”(261) But how often does he represent him as another, distinct

from himself! as when he promises that “another Comforter”(262) should be

sent, and in many other places.

XVIII. I doubt the propriety of borrowing similitudes from human things,

to express the force of this distinction. The fathers sometimes practise

this method; but they likewise confess the great disproportion of all the

similitudes which they introduce. Wherefore I greatly dread, in this

instance, every degree of presumption; lest the introduction of any thing

unseasonable should afford an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of

error to the ignorant. Yet it is not right to be silent on the distinction

which we find expressed in the Scriptures; which is this—that to the

Father is attributed the principle of action, the fountain and source of

all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the arrangement of all

operations; and the power and efficacy of the action is assigned to the

Spirit. Moreover, though eternity belongs to the Father, and to the Son

and Spirit also, since God can never have been destitute of his wisdom or

his power, and in eternity we must not inquire after any thing prior or

posterior,—yet the observation of order is not vain or superfluous, while

the Father is mentioned as first; in the next place the Son, as from him;

and then the Spirit, as from both. For the mind of every man naturally

inclines to the consideration, first, of God; secondly, of the wisdom

emanating from him; and lastly, of the power by which he executes the

decrees of his wisdom. For this reason the Son is said to be from the

Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son; and that in

various places, but nowhere more clearly than in the eighth chapter of the

Epistle to the Romans, where the same Spirit is indifferently denominated

“the Spirit of Christ,” and “the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from

the dead,” and that without any impropriety. For Peter also testifies that

it was the Spirit of Christ by whom the prophets prophesied;(263) whereas

the Scripture so frequently declares that it was the Spirit of God the

Father.

XIX. This distinction is so far from opposing the most absolute simplicity

and unity of the Divine Being, that it affords a proof that the Son is one

God with the Father, because he has the same Spirit with him; and that the

Spirit is not a different substance from the Father and the Son, because

he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For the whole nature is in

each hypostasis, and each has something peculiar to himself. The Father is

entirely in the Son, and the Son entirely in the Father, according to his

own declaration, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;”(264) nor do

ecclesiastical writers allow that one is divided from the other by any

difference of essence. “These distinctive appellations,” says Augustine,

“denote their reciprocal relations to each other, and not the substance

itself, which is but one.” This explanation may serve to reconcile the

opinions of the fathers, which would otherwise appear totally repugnant to

each other. For sometimes they state that the Son originates from the

Father, and at other times assert that he has essential Divinity from

himself, and so is, together with the Father, the one first cause of all.

Augustine, in another place, admirably and perspicuously explains the

cause of this diversity, in the following manner: “Christ, considered in

himself, is called God; but with relation to the Father, he is called the

Son.” And again, “The Father, considered in himself, is called God; but

with relation to the Son, he is called the Father. He who, with relation

to the Son, is called the Father, is not the Son; he who, with relation to

the Father, is called the Son, is not the Father; they who are severally

called the Father and the Son, are the same God.” Therefore, when we speak

simply of the Son, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly

assert him to be self‐existent, and therefore call him the sole first

cause; but, when we distinctly treat of the relation between him and the

Father, we justly represent him as originating from the Father. The first

book of Augustine on the Trinity is entirely occupied with the explication

of this subject; and it is far more safe to rest satisfied with that

relation which he states, than by curiously penetrating into the sublime

mystery, to wander through a multitude of vain speculations.

XX. Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the

measure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known; which is,

that, when we profess to believe in one God, the word _God_ denotes a

single and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or

hypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word _God_ is used

indefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but

when the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal

relation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons.

But, since the peculiar properties of the Persons produce a certain order,

so that the original cause is in the Father, whenever the Father and the

Son or Spirit are mentioned together, the name of God is peculiarly

ascribed to the Father: by this method the unity of the essence is

preserved, and the order is retained; which, however, derogates nothing

from the Deity of the Son and Spirit. And indeed, as we have already seen

that the Apostles assert him to be the Son of God, whom Moses and the

Prophets have represented as Jehovah, it is always necessary to recur to

the unity of the essence. Wherefore it would be a detestable sacrilege for

us to call the Son another God different from the Father; because the

simple name of God admits of no relation; nor can God, with respect to

himself, be denominated either the one or the other. Now, that the name

“Jehovah,” in an indefinite sense, is applicable to Christ, appears even

from the words of Paul: “for this thing I besought the Lord thrice;”(265)

because, after relating the answer of Christ, “My grace is sufficient for

thee,” he immediately subjoins, “That the power of Christ may rest upon

me.” For it is certain that the word “Lord” is there used for “Jehovah;”

and to restrict it to the person of the Mediator, would be frivolous and

puerile, since it is an absolute declaration, containing no comparison

between the Son and the Father. And we know that the Apostles, following

the custom of the Greek translators, invariably use the word Κυριος,

(Lord,) instead of Jehovah. And, not to seek far for an example of this,

Paul prayed to the Lord in no other sense than is intended in a passage of

Joel, cited by Peter: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall

be saved.”(266) But for the peculiar ascription of this name to the Son,

another reason will be given in its proper place; suffice it at present to

observe that, when Paul had prayed to God absolutely, he immediately

subjoins the name of Christ. Thus also the whole Deity is by Christ

himself denominated “a Spirit.” For nothing opposes the spirituality of

the whole Divine essence, in which are comprehended the Father, the Son,

and the Spirit; which is plain from the Scripture. For as we there find

God denominated a Spirit, so we find also the Holy Spirit, forasmuch as he

is an hypostasis of the whole essence, represented both as the Spirit of

God, and as proceeding from God.

XXI. But since Satan, in order to subvert the very foundations of our

faith, has always been exciting great contentions concerning the Divine

essence of the Son and Spirit, and the distinction of the Persons; and in

almost all ages has instigated impious spirits to vex the orthodox

teachers on this account; and is also endeavouring, in the present day,

with the old embers, to kindle a new flame; it becomes necessary here to

refute the perverse and fanciful notions which some persons have imbibed.

Hitherto it has been our principal design to instruct the docile, and not

to combat the obstinate and contentious: but now, having calmly explained

and proved the truth, we must vindicate it from all the cavils of the

wicked; although I shall make it my principal study, that those who

readily and implicitly attend to the Divine word, may have stable ground

on which they may confidently rest. On this, indeed, if on any of the

secret mysteries of the Scripture, we ought to philosophize with great

sobriety and moderation; and also with extreme caution, lest either our

ideas or our language should proceed beyond the limits of the Divine word.

For how can the infinite essence of God be defined by the narrow capacity

of the human mind, which could never yet certainly determine the nature of

the body of the sun, though the object of our daily contemplation? How can

the human mind, by its own efforts, penetrate into an examination of the

essence of God, when it is totally ignorant of its own? Wherefore let us

freely leave to God the knowledge of himself. For “he alone,” as Hilary

says, “is a competent witness for himself, being only known by himself.”

And we shall certainly leave it to him, if our conceptions of him

correspond to the manifestations which he has given us of himself, and our

inquiries concerning him are confined to his word. There are extant on

this argument five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anomœi; which,

however, were not sufficient to restrain the presumptuous garrulity of

those sophists. For they discovered no greater modesty in this instance

than in every other. The very unhappy consequences of this temerity should

warn us to study this question with more docility than subtlety, and not

allow ourselves to investigate God any where but in his sacred word, or to

form any ideas of him but such as are agreeable to his word, or to speak

any thing concerning him but what is derived from the same word. But if

the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the one Deity, as it is not

easy to be comprehended, occasions some understandings more labour and

trouble than is desirable, let them remember that the mind of man, when it

indulges its curiosity, enters into a labyrinth; and let them submit to be

guided by the heavenly oracles, however they may not comprehend the height

of this mystery.

XXII. To compose a catalogue of the errors, by which the purity of the

faith has been attacked on this point of doctrine, would be too prolix and

tedious, without being profitable; and most of the heretics so strenuously

exerted themselves to effect the total extinction of the Divine glory by

their gross reveries, that they thought it sufficient to unsettle and

disturb the inexperienced. From a few men there soon arose numerous sects,

of whom some would divide the Divine essence, and others would confound

the distinction which subsists between the Persons. But if we maintain,

what has already been sufficiently demonstrated from the Scripture, that

the essence of the one God, which pertains to the Father, to the Son, and

to the Spirit, is simple and undivided, and, on the other hand, that the

Father is, by some property, distinguished from the Son, and likewise the

Son from the Spirit, the gate will be shut, not only against Arius and

Sabellius, but also against all the other ancient heresiarchs. But since

our own times have witnessed some madmen, as Servetus and his followers,

who have involved every thing in new subtleties, a brief exposure of their

fallacies will not be unuseful. The word _Trinity_ was so odious and even

detestable to Servetus, that he asserted all Trinitarians, as he called

them, to be Atheists. I omit his impertinent and scurrilous language, but

this was the substance of his speculations: That it is representing God as

consisting of three parts, when three Persons are said to subsist in his

essence, and that this triad is merely imaginary, being repugnant to the

Divine unity. At the same time, he maintained the Persons to be certain

external ideas, which have no real subsistence in the Divine essence, but

give us a figurative representation of God, under this or the other form;

and that in the beginning there was no distinction in God, because the

Word was once the same as the Spirit; but that, after Christ appeared God

of God, there emanated from him another God, even the Spirit. Though he

sometimes glosses over his impertinencies with allegories, as when he

says, that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and

the reflection of his image, and that the Spirit was a shadow of the

Deity, yet he afterwards destroys the Deity of both, asserting that,

according to the mode of dispensation, there is a part of God in both the

Son and the Spirit; just as the same Spirit, substantially diffused in us,

and even in wood and stones, is a portion of the Deity. What he broached

concerning the Person of the Mediator, we shall examine in the proper

place. But this monstrous fiction, that a Divine Person is nothing but a

visible appearance of the glory of God, will not need a prolix refutation.

For when John pronounces that the Word (Λογος) was God before the creation

of the world, he sufficiently discriminates him from an ideal form. But if

then also, and from the remotest eternity, that Word (Λογος) who was God,

was with the Father, and possessed his own glory with the Father, he

certainly could not be an external or figurative splendour; but it

necessarily follows, that he was a real hypostasis, subsisting in God

himself. But although no mention is made of the Spirit, but in the history

of the creation of the world, yet he is there introduced, not as a shadow,

but as the essential power of God, since Moses relates that the chaotic

mass was supported by him.(267) It then appeared, therefore, that the

eternal Spirit had always existed in the Deity, since he cherished and

sustained the confused matter of the heaven and earth, till it attained a

state of beauty and order. He certainly could not then be an image or

representation of God, according to the dreams of Servetus. But in other

places he is constrained to make a fuller disclosure of his impiety,

saying that God, in his eternal reason, decreeing for himself a visible

Son, has visibly exhibited himself in this manner; for if this be true,

there is no other Divinity left to Christ, than as he has been appointed a

Son by an eternal decree of God. Besides, he so transforms those

phantasms, which he substitutes instead of the hypostases, that he

hesitates not to imagine new accidents or properties in God. But the most

execrable blasphemy of all is, his promiscuous confusion of the Son of God

and the Spirit with all the creatures. For he asserts that in the Divine

essence there are parts and divisions, every portion of which is God; and

especially that the souls of the faithful are coëternal and consubstantial

with God; though in another place he assigns substantial Deity, not only

to the human soul, but to all created things.

XXIII. From the same corrupt source has proceeded another heresy, equally

monstrous. For some worthless men, to escape the odium and disgrace which

attended the impious tenets of Servetus, have confessed, indeed, that

there are three Persons, but with this explanation, that the Father, who

alone is truly and properly God, hath created the Son and Spirit, and

transfused his Deity into them. Nor do they refrain from this dreadful

manner of expressing themselves, that the Father is distinguished from the

Son and Spirit, as being the sole possessor of the Divine essence. Their

first plea in support of this notion is, that Christ is commonly called

the Son of God; whence they conclude that no other is properly God but the

Father. But they observe not, that although the name of God is common also

to the Son, yet that it is sometimes ascribed to the Father (κατ᾽ ἐξοχην)

by way of eminence, because he is the fountain and original of the Deity;

and this in order to denote the simple unity of the essence. They object,

that if he is truly the Son of God, it is absurd to account him the Son of

a Person. I reply, that both are true; that he is the Son of God, because

he is the Word begotten of the Father before time began, for we are not

yet speaking of the Person of the Mediator; and to be explicit, we must

notice the Person, that the name of God may not be understood absolutely,

but for the Father; for if we acknowledge no other to be God than the

Father, it will be a manifest degradation of the dignity of the Son.

Whenever mention is made of the Deity, therefore, there must no opposition

be admitted between the Father and the Son, as though the name of the true

God belonged exclusively to the Father. For surely the God who appeared to

Isaiah, was the only true God;(268) whom, nevertheless, John affirms to

have been Christ.(269) He likewise, who by the mouth of Isaiah declared

that he was to be a rock of offence to the Jews, was the only true

God;(270) whom Paul pronounces to have been Christ.(271) He who proclaims

by Isaiah, “As I live, every knee shall bow to me,”(272) is the only true

God; but Paul applies the same to Christ.(273) To the same purpose are the

testimonies recited by the Apostle—“Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundation

of the earth and the heavens;” and “Let all the angels of God worship

him.”(274) These ascriptions belong only to the one true God; whereas he

contends that they are properly applied to Christ. Nor is there any force

in that cavil, that what is proper to God is transferred to Christ,

because he is the brightness of his glory. For, since the name Jehovah is

used in each of these passages, it follows that in respect of his Deity he

is self‐existent. For, if he is Jehovah, he cannot be denied to be the

same God, who in another place proclaims by Isaiah, “I am the first and I

am the last; and beside me there is no God.”(275) That passage in Jeremiah

also deserves our attention—“The gods that have not made the heavens and

the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these

heavens;”(276) whilst, on the contrary, it must be acknowledged, that the

Deity of the Son of God is frequently proved by Isaiah from the creation

of the world. But how shall the Creator, who gives existence to all, not

be self‐existent, but derive his essence from another? For whoever asserts

that the Son owes his essence to the Father, denies him to be self‐

existent. But this is contradicted by the Holy Spirit, who gives him the

name of Jehovah. Now, if we admit the whole essence to be solely in the

Father, either it will be divisible, or it will be taken away from the

Son; and so, being despoiled of his essence, he will be only a titular

god. The Divine essence, according to these triflers, belongs solely to

the Father, inasmuch as he alone possesses it, and is the author of the

essence of the Son. Thus the Divinity of the Son will be a kind of

emanation from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part from the

whole. Now, they must of necessity concede, from their own premises, that

the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father only; because if he be a derivation

from the original essence, which belongs exclusively to the Father, he

cannot be accounted the Spirit of the Son; which is refuted by the

testimony of Paul, where he makes him common to Christ and the Father.

Besides, if the Person of the Father be expunged from the Trinity, wherein

will he differ from the Son and Spirit, but in being himself the sole

Deity? They confess that Christ is God, and yet differs from the Father.

Some distinctive character is necessary, also, to discriminate the Father

from the Son. They who place this in the essence, manifestly destroy the

true Deity of Christ, which cannot exist independently of the essence,

that is, of the entire essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from

the Son, unless he have something peculiar to himself, which is not common

to the Son. What will they find, by which to distinguish him? If the

difference be in the essence, let them tell us whether he has communicated

the same to the Son. But this could not be done partially; for it would be

an abomination to fabricate a demigod. Besides, this would miserably

dismember the Divine essence. The necessary conclusion then is, that it is

entirely and perfectly common to the Father and the Son. And if this be

true, there cannot, in respect of the essence, be any difference between

them. If it be objected that the Father, notwithstanding this

communication of his essence, remains the only God with whom the essence

continues, then Christ must be a figurative god, a god in appearance and

name only, not in reality; because nothing is more proper to God than to

be, according to that declaration, “I AM hath sent me unto you.”(277)

XXIV. We might readily prove from many passages the falsehood of their

assumption, that, whenever the name of God is mentioned absolutely in the

Scripture, it means only the Father. And in those places which they cite

in their own defence, they shamefully betray their ignorance, since the

Son is there added; from which it appears, that the name of God is used in

a relative sense, and therefore is particularly restricted to the Person

of the Father. Their objection, that, unless the Father alone were the

true God, he would himself be his own Father, is answered in a word. For

there is no absurdity in the name of God, for the sake of dignity and

order, being peculiarly given to him, who not only hath begotten of

himself his own wisdom, but is also the God of the Mediator, of which I

shall treat more at large in its proper place. For since Christ was

manifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of God, not only as he was

the eternal Word begotten of the Father before time began, but because he

assumed the person and office of a Mediator, to unite us to God. And since

they so presumptuously exclude the Son from Divine honours, I would wish

to be informed, when he declares that there is none good but the one

God,(278) whether he deprives himself of all goodness. I speak not of his

human nature, lest they should object, that, whatever goodness it had, it

was gratuitously conferred on it. I demand whether the eternal Word of God

be good or not. If they answer in the negative, they are sufficiently

convicted of impiety; and if in the affirmative, they cut the throat of

their own system. But though, at the first glance, Christ seems to deny

himself the appellation of good, he furnishes, notwithstanding, a further

confirmation of our opinion. For, as that is a title which peculiarly

belongs to the one God, forasmuch as he had been saluted as good, merely

according to a common custom, by his rejection of false honour, he

suggested that the goodness which he possessed was Divine. I demand, also,

when Paul affirms that God alone is immortal, wise, and true,(279) whether

he thereby degrades Christ to the rank of those who are mortal, unwise,

and false. Shall not he then be immortal who from the beginning was life

itself, and the giver of immortality to angels? Shall not he be wise who

is the eternal Wisdom of God? Shall not he be true who is truth itself? I

demand further, whether they think that Christ ought to be worshipped.

For, if he justly claims this as his right, that every knee should bow

before him,(280) it follows that he is that God, who, in the law,

prohibited the worship of any one but himself. If they will have this

passage in Isaiah, “I am, and there is no God besides me,” to be

understood solely of the Father, I retort this testimony on themselves;

since we see that whatever belongs to God is attributed to Christ. Nor is

there any room for their cavil, that Christ was exalted in the humanity in

which he had been abased; and that, with regard to his humanity, all power

was given to him in heaven and in earth; because, although the regal and

judicial majesty extends to the whole Person of the Mediator, yet, had he

not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to

such an eminence, without God being in opposition to himself. And Paul

excellently determines this controversy, by informing us that he was equal

with God, before he abased himself under the form of a servant.(281) Now,

how could this equality subsist, unless he had been that God whose name is

JAH and JEHOVAH, who rides on the cherubim, whose kingdom is universal and

everlasting? No clamour of theirs can deprive Christ of another

declaration of Isaiah: “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for him;”(282)

since in these words he describes the advent of God the Redeemer, not only

for the deliverance of the people from exile in Babylon, but also for the

complete restoration of the church. Nor do they gain any thing by another

cavil, that Christ was God in his Father. For although we confess, in

point of order and degree, that the Father is the fountain of the Deity,

yet we pronounce it a detestable figment, that the essence belongs

exclusively to the Father, as though he were the author of the Deity of

the Son; because, on this supposition, either the essence would be

divided, or Christ would be only a titular and imaginary god. If they

admit that the Son is God, but inferior to the Father, then in him the

essence must be begotten and created, which in the Father is unbegotten

and uncreated. I know that some scorners ridicule our concluding a

distinction of Persons from the words of Moses, where he introduces God

thus speaking: “Let us make man in our image.”(283) Yet pious readers

perceive how frigidly and foolishly Moses would have introduced this

conference, if in one God there had not subsisted a plurality of Persons.

Now, it is certain that they whom the Father addressed, were uncreated;

but there is nothing uncreated, except the one God himself. Now,

therefore, unless they grant that the power to create, and the authority

to command, were common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, it will

follow, that God did not speak thus within himself, but directed his

conversation to some exterior agents. Lastly, one place will easily remove

their two objections at once. For when Christ himself declares, that God

is a Spirit, it would be unreasonable to restrict this solely to the

Father, as though the Word were not also of a spiritual nature. But if the

name of Spirit is equally as applicable to the Son as to the Father, I

conclude that the Son is comprehended under the indefinite name of God.

Yet he immediately subjoins, that none are approved worshippers of the

Father, but those who worship him in spirit and in truth.(284) Whence

follows another consequence, that, because Christ performs the office of a

Teacher, in a station of inferiority, he ascribes the name of God to the

Father, not to destroy his own Deity, but by degrees to raise us to the

knowledge of it.

XXV. But they deceive themselves in dreaming of three separate

individuals, each of them possessing a part of the Divine essence. We

teach, according to the Scriptures, that there is essentially but one God;

and, therefore, that the essence of both the Son and the Spirit is

unbegotten. But since the Father is first in order, and hath of himself

begotten his wisdom, therefore, as has before been observed, he is justly

esteemed the original and fountain of the whole Divinity. Thus God,

indefinitely, is unbegotten; and the Father also is unbegotten with regard

to his Person. They even foolishly suppose, that our opinion implies a

quaternity; whereas they are guilty of falsehood and calumny, in ascribing

to us a figment of their own; as though we pretended that the three

Persons are as so many streams proceeding from one essence, when it is

evident, from our writings, that we separate not the Persons from the

essence, but, though they subsist in it, make a distinction between them.

If the persons were separated from the essence, there would perhaps be

some probability in their argument; but then there would be a trinity of

Gods, not a trinity of persons contained in one God. This solves their

frivolous question, whether the essence concurs to the formation of the

Trinity; as though we imagined three Gods to descend from it. Their

objection, that then the Trinity would be without God, is equally

impertinent. Because, though it concurs not to the distinction as a part

or member, yet the Persons are not independent of it, nor separate from

it; for the Father, unless he were God, could not be the Father; and the

Son is the Son only as he is God. Therefore we say, that the Deity is

absolutely self‐existent; whence we confess, also, that the Son, as God,

independently of the consideration of Person, is self‐existent; but as the

Son, we say, that he is of the Father. Thus his essence is unoriginated;

but the origin of his Person is God himself. And, indeed, the orthodox

writers, who have written on the Trinity, have referred this name only to

the Persons; since to comprehend the essence in that distinction, were not

only an absurd error, but a most gross impiety. For it is evident that

those who maintain that the Trinity consists in a union of the Essence,

the Son, and the Spirit, annihilate the essence of the Son and of the

Spirit; otherwise the parts would be destroyed by being confounded

together; which is a fault in every distinction. Finally, if the words

_Father_ and _God_ were synonymous—if the Father were the author of the

Deity—nothing would be left in the Son but a mere shadow; nor would the

Trinity be any other than a conjunction of the one God with two created

things.

XXVI. Their objection, that Christ, if he be properly God, is not rightly

called the Son of God, has already been answered; for when a comparison is

made between one Person and another, the word _God_ is not used

indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, as being the fountain of

the Deity, not with regard to the essence, as fanatics falsely pretend,

but in respect of order. This is the sense in which we ought to understand

that declaration of Christ to his Father: “This is life eternal, that they

might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast

sent.”(285) For, speaking in the capacity of Mediator, he holds an

intermediate station between God and men; yet without any diminution of

his majesty. For, although he abased himself, yet he lost not his glory

with the Father, which was hidden from the world. Thus the Apostle to the

Hebrews,(286) though he acknowledges that Christ was made for a short time

inferior to the angels, yet, nevertheless, hesitates not to assert, that

he is the eternal God, who laid the foundation of the earth. We must

remember, therefore, that whenever Christ, in the capacity of Mediator,

addresses the Father, he comprehends, under the name of God, the Divinity

which belongs also to himself. Thus, when he said to his Apostles, “I go

unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I,”(287) he attributes not

to himself a secondary Divinity, as if he were inferior to the Father with

respect to the eternal essence, but because, having obtained the glory of

heaven, he gathers together the faithful to a participation of it with

him; he represents the Father to be in a station superior to himself, just

as the illustrious perfection of the splendour which appears in heaven

excels that degree of glory which was visible in him during his incarnate

state. For the same reason, Paul says, in another place, that Christ

“shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all

in all.”(288) Nothing would be more absurd than to deny perpetual duration

to the Deity of Christ. Now, if he will never cease to be the Son of God,

but will remain for ever the same as he has been from the beginning, it

follows, that by the name _Father_ is intended the one sole Divine

essence, which is common to them both. And it is certain that Christ

descended to us, in order that, exalting us to the Father, he might at the

same time exalt us to himself also, as being one with the Father. It is

therefore neither lawful nor right to restrict the name of God exclusively

to the Father, and to deny it to the Son. For even on this very account

John asserts him to be the true God,(289) that no one might suppose, that

he possessed only a secondary degree of Deity, inferior to the Father. And

I wonder what can be the meaning of these fabricators of new gods, when,

after confessing that Christ is the true God, they immediately exclude him

from the Deity of the Father; as though there could be any true God but

one alone, or as though a transfused Divinity were any thing but a novel

fiction.

XXVII. Their accumulation of numerous passages from Irenæus, where he

asserts the Father of Christ to be the only and eternal God of Israel, is

a proof either of shameful ignorance, or of consummate wickedness. For

they ought to have considered, that that holy man was then engaged in a

controversy with some madmen, who denied that the Father of Christ was the

same God that has spoken by Moses and the Prophets, but maintained that he

was I know not what sort of phantasm, produced from the corruption of the

world. His only object, therefore, is to show that no other God is

revealed in the Scripture than the Father of Christ, and that it is

impious to imagine any other; and therefore we need not wonder at his

frequently concluding, that there never was any other God of Israel than

he who was preached by Christ and his Apostles. So, now, on the other

hand, when a different error is to be opposed, we shall truly assert, that

the God who appeared formerly to the patriarchs, was no other than Christ.

If it be objected that it was the Father, we are prepared to reply, that,

while we contend for the Divinity of the Son, we by no means reject that

of the Father. If the reader attends to this design of Irenæus, all

contention will cease. Moreover, the whole controversy is easily decided

by the sixth chapter of the third book, where the good man insists on this

one point: That he who is absolutely and indefinitely called God in the

Scripture, is the only true God; but that the name of God is given

absolutely to Christ. Let us remember that the point at issue, as appears

from the whole treatise, and particularly from the forty‐sixth chapter of

the second book, was this: That the appellation of Father is not given in

an enigmatical and parabolical sense to one who is not truly God. Besides,

in another place he contends, that the Son is called God, as well as the

Father, by the Prophets and Apostles. He afterwards states how Christ, who

is Lord, and King, and God, and Judge of all, received power from him who

is God of all; and that is with relation to the subjection in which he was

humbled even to the death of the cross. And a little after he affirms,

that the Son is the Creator of heaven and earth, who gave the law by the

hand of Moses, and appeared to the patriarchs. Now, if any one pretends

that Irenæus acknowledges the Father alone as the God of Israel, I shall

reply, as is clearly maintained by the same writer, that Christ is one and

the same; as also he applies to him the prophecy of Habakkuk: “God shall

come from the south.” To the same purpose is what we find in the ninth

chapter of the fourth book: “Therefore Christ himself is, with the Father,

the God of the living.” And in the twelfth chapter of the same book he

states, that Abraham believed in God, inasmuch as Christ is the Creator of

heaven and earth, and the only God.

XXVIII. Their pretensions to the sanction of Tertullian are equally

unfounded, for, notwithstanding the occasional harshness and obscurity of

his mode of expression, yet he unequivocally teaches the substance of the

doctrine which we are defending; that is, that whereas there is one God,

yet by dispensation or economy there is his Word; that there is but one

God in the unity of the substance, but that the unity, by a mysterious

dispensation, is disposed into a trinity; that there are three, not in

condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but

in order. He says, indeed, that he maintains the Son to be second to the

Father; but he applies this only to the distinction of the Persons. He

says somewhere, that the Son is visible; but after having stated arguments

on both sides, he concludes that, as the Word, he is invisible. Lastly,

his assertion that the Father is designated by his Person, proves him to

be at the greatest distance from the notion which we are refuting. And

though he acknowledges no other God than the Father, yet the explanations

which he gives in the immediate context show that he speaks not to the

exclusion of the Son, when he denies the existence of any other God than

the Father; and that therefore the unity of Divine government is not

violated by the distinction of persons. And from the nature and design of

his argument it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he

contends, in opposition to Praxeas, that although God is distinguished

into three Persons, yet neither is there a plurality of gods, nor is the

unity divided. And because, according to the erroneous notion of Praxeas,

Christ could not be God, without being the Father, therefore Tertullian

bestows so much labour upon the distinction. His calling the Word and

Spirit a portion of the whole, though a harsh expression, yet is

excusable; since it has no reference to the substance, but only denotes

the disposition and economy, which belongs solely to the Persons,

according to the testimony of Tertullian himself. Hence also that

question, “How many Persons suppose you that there are, O most perverse

Praxeas, but as many as there are names?” So, a little after, “that they

may believe the Father and the Son, both in their names and Persons.”

These arguments, I conceive, will suffice to refute the impudence of those

who make use of the authority of Tertullian in order to deceive the minds

of the simple.

XXIX. And certainly, whoever will diligently compare the writings of the

fathers, will find in Irenæus nothing different from what was advanced by

others who succeeded him. Justin Martyr is one of the most ancient; and he

agrees with us in every point. They may object that the Father of Christ

is denominated the one God by him as well as by the rest. The same is

asserted also by Hilary, and even in harsher terms: he says, that eternity

is in the Father; but does this imply a denial of the Divine essence to

the Son? On the contrary, he had no other design than to maintain the same

faith which we hold. Nevertheless, they are not ashamed to cull out

mutilated passages, in order to induce a belief that he patronized their

error. If they wish any authority to be attached to their quotation of

Ignatius, let them prove that the Apostles delivered any law concerning

Lent, and similar corruptions; for nothing can be more absurd than the

impertinencies which have been published under the name of Ignatius.

Wherefore their impudence is more intolerable, who disguise themselves

under such false colours for the purpose of deception. Moreover, the

consent of antiquity manifestly appears from this circumstance, that in

the Nicene Council, Arius never dared to defend himself by the authority

of any approved writer; and not one of the Greek or Latin fathers, who

were there united against him, excused himself as at all dissenting from

his predecessors. With regard to Augustine, who experienced great

hostility from these disturbers, his diligent examination of all the

writings of the earlier fathers, and his respectful attention to them,

need not be mentioned. If he differs from them in the smallest

particulars, he assigns the reasons which oblige him to dissent from them.

On this argument also, if he finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in

others, he never conceals it. Yet he takes it for granted, that the

doctrine which those men oppose has been received without controversy from

the remotest antiquity; and yet that he was not uninformed of what others

had taught before him, appears even from one word in the first book of his

Treatise on the Christian Doctrine, where he says, that unity is in the

Father. Will they pretend that he had then forgotten himself? But he

elsewhere vindicates himself from this calumny, where he calls the Father

the fountain of the whole Deity, because he is from no other; wisely

considering that the name of God is especially ascribed to the Father,

because, unless the original be from him, it is impossible to conceive of

the simple unity of the Deity. These observations, I hope, will be

approved by the pious reader, as sufficient to refute all the calumnies,

with which Satan has hitherto laboured to pervert or obscure the purity of

this doctrine. Finally, I trust that the whole substance of this doctrine

has been faithfully stated and explained, provided my readers set bounds

to their curiosity, and are not unreasonably fond of tedious and intricate

controversies. For I have not the least expectation of giving satisfaction

to those who are pleased with an intemperance of speculation. I am sure I

have used no artifice in the omission of any thing, from a supposition

that it would make against me. But, studying the edification of the

Church, I have thought it better not to touch upon many things, which

would be unnecessarily burdensome to the reader, without yielding him any

profit. For to what purpose is it to dispute, whether the Father be always

begetting? For it is foolish to imagine a continual act of generation,

since it is evident that three Persons have subsisted in God from all

eternity.