Chapter 7 — Refutation of the opinion of Arius

One has only to study carefully the statements of Sacred Scripture to perceive that this opinion is clearly in opposition to the divine Scriptures.

For Sacred Scripture gives the name of Son of God to Christ in one sense, and to the angels in another. Hence the Apostle says: To what angel did God ever say: ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee’? (Heb 1:5), affirming that this was said of Christ. But, according to the aforesaid opinion, the angels would be called sons of God in the same sense as Christ, since the same appellation of sonship would apply to both in respect of the sublime nature in which they were created by God.

Nor does it matter if Christ were of a more exalted nature than the angels, since even among the angels there are various orders (as we have shown above), (Bk. 3, ch. 79.) and yet the same degree of sonship applies to all. Therefore, Christ is not said to be the Son of God in the sense laid down by the aforesaid opinion.

Again. Since the appellation of divine sonship applies to many by reason of creation—for it applies to all the angels and saints—it follows that if Christ were called Son for the same reason, he would not be the only-begotten, although, on account of the sublimity of his nature, he might be called the first-born among the others. But Scripture states that he is the only-begotten: We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father (John 1:14). Therefore, he is not called the Son of God by reason of creation.

Further. The name ‘son’ is aptly and truly given to one born of living beings, among whom the thing begotten proceeds from the begetter. In other cases, the appellation of sonship is applied not literally, but metaphorically, as when disciples or wards are called sons. Hence, if Christ were called ‘son’ merely by reason of creation, since what is created by God does not emanate from his substance, Christ would not truly be called ‘son.’ But he is called ‘son’ truly: That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20). Therefore, he is called Son of God not as though he were created by God with however sublime a nature, but as begotten of God’s substance.

Moreover. If Christ be called the Son by reason of creation, he is not true God, because no creature can be called God save by reason of a certain likeness to God. Now Jesus Christ is true God. For John, after saying: That we may be in his true Son, adds: This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). Therefore, Christ is not called the Son of God by reason of creation.

Further. The Apostle says: Of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever, amen (Rom 9:5), and: Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). Moreover, it is said: I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and immediately afterwards: This is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness’ (Jer 23:5–6); where the Hebrew has the tetragrammaton, the name that is certainly applied to God alone. From which it is clear that the Son of God is truly God.

Moreover. If Christ is the true Son, it follows of necessity that he is true God, because he who is born of another cannot truly be called his son, even if begotten of the latter’s substance, unless he issues from him in likeness of species: for the son of a man must be a man. Accordingly, if Christ be the true Son of God, he must be true God. Therefore, he is not a creature.

Again. No creature receives the whole fullness of divine goodness, because, as we have already made clear, perfections come from God to creatures by a kind of descent. Now, in Christ is the whole fullness of divine goodness: for the Apostle says: In him the whole fulness of deity dwells (Col 2:9). Therefore, Christ is not a creature.

Besides. Although an angel’s intelligence has more perfect knowledge than a man’s, it is far below the divine. Now, Christ’s intelligence is not inferior to the divine: for the Apostle says that in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). Therefore Christ, the Son of God, is not a creature.

Moreover. As we have proved above, (Bk. 1, cc. 21-22.) whatever God has in himself is his essence. Now, the Son has whatever the Father has, for the Son said: All that the Father has is mine (John 16:15); and addressing the Father: All mine are thine, and thine are mine (John 17:10). Therefore, Father and Son have the same essence and nature: consequently, the Son is not a creature.

Further. The Apostle says that the Son was in the form of God before he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:6–7). Now the form of God can have no other meaning but the nature of God, even as the form of a servant means the nature of man. Therefore, the Son is of divine nature, and consequently he is not a creature.

Again. Nothing created can be equal to God. Now, the Son is equal to the Father, for it is said: The Jews sought to kill him because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:18). Thus the Evangelist, whose testimony is true (John 21:24), tells us that Christ said he was the Son of God and equal to God, and that for this reason the Jews persecuted him. Nor can any Christian doubt that what Christ said of himself was true, since also the Apostle declares that it was not robbery that he deemed himself equal to God (Phil 2:6). Hence the Son is equal to the Father, and therefore he is not a creature.

Moreover. We read that there is none like to God, not even among the angels, who are called the sons of God: Who, says the Psalmist, among the sons of God is like God? (Ps 89:6[88:7]); and: O God, who shall be like to thee? (Ps 83[82]:2). (This line has dropped out of Psalm 83 in the RSVCE, though it is in the Vulgate.) Now this must be taken as referring to perfect likeness, as is proved from what has been said in the first book. (Ch. 29.) But Christ declares his perfect likeness to the Father even as living, for he said: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26). Therefore, Christ must not be reckoned among the created sons of God.

Further. No created substance resembles God in his essence, for any perfection found in any creature whatsoever is less than what God is, so that it is impossible to know through any creature what God is. Now, the Son resembles the Father: for the Apostle says that he is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). And lest we should think this to mean an imperfect image that does not reflect the essence of God, so that it would not be possible to know by it what God is—as when a man is said to be the image of God (1 Cor 11:7)—the Apostle shows that he is a perfect image reflecting the very substance of God when he says: being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Son of God is not a creature.

Again. Nothing contained in a genus is the universal cause of the things contained in that genus. Thus, the universal cause of mankind is not a man, because nothing is its own cause; but the sun, which is outside the human genus, is the universal cause of human generation, and still more so is God. Now, the Son is the universal cause of creatures: for it is said: All things were made through him (John 1:3); and begotten wisdom says: I was with him forming all things (Prov 8:30); and the Apostle says: In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth (Col 1:16). Therefore, he is not of the genus of creatures.

Besides. From what has been proved in the second book, (Ch. 87.) it is clear that the incorporeal substances called angels cannot be formed otherwise than by creation. It has also been proved that no substance but God can create. (Bk. 2, ch. 21.) Now Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the cause of the angels by giving them their being, for the Apostle says: Whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers—all things were created through him and for him (Col 1:16). Therefore, the Son is not a creature.

Further. Since the action of a thing is consequent to its nature, the proper action of A cannot be assigned to B if the nature of A is not proper to B. Thus a thing that does not have human nature cannot produce a human action. Now, actions proper to God are also proper to the Son, such as to create (as we have already proved), to uphold and conserve all things in being, and to wash away sins. And these things are proper to God, as we have shown above. Now, it is said of the Son that in him all things hold together (Col 1:17), and: upholding the universe by his word of power, making purgation of sins (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Son of God is divine by nature, and not a creature.

An Arian indeed might say that the Son does these things not as the principal agent, but as the latter’s instrument, and that he acts, not by his own power, but only by that of the principal agent; but this view is precluded by the words of our Lord: Whatever he does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19). Thus, even as the Father works of himself and by his own power, so too does the Son.

We may further conclude from this that Father and Son have the same might and power. For not only does he say that the Son works in like manner as the Father, but that he does the same things in like manner. Now, if the same work proceed from two agents in like manner, this can happen either when they have dissimilar parts in the action—thus the same work proceeds from the principal agent and the instrument—or when they have similar shares in the action, and then they must combine together in one power. And this power sometimes results from the combined forces of the various agents at work, as when many hands row a boat; for all row alike, and while each one is not strong enough to produce the required result, their combined strength suffices to urge the boat forward. But this cannot be said of the Father and the Son, for the Father’s power is not imperfect but infinite, as we have proved. (Bk. 1, ch. 43.) Therefore, the power of Father and Son must be identical. And, since power is consequent to nature, it follows that nature and essence must be identical in Father and Son. This follows also from what we have said above. For if the Son is divine in nature (as we have proved in many ways), since the divine nature cannot be manifold (as we proved above), (Bk. 1, ch. 42.) it follows of necessity that the nature and essence of Father and Son are numerically the same.

Again. Our ultimate happiness is in God alone, who must be the sole object of our hope and worship. (Bk. 3, ch. 120.) Now our happiness is in God the Son: for he said: This is eternal life: that they know you, namely the Father, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). It is also said of the Son, that he is true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). And it is certain that by eternal life Sacred Scripture means final beatitude: for Isaias, quoted by the Apostle, says: The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope (Rom 15:12). Again, it is said: All kings will fall down before him, all nations will serve him (Ps 71:11); and: All may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father (John 5:23); and: Adore him, all you his angels (Ps 97[96]:7), which words the Apostle applies to the Son (Heb 1:6). Therefore, it is evident that the Son of God is true God.

Moreover, this same conclusion follows from the arguments adduced above to prove against Photinus that Christ is God not by creation, but in very truth.

Accordingly, the Catholic Church, taught by the foregoing and like texts of Sacred Scripture, confesses that Christ is in truth and by nature the Son of God, co-eternal with and equal to the Father, true God having the same essence and nature with the Father, born, neither created nor made.

Hence it is clear that the Catholic faith alone confesses true generation in God, since it refers the generation of the Son to the Son’s receiving his divine nature from the Father. On the other hand, heretics refer this generation to some extraneous nature. Photinus and Sabellius refer it to the human nature, while Arius refers it not to the human nature, but to a created nature of higher rank than other creatures.

Arius differs also from Sabellius and Photinus in that he asserts this generation to have been anterior to the world, while the latter deny that it was before the virgin-birth.

Sabellius differs too from Photinus in that he confesses Christ to be God in truth and by nature, while this is denied by Photinus and Arius, the former holding Christ to be a mere man, while the latter contends that he was a most excellent creature combining together the divine and human natures in a kind of fusion. These allow a distinction of person between Father and Son, whereas Sabellius denies it.

Accordingly, the Catholic faith, taking the middle way, confesses with Arius and Photinus, and against Sabellius, that Father and Son are distinct persons, and that the Son is begotten, but the Father unbegotten. With Sabellius, but against Photinus and Arius,it confesses that Christ is God in truth and by nature, and of the same nature with the Father, yet distinct from him in person. Even from such things may we gather the Catholic truth, since, as Aristotle says, even error bears witness to truth, and error is at variance not only with truth, but also with itself.