Chapter 8 — Solution of the arguments adduced by Arius in support of his view

Since, then, truth cannot be opposed to truth, it is evident that the texts of the written truth which the Arians quote in support of their error cannot be in agreement with their opinion. For, since (as we have shown from the divine Scriptures) the Father and Son have but one identical divine essence and nature, in respect of which each of them is true God, it follows that Father and Son are not two gods, but only one God. For if they were two gods, it would follow that the divine essence is shared between them, just as in two men there are two numerically distinct human natures. This is especially so since divine nature and God are not distinct (as we have proved above), (Bk. 1, ch. 21.) from which it follows of necessity that Father and Son are one God, since there is one divine nature in Father and Son. Accordingly, though we confess both the Father to be God, and the Son to be God, we do not abandon the position that there is but one God, which we proved in the first book (Ch. 42.) by both reason and authority. Therefore, although there is but one God, we confess that this may be predicated of both Father and Son.

Therefore, when our Lord, addressing the Father, said: So that they know you, the only true God (John 17:3), we must not gather that the Father alone is true God, as though the Son were not true God—because the authority of Scripture clearly proves that the Son is true God—but that the one only true divinity belongs to the Father, yet in such a way that it belongs also to the Son. Hence our Lord said significantly: So that they know you, the only true God, not as though (the Father) were the only God; but: So that they know you, and then added, the only true God, to show that the Father, whose Son he declared himself to be, is God, because in him is the only true divinity. And since the true Son must have the same nature with the Father, it follows that the only true divinity belongs to the Son, rather than that it should be excluded from him. Hence John, as though expounding these words of our Lord, ascribes to the true Son both of these things which our Lord here ascribes to the Father, namely, that he is true God, and that in him is eternal life: So that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).

Even though the Son had confessed that the Father alone was true God, he must not for that reason be understood to exclude himself from the divinity, because, as Father and Son are one God, as we have proved, whatever is predicated of the Father by reason of his divinity amounts to the same as though it were said of the Son, and vice versa. For when our Lord said: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt 11:27), we are not to conclude that knowledge of himself is denied to either the Father or the Son.

From this it is evident that true divinity is not excluded from the Son by the words of the Apostle: This will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim 6:15). For the Father is not named in these words, but only something common to Father and Son. For it is explicitly stated that the Son also is King of kings and Lord of lords, where it is said: He is clad in a robe sprinkled with blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God (Rev 19:13), and afterwards: On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 19:16). Nor is the Son excluded by the words that follow: who alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16), since he clothes with immortality them that believe in him. Hence it is said: Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die (John 11:26). It is also certain that the subsequent words also may apply to the Son: whom no man has ever seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16), because our Lord said: No one knows the Son except the Father (Matt 11:27). Nor would it avail to object that he appeared visibly, for this happened in the flesh. For he is invisible as to his divinity, even as the Father: hence the Apostle says in the same epistle: Evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Nor does it affect the issue to say that the above text refers to the Father only, because the text implies a distinction between the one who shows and the one shown, since the Son also shows himself, for he says: He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him (John 14:21). Hence we say to him: Show your face, and we shall be saved (Ps 80:19[79:20]).

As to our Lord’s words: The Father is greater than I (John 14:28), the Apostle teaches how they should be understood. For, seeing that a comparison is made between greater and less, the words must be understood of the Son in respect of his abasement. The Apostle, however, ascribes this abasement to his assuming the form of a servant, yet so that he is equal to the Father in respect of the form of God. For he says: Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:6–7). Nor must we wonder that he is called less than the Father for this reason, seeing that the Apostle declares him to have been made lower than the angels: We see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death (Heb 2:9).

Hence too it is evident that the Son is stated to be subject to the Father in the same sense—namely, in respect of his human nature—as is clear from the context. For the Apostle had said before: As by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:21); and afterwards he had added that But each shall rise in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ, and afterwards: Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father (1 Cor 15:23–24). Then, having declared the nature of this kingdom—namely, that all things must be made subject to him—he goes on to say: When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him (1 Cor 15:28). Therefore, the context shows that this is to be understood of Christ as man, for as such he died and rose again. For as God, since he does all that the Father does, as we have shown, he also subdued all things to himself. Hence the Apostle says: We await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself (Phil 3:20–21).

The fact that in the Scriptures the Father is said to give to the Son (from which it follows that the Son receives from the Father) does not prove that he is in want of anything. In fact, this is requisite in order that he be the Son. For he could not be called Son if he were not begotten of the Father, and whatever is begotten receives from the begetter the latter’s nature. Therefore, when we read that the Son receives from the Father, nothing else is indicated but the Son’s generation, whereby the Father gave his nature to the Son. This can be gathered from the thing given, for he says: What my Father has given to me is greater than all (John 10:29). Now that which is greater than all is the divine nature, whereby the Son is equal to the Father. This is proved by our Lord’s very words. For he had said that no man would be able to pluck his sheep from his hand: and in proof of this he utters the words quoted, namely that what his father had given him is greater than all. And because, as he concludes, no one can wrest from the hand of his Father, it follows that neither can anyone wrest from the hand of the Son. This would not follow unless he were equal to the Father by that which the Father had given him. Accordingly, in order to express this more clearly he says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30).

In like manner, the Apostle says: God has . . . bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil 2:9–10). Now, the name that is above all names, and which every creature reveres, is none other than the name of the divinity. Therefore, this giving by begetting signifies the begetting itself, whereby the Father gave the Son true divinity. The same conclusion follows from the statement that all things were given him by the Father, since all things could not have been given to him, unless the whole fullness of the divinity that is in the Father were also in the Son.

Accordingly, by saying that the Father had given to him, he declares himself to be the true Son; and this is against Sabellius. From the greatness of the thing given, he declares himself to be equal to the Father; and this is against Arius. It is clear, then, that this giving is no indication of want in the Son, for the Son was not before he received, since in him to be begotten and to receive were one and the same. And the fullness of that which was given was incompatible with want in him who received.

Nor can it be objected against what we have said that Scripture asserts the Son to have received from the Father in course of time. Thus our Lord said to his disciples after his Resurrection: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18); and the Apostle says that because of this God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name (Phil 2:8–9): as though he had not this name from eternity. For Scripture is wont to describe things as ‘being’ or ‘made’ when they come to our knowledge. Now, it was made known to the world that the Son received from eternity universal power and the divine name by the preaching of the disciples. This is shown by the words of God himself, for our Lord said: Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made (John 17:5); for he asks that his glory, which he received as God from the Father from eternity, should be manifested in him now that he was made man.

Hence it is clear how the Son is taught when he is not ignorant. For it has been shown (Bk. 1, ch. 45.) that in God intelligence and being are one and the same. Therefore, communication of divine nature is also communication of intelligence. Now, communication of intelligence may be called showing, speaking, or teaching. Therefore, since by his birth the Son received the divine nature from the Father, we may speak either of him as hearing from the Father, or of the Father as showing to him, or employ other like expressions of Scripture—not as though the Son were previously ignorant or nescient, and was afterwards taught by the Father. For the Apostle declares that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24): and it is impossible for wisdom to be ignorant, or power to be weak.

Therefore, the words: The Son can do nothing from his own accord (John 5:19), do not argue weakness of action in the Son; but, since in God to act is the same as to be, and action is identified with essence, as we have proved above, (Bk. 1, ch. 45.) so the Son is said to be unable to act from himself, but to act with the Father, even as he cannot be from himself, but only from the Father. For were he from himself, he would not be the Son. Accordingly, even as it is impossible for the Son not to be the Son, so is it impossible that he act from himself. But, since the Son receives the same nature as that which the Father has, and consequently the same power, although the Son is not from himself nor works from himself, yet he is of himself and works of himself. For even as he is by his own nature which he received from the Father, so does he work by his proper nature received from the Father. Hence after our Lord had said: The Son cannot do anything from himself, in order to show that although the Son works not from himself, yet does he work of himself, he added: For whatever he does—namely, the Father—that the Son does likewise.

From the foregoing it is also clear in what sense the Father commands the Son, and the Son obeys the Father, or prays to the Father, or is sent by the Father. For all these things are ascribed to the Son as subject to the Father, and this is only in respect of the human nature which he had assumed, as we have shown. Hence the Father commands the Son as subject to him in his human nature. The very words of our Lord declare this. For when he said: I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father (John 14:31), what this commandment was is indicated by the words that follow: Rise, let us go hence. For he said this when he was going to his Passion, and it is clear that the command to suffer applied to the Son in respect only of his human nature. Likewise, when he said: If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love (John 15:10), it is clear that these commandments regarded the Son, insofar as he was beloved of his Father as man, just as he loved his disciples as men.

The Apostle shows that the Father’s commandments to the Son are to be referred to the human nature assumed by the Son, when he teaches that the Son was obedient to the Father in things appertaining to human nature. For he says that he became obedient to the Father, unto death (Phil 2:8). (Vulgate: Factus obediens usque ad mortem.) The Apostle also shows that prayer becomes the Son in respect of his human nature, for he says that in the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear (Heb 5:7). The Apostle shows in what respect he is said to be sent by the Father, when he says: God sent his Son, born of woman (Gal 4:4). Hence he is said to be sent by reason of his being made of a woman, and it is certain that this applies to him in respect of the flesh which he assumed. It is therefore clear that none of these texts proves that the Son was subject to the Father, except as regards his human nature. We must, however, observe that the Son as God is also said to be sent by the Father invisibly, without prejudice to his equality with the Father. We shall prove this farther on, when we treat of the mission of the Holy Spirit.

It is likewise clear that from the Son being glorified, raised up, or exalted by the Father, we cannot argue that the Son is less than the Father, save in respect of his human nature. For the Son does not need to be glorified as receiving glory anew, since he declares that he had it from the beginning of the world; but it was fitting that his glory, which was concealed beneath the weakness of his flesh, should be made manifest in the faith of believers through the glorification of his body and the working of miracles. Hence it is said of this concealment: He was as one from whom men hide their faces; he was despised, and we esteemed him not (Isa 53:3). In like manner Christ was raised from the dead, inasmuch as he suffered and died according to the flesh, for it is said: Since, therefore, Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought (1 Pet 4:1). And he had to be exalted as much as he was humbled, for the Apostle says: Being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8–9).

Accordingly, by the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son, the Son is not proved to be less than the Father except in his human nature: for in his divine nature, whereby he is equal with the Father, there is but one power, and one operation of both Father and Son. Therefore, the Son not only exalts himself by his own power, according to the words of the Psalmist: Be exalted, O Lord, in your strength (Ps 21:13[20:14]); but also raises himself from the dead, as stated in his own words: I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again (John 10:18). Moreover, he glorifies not only himself, but also the Father, for he says: Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you (John 17:1); not that the Father is concealed under the veil of assumed flesh, but by the invisibility of his nature. In this way the Son also is concealed in respect of his divine nature, since the words of Isaias: Truly, you are a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior (Isa 45:15), apply to Father and Son in common. And the Son glorifies the Father not by bestowing glory on him, but by manifesting him to the world: for he says: I have manifested your name to men (John 17:6).

We must not believe that there is any lack of power in the Son of God, since he says: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18). Hence his words: To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father (Matt 20:23), do not prove that the Son does not have the power of distributing the heavenly seats, since these seats signify the participation in eternal life, the bestowal of which he declares to belong to him, when he says: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life (John 10:27–28). It is also said that the Father . . . has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22): and it is a part of judgment to bestow eternal life on certain persons for their merits. Hence it is said that the Son of Man . . . will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left (Matt 25:33). Therefore, it is in the power of the Son to set a man either on his right or on his left, whether both be referred to different participations of glory, or one to glory and the other to punishment.

Accordingly, the passage quoted must be interpreted according to the foregoing. For we are told in the first place (Matt 20:20 seqq.) that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus, begging of him that one of her sons might sit at his right hand, and the other at his left. She seems to have been urged to make this request through relying on her blood relationship with the man Christ. Accordingly, our Lord by his answer did not say that he had not the power to give what was asked, but that it was not his to give them for whom the request was made. For he did not say: To sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give to any man. Rather does he declare that it was his to give to them for whom it was prepared by his Father, for this belonged to him not as the son of the Virgin, but as the Son of God. Consequently, to give to this or that one was not in his power on account of his relationship as son of the Virgin; but it was his to give to them for whom it was prepared by his Father in eternal predestination; because he was the Son of God. Moreover, our Lord himself declares that even this preparation is in the power of the Son of God, when he says: In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you (John 14:2). Now, these many mansions are the various degrees of participation in heavenly bliss, which God has prepared in his eternal predestination. Therefore, when our Lord says: If it were not so—that is, if there were not sufficient mansions prepared for those who were to be taken up into heaven—and adds: would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? he shows that this preparation lies in his power.

Nor can it be admitted that the Son did not know the day of his coming, seeing that in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3), and that he knows perfectly something greater, namely the Father. But this means that the Son, as a man living among men, conducted himself as an ignorant man by not revealing the matter to his disciples. For Scripture is accustomed to describe God as knowing something when he makes others know it; for instance: Now I know that you fear God (Gen 22:12); that is, I have caused you to know: and thus contrariwise, the Son is said not to know that which he does not make us know.

As to sorrow, fear, and the like, it is clear that such things were in Christ as man: so that they argue no depreciation in the Son’s divinity.

When wisdom is described as created, this may refer in the first place not to that wisdom which is the Son of God, but to the wisdom which God has bestowed on creatures. For it is said: He created her —namely, wisdom—in the Holy Spirit, and he poured her out upon all his works (Sir 1:9–10). It may also refer to the created nature assumed by the Son, so that the sense would be: From eternity, in the beginning, he created me (Sir 24:9); that is, I was predestined to be united to a creature. Or again wisdom is said to be both created and begotten so as to insinuate the manner of divine generation. For when a thing is begotten, it receives the nature of its begetter, and this savors of perfection; but when a thing is generated here below, the begetter itself is changed, and this savors of imperfection. But in creation, the Creator undergoes no change, but the creature does not receive the nature of the Creator. Accordingly, the Son is said to be both created and begotten, so that from creation we gather the unchangeableness of the Father, and from generation the identity of nature in Father and Son. Thus did the Council expound Scripture, as may be gathered from the works of Hilary. (Hilary, De Synodis.)

When the Son is said to be the first-born of creatures, this does not imply that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures, but that the Son proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Father from whom creatures proceed and receive. The Son, however, receives identity of nature, while creatures do not. Hence the Son is called not only the first-born, but also the only-begotten, on account of the singular mode of that reception.

The words of our Lord to his Father in reference to his disciples: So that they may be one even as we are one (John 17:22), prove that Father and Son are one in the same way as the disciples must be one—namely, by love. But this manner of union does not exclude unity of nature; rather does it prove it. For it is said: The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand (John 3:35), and this shows that the fullness of the divinity is in the Son, as we have already stated.

Hence it is clear that the authority of Scripture invoked by the Arians in support of their view is in no way opposed to the truth as declared by the Catholic faith.